Paul
Goble
Staunton, February 17 – Russian officials
have ignored a 2004 law requiring them to respond to appeals lodged by
demonstrators, but now some protesters and their lawyers are using the courts
to force at least some government agencies to respond, a development that some
say opens the way to a new relationship between the Russian state and Rusian
society.
On the “Osobaya bukhva” portal
yesterday, journalist Vladimir Titov notes that it is widely believed that “’meetings
do not decide anything,’” but he points out that according to the terms of the
2004 act, that is not the case. And he adds that some protesters are now
invoking that law (www.specletter.com/obcshestvo/2013-02-16/bezotvetstvennye-mitingi.html).
Elena Lukyanova, Dmitry Bykov and
Sergey Parkhomenko, the organizers of a February 4, 2012, action, have gone to
court to try to force the Moscow mayor’s office, the Central Electoral Commission
and the Investigation Committee to respond to their meetings demands for
action.
They and their lawyers cite the June
19, 2004 law, “On assemblies, meetings, demonstrations, marches and picketings”
(The relevant text can be found at base.garant.ru/12135831/3/)
that specifies that officials must respond to demands for answers by those who
take part in such meetings.
The February 4 meeting asked for the
immediate release of all political prisoners, new elections, the retirement of
certain officials, and investigations of the falsifications of charges against
opposition figures, among other things.
And its organizers send these demands to the relevant government
agencies.
Those agencies ignored both the
appeals and the provisions of the 2004 law, Titov continues, and consequently,
the three brought civil suits in the Basman district court of Moscow. In their
testimony, officials said they had done all they were required to do, but the
court has now ruled against them. When the text of that ruling is released,
those who brought the suit plan to try to seek its enforcement.
This decision, the “Osobaya bukhva”
journalist says, has enormous value as precedent. “For the first time in Russia, the organizers
of a meeting have demanded from the organs of the authorities at least a formal
answer to their demands on the basis of the provisions of existing laws.”
Lawyer Elena Lukyanova told him, he
reports, that officials “did not know” what they were required to do in
response to appeals, but now they will have to come up with some procedure, and
even if it does not completely satisfy the appellants, that development alone
constitutes progress.
What is taking place, she suggested,
is the development of “an etiquette of communications.” And “sooner or later
the government will have to deal with what is taking place in the streets
because this is no longer outside their windows but inside their offices.” And
they will then be forced to recognize that “’we are no the opposition; we are
your employers.”
In addition, Lukyanova continued, “the
relationship of society to the state is changing” because of this breakthrough. “People are ceasing to conceive it as a ‘sacred
given before which all must go to their knees.’
Government bureaucrats are hired managers who live on tax monies.” And
because that is so, if the taxpayers are unhappy, “they can change ‘managers.’”
Lukyanova said that more and more
Russians will come to recognize that “the government is not the representative
of God on earth” but rather a servant of the people. And she said she and her colleagues would do
everything to promote this by actively seeking the enforcement of the court’s
decision about their appeals to the authorities.
No comments:
Post a Comment