"Fair Russia" is going to make amendments to the law on deputies according to which the people's deputies who don't observe party discipline can lose their places, newspaper "Kommersant" reports on Monday. As the edition reports, the party suggests to add the law "About Status of the Member of Council of Federation and the Deputy of the State Duma" with point about early deprivation of powers of the deputy not observing the duties established by the law systematically. Members of “Fair Russia” also want to add the norm that each fraction has to have "Óondition" which deputies are obliged to carry out.
Earlier fraction LDPR brought the draft of the resolution on deprivation of four members of Fair Russia of deputy mandates for "their antistate policy" at inclusion of the Crimea into the structure of Russia. Ponomarev was the only who voted against the bill abaout inclusion of the Crimea into the structure of Russia, while Gudkov, Zubkov and Petrov didn't take part in vote.
________________________________________
From editorial board: Immunity of the deputy is one of the most discussed formulas of a democratic state system. On the one hand, it is difficult to accept that there are in society people for whom everything is possible and they don’t bear responsibility for it. For example, the deputy can kill you, but even case won't be opened against him... On the other hand, inviolability, full independence of the national representative allows to hope that he will make decisions being conformed only and exclusively with his conscience.
In practice it is possible to put the deputy into prison and deputies vote not only aÓÓording to their conscience...
However attaÓk on the rights of deputies began right after publishing of the article of the Constitution giving immunity from prosecution. For today this immunity is far not full, judges in the Russian Federation possess much more inviolability degree, than people's deputies. Thus nobody elects judges as it’s done with deputies (in the "totalitarian" USSR, by the way, judges were elected), though in fact no one, except the sovereign, that is people of the Russian Federation, Óould allocate them with such privileges as their status and powers. As a result we have judges, but not Óourts in full meaning of this word - no, we have only the process of rendering of juridiÓal deÓision as though by judges whiÓh no one can affeÓt, except actually sovereign - the people.
While the deputy is already not free in Russia as he is chosen according to party lists, that is instead of this conÓrete personality the voter votes for a party list, and the party deÓides what deputy and how will protect the rights of his voters. Or won't protect nothing in general.
Initiative of “Fair Russia” is unique? Why? For the first time independence and immunity of the deputy torpedo not indirectly, through legal proceedings, through legislation or somehow else, but directly. They are going to press the deputy "lawfully" depending on how he votes! You vote "incorrectly" - get away!
Why do we have then article 103 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation which says: "Resolutions of the State Duma are accepted by a majority vote from total number of deputies of the State Duma if other order of decision-making isn't provided by the Constitution of the Russian Federation"? What do we have this "majority of votes" for, if deputies are not free in a choice how to vote? There are in the Duma four parties – let Zyuganov, Zhirinovsky, Vasilyev and Mironov vote as in joint-stock company, in compliance with the size of share in the joint-stoÓk Óapital - in this case as a part of members of the State Duma.
When parties started receiving money from the budget in compliance with a number of the votes gathered by them, the parliament of the Russian Federation can be considered completely incorporated. It’s such state company with 100 percent of the state capital (though here we have question, whether all hundred percent belong to the state). Now we see process of "having over a barrel" of minority shareholders, those deputies who still imagine that they are independent.
ánatoly Baranov, editor-in-Óhief of FORUM.msk
