Paul
Goble
Staunton, March 31 – With the best
of intentions, Russian officials have introduced significant restrictions on
the constitutional rights of Russians as part of their effort to fight the
coronavirus pandemic. But because these have been imposed arbitrarily and not according
to the law, Russians may find it hard to recover their rights, Dmitry Koko
says.
The Svobodnaya pressa
commentator says that everyone understands that it is necessary to take extraordinary
measures to fight the extraordinary dangers that the pandemic presents. But the
way the authorities are doing so carries with it significant dangers in the
future (svpressa.ru/society/article/261375/).
There are two Russian laws, one on “the
defense of the population and territory from extraordinary situations of a
natural and technogenic character” and a second on “extraordinary situations,”
that might have been used. But neither has been, Kokko says. Instead, regional
and central officials have acted on their own without reference to these or
other laws.
It is certainly true that the epidemiological
situation in Russia requires “decisive measures,” the commentator acknowledges,
especially in the capital where the epidemic is large and in the regions where
the optimization of health care has left the authorities without the resources
to deal with it.
But what is worrisome is that
regional leaders in Moscow and elsewhere are introducing restrictions that
under the constitution and law they do not have the right to impose. “Such
limitations can be introduced only on a declaration by the president of an
extraordinary situation which must be immediately given to the Federation
Council for confirmation.”
“Without the introduction of such a
regime,” Kokko says, “constitutional freedoms cannot be limited because each
citizen has his rights. But an extraordinary situation still hasn’t been
introduced [by the president and by the Federation Council], and constitutional
rights are already being taken away.”
And that raises a disturbing
prospect, the Svobodnaya pressa writer says. “If the corresponding degrees can
be so simply introduced, then on what basis should they be withdrawn after the
epidemiological situation stabilizes.” Won’t some in power be tempted to retain
at least part of them? And what will citizens be able to do with these
extra-legal acts?
Not everyone feels as Kokko does.
Maksim Isayev, a legal scholar, not only insists that everything that has been
done is legal but that the authorities will back off quickly after the pandemic
passes. What the powers have done is
impose only the restrictions they need. If they had introduced an extraordinary
situation, they would have had to be even more draconian.
He adds that some of the monitoring
devices Russians are now complaining about have been legally in place before
the crisis. The authorities want to fight crime terrorism, and besides, “absolute
freedom is a nonsense in a society which the state is building. You can’t use
your freedom at the expense of others. Therefore, the evil police are needed to
regulate everything.”
This is not “the Big Brother” of
1984, Isayev says. It is what contemporary society requires.
No comments:
Post a Comment