The Yegor Gaidar Prize in the nomination “For actions promoting the formation of civil society” was awarded to the head of the Presidential Human Rights Council (HRC) Mikhail Fedotov.
The award ceremony took place the day before at the Moscow Youth Theater.
In his welcoming speech, the chairman of the fund's board of trustees, the head of Rusnano Anatoly Chubais reminded the audience that in the 25 years since the creation of Gaidar’s government, “three ideologies have emerged” in Russia: leftist, nationalist and “ours, liberal.”
"The founder of ours, without any doubt, was one person - Yegor Gaidar"- Chubais believes.
Master of Ceremony Nikolai Svanidze also recalled that “economic reforms are always very important, but very painful for people.” Hence, according to him, the population has dislike for reformers.
“Gaidar’s team started in the hope that irreversible political reforms would begin along with economic changes, but, as we know, great difficulties arose with changes in the political system.”, Svanidze recalled.
The winner of the first nomination of the Gaidar Prize - "For outstanding contribution to the field of economics" - was an economic geographer, director of the regional program of the Independent Institute of Social Policy Natalia Zubarevich.
According to her, times are difficult now, however, “oddly enough, it’s interesting to work in the profession.”
A professor at the National Research University Higher School of Economics and director of the International Center for the History and Sociology of the Second World War and Its Consequences was awarded for “outstanding contribution to the field of history.” Oleg Budnitsky.
One of his works, in particular, is the book “Human Rights and Empires”, in which Budnitsky collected correspondence between figures of the Russian emigration Vasily Maklakov And Mark Aldanova for the years 1929-1957.
According to Svanidze, today many people use historical facts to influence public consciousness.
However, only those who “engage in honest, correct scientific popularization” and “do not use history for myth-making” are nominated for the Gaidar Prize, he added.
The former President of Israel was recognized for his “contribution to the development of international humanitarian ties with Russia” Shimon Peres. Unfortunately, he died on September 28, so his son came to collect the reward Nehamia Perez.
“In our family they spoke Hebrew, Yiddish and Russian. He said: “When I come to Russia, I hear as if my mother is singing to me.”, - said Perez Jr., reminding everyone of his father’s Belarusian origin. And then, unexpectedly for all the assembled “Gaidarites,” Peres’ son remembered the President of Russia:
“He spoke warmly about President Putin, whom he considered not only an outstanding statesman, but also a terrific conversationalist.”.
In the category with the largest “prize” - 1 million rubles, while in all others the reward is 500 thousand rubles. - Head of the Human Rights Council Mikhail Fedotov was awarded “for actions promoting the formation of civil society”.
"Sounds like an article of the Criminal Code", - Svanidze joked, announcing the nomination.
According to Leonid Gozman, a member of the Committee of Civil Initiatives, a person can be accused of “collaborating with the system,” but “he’s doing his job, by the way.”
“There are hundreds of cases in which he and his comrades solve specific problems, save people from justice, save people from cruelty, lies, injustice, and he builds an infrastructure in which there will be no dirt and lies.”, said the liberal.
Fedotov himself did not object and even admitted that “I had never heard so many good words about myself before.” According to the head of the Human Rights Council, he was even called a “human rights saboteur,” Kommersant quotes him as saying.
Fedotov promised to donate the reward he received for the construction of a monument to victims of political repression.
“This monument is planned to be installed in Moscow on the corner of Sakharov Avenue and Sadovaya-Spasskaya Street”, - explained the head of the Human Rights Council, adding that first, of course, he will pay taxes.
This year, Mikhail Fedotov, Chairman of the Presidential Council of the Russian Federation for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, won the Yegor Gaidar Prize in the nomination “For actions promoting the formation of civil society.”
The award ceremony took place on the evening of November 17 at the Moscow Theater for Young Spectators. In total, in 2016, the prize was awarded in four categories: “For outstanding contribution to the field of economics”, “For outstanding contribution to the field of history”, “For actions promoting the formation of civil society” and “For outstanding contribution to the development of international humanitarian ties with Russia”. .
In the nomination “For Outstanding Contribution to the Field of Economics,” the award was received by Russian economic geographer, director of the regional program of the Independent Institute of Social Policy, Natalya Zubarevich. For his contribution to the development of historical science in Russia, the award was given to the Russian historian, director of the International Center for the History and Sociology of the Second World War and its Consequences at the Higher School of Economics, Oleg Budnitsky. In the nomination “For actions promoting the formation of civil society” - Mikhail Fedotov.
In the special nomination “For outstanding contribution to the development of international humanitarian ties with Russia,” the Yegor Gaidar Prize was awarded posthumously to the Israeli politician and statesman, President of Israel in 2007-2014, Shimon Peres. On his behalf, the politician's son, Nehemiah Perez, received the award.
The Yegor Gaidar Prize was established in 2010. Over the years, its laureates have been Evgeny Yasin, Anatoly Vishnevsky, Olga Romanova, Dmitry Muratov, Svetlana Gannushkina, Alexander Guryanov, Leszek Baltserovich and many others.
