The State Duma prematurely terminated the powers of deputies Vadim Belousov and Vasily Vlasov

The State Duma on Wednesday prematurely terminated the powers of deputies Vadim Belousov (A Just Russia – For Truth, SRZP) and Vasily Vlasov (LDPR) for missing meetings of committees and commissions. Mr. Vlasov is confident that he actually paid for his activism and the pressing issues he raised, and intends to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court. Also, according to the liberal democrat, the late founder of the LDPR, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, said that he sees him as the leader of the faction. Vadim Belousov, sentenced in absentia to 10 years in prison, is on the federal wanted list and did not appear at the Duma meeting. The expert believes that both deputies were fired for “toxicity” and new expulsions probably should not be expected.

The decisions to deprive two deputies of their mandates from November 1 were adopted on the basis of a decision of the Duma commission on mandate issues. The reason was their failure to fulfill their parliamentary duties for more than 30 days, namely the norms on personal participation in meetings of committees and commissions of which they were members (Vasily Vlasov was a member of the rules commission, Vadim Belousov was a member of the competition protection committee). At the same time, Mr. Vlasov assures that he participated in the commission’s voting in absentia, using a questionnaire. The day before, the chairman of the commission on mandate issues, Otari Arshba (United Russia), in a conversation with journalists, called the failure of deputies to show up for work “in such a difficult situation” as “rudeness.”

Question termination of powers was considered behind closed doors (although, for example, communist Valery Rashkin, who received a suspended sentence for killing a moose, the Duma in May 2022 deprived of his mandate at an open meeting). As Dmitry Vyatkin, first deputy leader of the United Russia faction, explained to Kommersant, the Duma council decided so. He also said that the council of the presidium of the United Russia faction decided to vote for depriving both deputies of their powers.

The issue of Vadim Belousov was considered first.

The deputy, sentenced in absentia to 10 years in prison for taking a bribe, was not present at the meeting: he is on the federal wanted list.

320 deputies from United Russia, the LDPR and the New People faction voted to deprive him of his powers. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the SRZP did not vote; Vasily Vlasov, Yuri Sinelshchikov (KPRF) and Galina Khovanskaya (SRZP) abstained. The proposal to deprive Vasily Vlasov of his powers was supported by 317 deputies from the same three factions, Yuri Sinelshchikov and Galina Khovanskaya again abstained, independent deputy Oksana Dmitrieva and Mr. Vlasov himself spoke out against.

As the liberal democrat told Kommersant, he was given five minutes to speak, after which the deputies moved on to voting without asking a single question: “I said that Vladimir Volfovich (Zhirinovsky.— “Kommersant”) saw me as the leader of the faction, which he spoke about while in the hospital. I said that I am the deputy who raises pressing issues without fear of certain consequences, which probably ruined me. It was possible not to go to any meetings; many colleagues skip them. You can simply take a vacation, then a business trip, then go on vacation again and do this all the time. It’s very sad that no one came forward. Apparently, the order has passed. Thank you to the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and A Just Russia for abstaining from voting.”

As Vasily Vlasov assures, some deputies from opposition factions approached him before the meeting and promised to speak out and vote against the deprivation of powers, but did not do so.

He also said that he would appeal the decision of the lower house to the Supreme Court. “Leonid Eduardovich (Slutsky.— “Kommersant”), probably very glad that he was able to defeat me and remove me,” summed up Vasily Vlasov.

The leader of the LDPR and the head of its faction in the Duma, Leonid Slutsky, offered Kommersant another version of what happened: “It doesn’t matter here at all, Vlasov or any other deputy, young or experienced. There are regulations, there are uniform requirements for discipline. Voters trusted us, the LDPR party. They didn’t vote for Vlasov personally, they voted for the party (Vasily Vlasov in the 2021 elections took 6th place in the central part of the LDPR list.— “Kommersant”). And we must work for results, and if someone has forgotten why they were given a deputy’s certificate, such people have no place in the LDPR. Without beating around the bush or getting personal. Let’s make room for someone who is charged, who is ready to bring benefit to people.”

Communist Yuri Sinelshchikov, who abstained from voting on both issues, explained his position to Kommersant by “insufficient evidence base”: “No materials were presented confirming the guilt of one and the other. In essence this may be correct, but in form it is not suitable. It was necessary to conduct a detailed check.”

Pavel Sklyanchuk, a member of the political technology committee of the Russian Public Relations Association, believes that there is no need to expect a big campaign against truants in the Duma: “It is likely that this was a one-time action, and there will be no new people deprived of their mandate until the end of this convocation. Nevertheless, the technology has been tested, factions will take this precedent into account for additional disciplinary action on their members. At the same time, everyone understands that Belousov and Vlasov were deprived of their mandate not only and not so much for absenteeism, but for their “toxicity,” so no changes are expected in the practice of holding meetings of committees and commissions.” The expert also emphasizes that voting in committees by polling method is directly provided for by the rules of the Duma and has become especially popular during the pandemic, and now committee chairmen are actively resorting to it due to the high workload and short deadlines for preparing bills. “At the same time, the regulations state that a committee member is obliged to notify the chairman of the reasons for his absence. However, unlike a plenary session, committees care about the outcome, not the decision-making process. Therefore, the heads of the committees are not particularly interested in monitoring the turnout at their meetings,” sums up Mr. Sklyanchuk.

Ksenia Veretennikova