#1 - JRL 2008-106 - JRL Home
Moscow News
http://www.mnweekly.ru/
May 30, 2008
Moral Imperative
By Marina Pustilnik
You know what makes Russia different from other countries? It's the fact that
there is often a strong moral imperative woven into the fabric of everyday life.
What do I mean by that? I mean that for long time Russians believed that the
authorities must do something that is morally just for the people. I think it
dates back to the years of the monarchy, when the Czar was seen as the father of
his people, morally responsible for their souls. From that time on, the Russian
authorities seem to have an urge to force people to do what is morally good.
Everyone remembers last year's news that persistent debt evaders would not be
allowed to leave the country. When it was initiated, the measure mostly
concerned persistent non-payers of bank credits. But it turns out that last year
the court plaintiffs prevented as many as 15,000 citizens who had failed to make
their child support payments from leaving the country, and in 2008 about 7,000
were stopped on the border over this. Apparently the measure worked well as
"some of those stopped at the border were ready to fork over the cash on the
spot".
Now the Russian plaintiffs want to take the matters further. On Tuesday, the
Federal service of court plaintiffs announced that it wants to take serious
measures against persistent non-payers of child support. According to the
service's director Nikolai Vinnichenko, 10 million Russians have to make
payments to their former families and each year the Federal service of court
plaintiffs receives more than 1.5 million enforcement proceedings for forced
collection of payments. The total debt in child support payments is 1 billion
rubles. Since single mothers are one of the least socially protected categories
of Russian citizens, the state now feels the moral imperative to try and protect
them more, inventing measures that would force the delinquent fathers to pay up.
Among the measures proposed by the court plaintiffs are taking away
non-payer's drivers licenses, mobile phones and travel tickets (with
compensation). According to Vinnichenko, this would not violate citizens'
constitutional right to free travel, because "if a person does not fulfill his
civil obligations applied by the court, then his constitutional rights may be
limited." In April, the plaintiff service signed an agreement with the Internal
Ministry and the General Prosecutor's Office, which will engage in "non-criminal
search for persistent non-payers" and transfer those found to the plaintiffs.
But repressive measures are not the only ones that the state plans to use. The
Federal service of court plaintiffs has signed an agreement with the state labor
agency Rostrud that will find employment for persistent non-payers of child
support who don't have a job. In reality their number is quite small - about 10
percent of the total number.
Like any morally good idea, this one is surely going to get mired in details.
For one, there is no clear definition of the "persistent non-payer". Measures
such as taking away mobile phones and driver's licenses are far from effective,
since there is no problem with registering a mobile phone contract in somebody's
name and driver's licenses - well, there's an option of taking a bus or hiring a
driver, depending on the income of the non-payer. But even that is not the
biggest problem. The biggest problem is in the heads. If people do not feel the
moral imperative to support the children they sired and their mothers, the state
cannot stuff this moral imperative down their throat. Stopped at the border or
left without a ticket people will pay up, but when they come back they, it's
unlikely that they will change their ways and start making timely payments every
month. Finding work for the unemployed is good, but there needs to be a way to
control that they pay the aliments from their new salaries. Here,
I have a suggestion: if you really want to make the delinquent fathers (and
mothers) pay - why don't you pass legislation where by the employers have to set
aside a certain part of their divorced employees' salaries for child support
payments? A bit more paperwork, but at least this way the money will actually
make it to the people who are supposed to get it.
|