#13
Russian Civil Rights Organizations Defended as Military Authorities Fail To Resolve Issues
Vremya MN
30 January 2003
Commentary by Yuriy Feofanov:
"Self-Defense From Those in Power"

In recent times the desertions of soldiers tormented by dedovshchina [brutal hazing, abuse by senior soldiers] have reached an unprecedented scope. Moreover, the deserters do not seek succor just anywhere, but in the committees of soldiers' mothers. After a desertion from the exemplary Taman Division, a military procurator asked with childish naivete on television, "Why do they not run to the procurator?" The answer is because the procurators do not bother with the problems of the divisions.

Such is the disposition with these very committees, on which are laid all the hopes of defenders of the motherland, who are abused in barracks and on drill fields and whose rights and dignity are not protected by the state, yet who are called to serve it. Which, incidentally, was admitted by the minister of defense: "The reason for the desertions is the lack of desire of specific commanders to take an interest in what goes on in the barracks." If only it were a case of "lack of desire." More likely, it is in the inability of the command, the military department itself, and ultimately, the state, to bring order to the Army, an institute whose functioning is senseless without iron rules of order.

But the more serious issue is not that the commanders do not want or cannot uphold regulations in their units. Military justice is essentially trying to justify the situation. According to statistics which are far from transparent, 13,000 soldiers -- a whole division -- have deserted. So what does military justice do? It writes up a legal action: "Turning Oneself In". That is, they say to the deserters, "I will forgive everything; just come back." In addition, one military procurator publicly in the press interpreted the Criminal Code on absence without leave and desertion as "In accordance with remarks appended to Articles 337-338 of the UK RF [Russian Federation Criminal Code], if it [desertion] from a unit is caused by difficult circumstances, it shall not be considered a criminal offense."

We will set aside the issue of whether the official had the right to interpret the law, especially certain "Remarks." But it is a fact that a servant of Themis is making the law invalid, depending on the circumstances. Of course, "circumstances" can be used to justify any crime.

In this sense, a historical fact is curious. In fall 1941, when the Wehrmacht started to feel out the resistance of Soviet troops, the chief of the German General Staff, Gen Halder, wrote in his diary: "In Poland and in the West we were able to afford some freedom and departure from regulations and principles; now this is no longer permissible." The thinking of the German strategist is paradoxical for our mentality: extreme measures cannot prevent an impending crisis, only regular ones can -- strengthening the law and regulations.

Is it really unclear that the inability of military authorities to enforce regulations in military units and subunits has given rise to non-regulation relations -- abuse by officers and the "deds" [soldiers with more than a year of service]. And that society has logically resorted to self-defense from the arbitrariness of those in power -- for it is exactly this that has given birth and asserted "mother's rights", the committees of soldiers' mothers. Perhaps the military minister is right when he does not accuse the soldiers' mothers of "undermining the army" -- in saving their children they are saving it. Although we will be frank: they are like the MChS [Ministry for Affairs of Civil Defense, Emergency Situations, and Elimination of Natural Disasters] during accidents or catastrophes -- they save lives, but they do not prevent crises.

In recent times, politicians, analysts, and writers have said much about a civil society, or to be more accurate, about the absence of such. They argue: should institutes of a civil society cooperate with the authorities, doing that which is outside of state influence, or should they by their nature oppose the bureaucratic machine.

However, arguments on such problem are in general not very fruitful, especially those about that which does not exist. But the emergence of committees of soldiers' mothers into the public and state arena, their overall recognition and growing influence, is evidence that a civil society, its institutes, arise and are proven when and where a vacuum of law forms.

In 1975 Leonid Brezhnev carelessly signed the Helsinki documents which were about human rights. None of the rulers at that time gave thought to really ensuring the rights of citizens as prescribed in the Constitution. But even under those conditions, under a rather strict totalitarian regime, society gave birth to civil rights organizations. If you like, a sort of counterpart or prototype to the committees of soldiers' mothers. This was natural self-defense from the regime. And no matter what type of persecution the civil rights "Helsinki groups" were subjected to, those in power were unable to do anything with them, whether they put them in jail or exiled them or sent the most odious of the "opposition" out of the country.

It seems that much has changed since then. The President has been officially declared the guarantor of the Constitution, that is, the first defender of civil rights. The judicial system has ceased (or is ceasing) to be an appendage of a repressive machine. Lawsuits by citizens against the state are being examined in the courts -- here the formula "Citizen Ivanov against the Russian Federation" has arisen. A free press gives publicity to any fact of arbitrariness by those in power. But nevertheless, the Human Rights Commission under the RF President has arisen. What is if for? Why? What vacuum is it called upon to fill?

Debates took place on television just before New Year's Day between the chairman of the new commission, Ella Pamfilova, and the official parliamentary plenipotentiary on human rights -- they call him an ombudsman -- Oleg Mironov. All the debates were reduced to which government organization was receiving the most complaints from the citizens, and also, who should perform what functions.

Alas, the parliamentary plenipotentiary and all his staff are unnoticeable in the public background, and hardly anyone could say what arbitrariness of those in power they have prevented. Pamfilova's commission, to which well-known and respected people belong, did not managed to prove its worth. The question arises: Is the new commission, which is nevertheless "under" those in power, able to resist their arbitrariness? Was it created for society to defend itself or for show?

A civil society, its institutes, like a national idea, does not arise at the command of those above and is not conferred by a ruler. At the end of 2001, the authorities organized the Civil Forum. There was a lot of noise, but who now remembers this forum? Civil institutions are born despite the fact that they "interfere" with the bureaucratic machine, oppose it, yet they are that indispensable defense without which society degenerates into the type of power which existed at the peak of the Stalin regime. Civil rights organizations of the 1970s-1980s as the committees of soldiers' mothers of our days serve as society's self-defense. Those in power should be cooperating with them and not trying to discredit them or seize their financing. The "rule of law" is an essential "defense" for mankind. But society is primarily people and their rights.

A civil society, like a national idea, does not arise at the command of those above.

BACK TO THE TOP    #243 CONTENTS    NEXT ARTICLE