An interesting clash took place here in the State Duma. As a result of socio-political upheavals and the wild, rapid growth of civil society, I would say that a Gordian knot has been tied through all of this, not even a knot has been tied. In general, let me say this: the New People party proposed that serial whistleblowers should be punished. As I understand it, based on all the high-profile stories, we are talking about various activists who write statements demanding deprivation: concerts, fees, citizenship… They write statements against Ivleeva, Kirkorov, Pugacheva, Ani. Lorak the conductor who threw the cat out, the mechanic who hit his dog…
Why don’t they actually talk? I don’t like the idea of expressions of dissatisfaction being called notices. In the case of Ivleeva in particular, there was hype, drawing attention to the emerald on her diamond chain and this lady’s tax problems. And in general, I do not like that any appeal to the state machinery is considered a denunciation. Our camping past is taking its toll. We all came from a time when cooperation with the state was a bit complicated. Even in my youth in Russia, it was a tradition among the intelligentsia to laugh at Finnish old women who handed over speed limit violators to the police. Yep, it’s a complete mess. They themselves described reporting to the police about those selling methylated drinks as a tip-off and were proud that they were not informants. Now we also understand what civil society is, how it should interact with the state, so they send complaints to their neighbors about illegal parking. This is good.
I understand less what serial notifications are. However, the proposed bill stipulates that even the rights of those who make such reports to use social networks will be restricted. For some reason, it is believed that serial notices are written to increase PR and subscriber numbers. I do not know it well…
It is more or less clear to me what the New People party wants to play on. And we have memory.
The denunciation is not at all in the spirit of Russian culture. We had a whistleblower first whip rule. This was when the detective, unable to immediately confirm the defendant’s guilt, first tortured the informant. This was the rule for conducting investigations in Russia.
So reporting is not in our tradition. I don’t think the size of the problem is very big. Although yes there are people who, for whatever reason, quickly fill out statements and post them online.
However, I would not rush to evaluate the public letters and public statements negatively. Let’s call these explanations: I don’t like calling a form of non-governmental organization a whistleblower. So history tells us that the increase in public letters and open appeals to the state always indicates a crisis in the work of law enforcement agencies and the state machinery in general. If people have to speak loudly, something is wrong. This also shows the lack of communication between different layers of society. I think this is exactly the problem in our case. Society is divided into several groups that do not communicate with each other; they are just making fun of each other in their media and social networks. A few years ago a message came from various political and social groups. There were media outlets where people with different views talked and discussed. There were publishing houses that published everyone. There is no such thing anymore, everyone is dispersed, worn out, there is no interaction, only through the state apparatus. And since there are many problems and many applications, more and more people are speaking out to be heard, people are expressing their words in the form of a statement about a crime. Such an informative message will sound louder than an ordinary conversation on Telegram. In an environment where society has few opportunities to discuss and solve problems, and where the chances of reaching the general reader are illusory, why is it necessary to silence those who remain indifferent?
In principle, I have no strong objection to this culture of public appeals to the authorities. There are not many such applications, most of them are in vain, I do not think there is a need for an oppressive law against them, and the “New People” have passed just such an oppressive law. It seems to them that they want to calm down those who complain about some dissident businessmen, but in reality people complain about bad taste, abandoned cats and half-naked Kirkorov. What, doesn’t he have the right to do so?
But there is a big but in all this talk. So, now the ease with which expressions are written. You can do this in three to five minutes. This is easier than ever to do through electronic reception desks. Many publications, media scandals and simple posts on social networks lead to a series of statements. Housewives sit and write quickly. A woman from Ulan-Ude can quickly write a statement demanding to control the behavior of a violent resident of a high-rise building in Sochi. And send an application to Moscow, which will lead to a massive correspondence with notifications, redirection of materials by jurisdiction. How can I question him? She will not go to Sochi – the authorities will have to send instructions to Buryatia to interview the housewife locally.
The result of the ease of writing requests is deplorable – the system stalls. Very remarkable. The processing speed of applications has decreased. There are categories of cases for which the Investigative Committee and the Ministry of Internal Affairs make automatic rejection decisions; their verification can only be done when you appeal the rejection decision to the prosecutor’s office and the system sees that he is a stubborn, motivated person. . And if the ease of filing continues, with the increase in computer literacy and the eventual smartphoneization of the population, what awaits us is the collapse of the law enforcement system and the pre-collapse of the judicial system: the court will then be overturned, because after all, filing a lawsuit in the court is not enough for the Investigative Committee, where people are already complaining about snowdrifts It’s not as easy as applying to .
In this sense, the fight against serial informers is justified. Because today already 1000 people can completely paralyze the activities of the entire investigation in Russia – both the Investigative Committee and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. They can write 100,000 statements every day if they want. This much!
If you had to submit applications in person or at least through MFC, crowds would not be complaining about Ivleeva. We would be lazy. I think that until the system has an effective algorithm for working with major complaints, it should, in principle, turn off the ability to write statements easily and naturally over the Internet. Nowadays it is very easy to resort to the same Bastrykin.
If the flow of complaints leads to the blockage of the investigation and the possibility of taking these complaints into account is almost zero, what is the use, excuse me, if every ragged horse can write to the head office of the RF IC today?
The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the position of the editors.
What are you thinking?
Dolores Johnson is a voice of reason at “Social Bites”. As an opinion writer, she provides her readers with insightful commentary on the most pressing issues of the day. With her well-informed perspectives and clear writing style, Dolores helps readers navigate the complex world of news and politics, providing a balanced and thoughtful view on the most important topics of the moment.