President of the European Association of Political Consultants Igor Mintusov published his conclusions about what constitutes lawmaking in today's Russia, in which it is concluded that this process primarily reflects the interests of the so-called "ruling elites".
Confirmation of these theses is easy to find in the last fruits of the lawmaking of the deputies: last week the State Duma adopted two bills in the first reading, tightening the rules for holding rallies and introducing restrictions on the work of journalists.
They proposed to allow the authorities to postpone or cancel actions in the presence of a threat of an emergency or terrorist attack. You can also recognize the so-called picket line as a mass event requiring approval. When covering the event, journalists are invited to prohibit expressing their individual opinions, as well as to hide a certain “sign of a media representative”. That is, such laws are adopted in the political interests of the ruling party, which is thus trying to hide from the opinion of the people.
However, here is what Mintusov himself writes:
“In legal science, there has long been a discussion about two alternative professional ideologies: formalism and instrumentalism. The first - formalism - asserts the absolute autonomy of the legal form in relation to the social world. In other words, law is viewed as a set of laws and a system of rules that do not depend on social influences and are devoid of social dimension (P. Bourdieu). The second ideology - instrumentalism - understands law as an instrument in the service of those in power. Instrumentalism reflects the direct correlation of existing political forces at the moment, which in turn express the interests of the economic and business groups behind them. A second ideology won an unconditional victory in Russia: instrumentalism.
The victorious groups of business interests and the interests of the ruling political party are day and night equipping their "legal" housing: they pass laws or even change the Constitution, primarily in their political and economic interests.
In other words, legislators create laws that are convenient and beneficial to the interests of the ruling political class and the interests of the business that supports it. For example, the State Duma adopts laws to support private “loyal” Russian companies that have come under international sanctions, at the expense of all taxpayers' money (do not confuse the interests of private “loyal” business with the interests of the entire Russian business).
Or, for example, the political ruling class tightens regulation of Russian elections in order to complicate the process of electing candidates other than from the ruling party and to facilitate the process of re-election by themselves. This is clearly not in the interests of ordinary citizens, who are offered a shortened and simplified version of the political menu in voting ballots.
Or, from the latter, the heads of the three Duma committees V. Piskarev, V. Nikonov and A. Khinshtein prepared a bill on the priority of children of law enforcement officers when enrolling in specialized universities. For what? To strengthen the motivation of law enforcement officers to work within the framework of the “instrumental” legal ideology, i.e. better reflect and serve the interests of the ruling political class?
And don't the heads of the same committees want to prepare, say, a bill on the priority of the children of doctors who are now struggling with covid when they are enrolled in specialized universities? Or is it a question of the second order of importance for the deputies of the State Duma? Or does the priority of doctors' children not fall into the mainstream of the current policy?
An example that is understandable for the residents of Moscow. The Moscow Mayor's Office, equipping the city, thinks, in my opinion, first of all, about earning money for the city budget, and only secondarily - about the city's citizens (of course, it also thinks about them. But in the second place, so that all- they were less indignant).
Summary. The laws in Russia are currently, from my point of view, adopted according to priorities, firstly, in the political interests of the ruling party, secondly, in the interests of business groups that support the ruling party, and only thirdly, in the interests of the majority citizens of the country. I would very much like the point “third” to be the point “first” in the current system of priorities. Someday..."
Analyst Igor Semyonov comments on these theses in his channel:
Mintusov again plays the role of Captain Obvious, drawing attention to the fact that lawmaking in Russia reflects, first of all, the interests of the ruling elites, and it should be the interests of the majority of the people. At the same time, less obvious, but much more relevant meanings associated with this problem hover on the surface: