According to justice: why fighting corruption is impossible in Russia

According to justice: why fighting corruption is impossible in Russia
26 February , 14:38
Due to the peculiarities of the Russian state structure, any anti-corruption activity turns into a struggle against the existing system.

Historian Sergey Volkov, responding to his opponents with reproaches of ridicule of attempts to curb corruption in Russia, explained what he means:

“I certainly consider corruption as something that corrodes normal life to be evil, but if it is ineradicable under certain circumstances (that is, if being itself is abnormal), then the pathos of discontent should be directed mainly at these circumstances (regardless of whether , can we change them), and not on the moral imperfection of individuals and the "timidity" of those who are called to control them.

If the Russian Federation was a normal state, corruption (suddenly, due to some coming circumstances, rampant) would not be difficult to bring into the framework in which it is usually found in normal countries. It would be enough to strictly check the correspondence of income to disposable property and completely withdraw the "surplus", while permanently (and not anecdotal 3 years) closing the guilty party's access to civil service. (The latter is already elementary; in the Republic of Ingushetia, for reprehensible acts that did not even involve criminal punishment, the formula was: "expelled from the service in order to never accept it again").

But in the Russian Federation, anything like that is, in principle, impossible. For the same reason that, despite all the "patriotic" verbiage, it is impossible to forbid high officials to own foreign real estate and keep their families even in the most hostile states. They are ALL like that.

The Russian Federation is not a normal state, but a continuation of the Scoop, in which there were and could not be either businessmen or officials (but only "universal functionaries" - priests of the idea that does not allow the existence of either one or the other). As there are none in the Russian Federation: the historical conditions of the last century (and this is a lot) have not yet allowed to form naturally (through free competition in the economy in one case, in the other - real managerial competence) neither businessmen nor officials.

This, of course, is not about "colonels" and their equals: small and medium-sized businesses in our country are quite normal, and the corresponding level of civil servants in recent decades is somewhat similar to the professional one. But the upper layer (which by way of life sets an example for others) was not formed naturally. Although in this environment there are also real businessmen and even officials who want to see themselves as "real" (I know both such and such), but still as exceptions. The backbone is the same type of Soviet functionary who owes his position only to the starting position by the beginning of the 90s. This is a single type, and we know its representative as a "businessman" or as an "official" - it depends on fairly random circumstances, and often these "transformers" change one status to another.

Everything that we consider to be "corruption" is generated by the circumstances of formation and the social essence of our establishment and is the realization of "social justice" within it. It is a form of existence of this establishment and cannot be eliminated without the disappearance of the establishment itself in its present form.

After 1991, the Soviet nomenklatura partly remained in power as "officials", and part of their members (as well as proxies, including bandits) allowed them to become "businessmen". Why on earth should those who gave others the opportunity to get rich as "businessmen" live worse than those to whom they gave this opportunity? It was fair to share to make up for the difference (and try not to share).

Under Putin, the situation was somewhat updated, but reproduced the previous one. All who rose to the front ranks rose for one well-known single and common reason (like belonging to the Council of Nomenclature or connection with it a decade earlier).

And so we have, relatively speaking, X and Z. Both are "fake" (they would never have withstood normal competition in their field). But at the same time X is a "businessman" and has the right to have any estates, palaces, yachts, and he is not afraid of any Navalny (well, a man has earned, business is what you want ...). And Z is an "official" and he is "not supposed to".

However, Z (especially if a "silovik") in strengthening the power that raised them both is much more important and valuable than X. And he - only because of his formal status - should live an order of magnitude worse ?! This would be unnatural, and above all - from the point of view of the interests of the authorities. He, of course, does not live. The authorities cannot set him a salary comparable to income X (there are limits in the world of formalities), but his standard of living may not be "noticed". "Noticing" she would have lost her support. That is why the "fight against corruption" in the Russian Federation is either impossible, or is in fact a fight against the existing system..."

Found a typo in the text? Select it and press ctrl + enter