Posted 9 января, 10:20

Published 9 января, 10:20

Modified 9 января, 10:36

Updated 9 января, 10:36

Withdrawal from the Anti-Corruption Convention: where there is no right, there is no monopoly on violence

Withdrawal from the Anti-Corruption Convention: where there is no right, there is no monopoly on violence

9 января 2023, 10:20
Борис Кагарлицкий
The Russian authorities have decided to denounce the Council of Europe Convention on Criminal Liability for Corruption. In the near future, the State Duma will adopt a corresponding law. And in social networks they are already talking about the fact that corruption is becoming one of the staples on which everything rests for our country.

The situation is commented on in his blog by the opposition politician Boris Kagarlitsky (recognized as a foreign agent in the Russian Federation):

"If we think in this way, we will have to admit that this will be one of the few cases when the word will not diverge from the deed. If embezzlement, fraud and bribery are legalized, then the moral situation in the ruling circles will definitely improve. No one will lie, hide and hide their wealth. People will become open, honest and uncomplicated. However, in fact, the Kremlin, preparing the denunciation of this agreement, is engaged in something completely different. It's not about corruption. Technically, anti-corruption articles remain in Russian legislation, which no one is going to cancel or implement. The task being solved by the authorities is not to legalize corruption, but to systematically remove from domestic legislation all articles and obligations somehow related to international law and general legal norms established in Europe (including Russia itself) over the past 150-200 years. As we have now learned, our constitution was written by "our enemies". And the conclusion that will be drawn from here is not at all to rewrite, correct or supplement the constitution. Subversive, from the point of view of the ideology of the current domestic bosses, is not some separate article of the Basic Law, but the very fact of the existence of the Constitution or constitutional law. The idea of renouncing the right as such has already begun to be discussed and justified openly, it is enough to recall the statements of such respected people as Dmitry Medvedev or Oleg Morozov.

Of course, such an approach is already beginning to cause alarm in the ranks of the authorities themselves. Even Senator Klishas muttered something frightened, about the fact that some laws are still needed. At least otherwise, as a lawyer, he risks being out of work. But most importantly, if there is no right anymore, but there is the arbitrariness of the strong, sanctified by the state interest, then it is still unknown in whose hands the next sledgehammer will be. By the way, I would not vouch for the safety of Yevgeny Prigozhin in this case either. After all, not only employees of the Wagner PMCs are able to handle such a tool. Where there is no right, there is no monopoly on violence. This monopoly is being consistently destroyed now by the leading persons of the state themselves. But in the end, we are talking about the fact that the state itself is disappearing. In place of even a very bad government comes the inevitable "war of all against all", destroying first of all its own initiators.

In the absence of law, violence is rarely localized in one political or social link, it tends to spread like the elements. It is interesting that the very people who some time ago boasted that thanks to their efforts they managed to overcome the legacy of the "dashing nineties" are now trying to impose something in the same spirit on the country, but much worse...In fact, the government offers us to return the horrors of the nineties without those limited, but still real opportunities that were available then..."