INTERVIEW WITH MIKHAIL FEDOTOV
Timed to coincide with the Yegor Gaidar Prize ceremony in 2016
“Any independence begins with the relationship between a person and his conscience”
Human rights activist, Presidential Adviser on Human Rights Mikhail Fedotov on overcoming totalitarianism in the public consciousness, the reformist sine wave and personal motivation to fight for rights and freedoms
Mikhail Fedotov is a Russian lawyer, politician, statesman and human rights activist, Chairman of the Presidential Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, Advisor to the President of the Russian Federation. Nominated for the 2016 Yegor Gaidar Prize in the category “For actions promoting the formation of civil society.”
There is this fact in your biography: you were expelled from Moscow State University for participating in the human rights movement. Can you remember that moment now? How did you feel then?
It was January 1968. My comrades, with whom we had repeatedly gone to Pushkin Square to “demonstrate glasnost” - Alik Ginzburg, Yuri Galansky, Lesha Dobrovolsky and Vera Lashkova - were tried in the Moscow City Court. And we just stood at the courthouse on Kalanchevka, waiting for news from the hall where the “open” court hearing was taking place. Everything was calm, only the middle-aged police sergeant was constantly patrolling around our group. When the people were hungry and freezing, I was sent to the square of three stations for hot pies. While returning, I saw from a distance how my comrades were being pushed into an arriving police car. This lawlessness was commanded by the same police sergeant.
In the evening, on the way home, I accidentally ended up in the same subway car with this same police sergeant. But I was a second-year student at the Faculty of Law of Moscow State University, and I had with me a briefcase with commentaries on the Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes. And so I sit down with this foreman and, over the noise of the metro, I begin to read out loud to him and list exactly which articles of the RSFSR Criminal Procedure Code he violated and what he is entitled to for this according to the RSFSR Criminal Code. I ended my impromptu lecture like this: “And now, mark my words, the time will come when you will appear in court and answer for the obviously illegal detention of law-abiding citizens.”
I had to get off at the Kropotkinskaya station. As I headed towards the exit of the carriage, the foreman grabbed me by the hand and dragged me to the police room. There he called somewhere and was told, as I understand it, that all those detained at the city court building had already been released and that I should also be released after drawing up a report. In the protocol, he wrote: “He threatened to kill a police officer while on duty.” When I signed the protocol, I added my explanation: “I explained to the police officer the position of Soviet criminal and criminal procedural legislation.” At this point we parted and I went home.
A couple of days later I was called to the dean’s office and my matriculation certificate and other documents were returned. When I asked what happened, the course inspector answered in a whisper: “The KGB called and told you to be expelled.” When my mother found out that I was kicked out of the law school (my father had already died by that time), she immediately rushed to our dean G.V. Ivanov, who was her classmate. And she persuaded two more professors, her friends and classmates: August Mishin and Oleg Chistyakov. And they came to Ivanov with the words: “Zhora, we need to help the boy.” In the end, I was allowed to continue my studies in the evening department. Then I started working as a reporter for the newspaper “Evening Moscow”. This is how journalism and jurisprudence intertwined in my life and determined the main theme - freedom of speech and press. You can say that I am a singer of one song - a song about media freedom.
When you just started your activities as chairman of the council, you said that one of your tasks was “de-Stalinization of public consciousness”...
I will say right away that the term “de-Stalinization” very approximately reflects the task that our Council set for itself. When Louis XV was executed in France, no one was carrying out “de-bourbonization,” but they were building a republic. De-Stalinization in the Soviet Union took place in the mid-1950s - early 1960s, when monuments were removed, cities, streets, schools, factories, collective farms, and so on were renamed. This was precisely “de-Stalinization”, but not the construction of a democratic rule of law state. Stalin was nothing more than a function of the totalitarian regime: whoever would be in his place, the inhuman essence of the dictatorship would not go away. Perhaps the forms of repression would have been different, the level of cruelty would have been different - greater or less - but the essence would have remained the same.
When I assumed the functions of Chairman of the Council, after consulting with other members of our team, I publicly stated that one of our main tasks is to overcome the inertia of totalitarianism in the public consciousness, in legislation and law enforcement practice. And we, together with the International Memorial Society, have developed a concept for the return of historical memory, which is now called “On perpetuating the memory of victims of political repression.”
Totalitarianism and repression are always inseparable from each other. In our country, the totalitarian regime was born on November 7, 1917. It was then that the start of political repression was given for the entire long historical period, which ended with the collapse of the Soviet state. Therefore, it is funny and sad to look at today’s attempts, first of all, by our television to create the image of a kind of “Stalin-light”, and solely for the sake of ratings, for the sake of advertising revenue. And the task of eradicating the stereotypes of totalitarian consciousness remains unrealized by our media: it is not profitable for them, and therefore not interesting.
The totalitarian regime has become so ingrained in the public consciousness that today I often ask my students and graduate students: “You were born when Soviet power no longer existed - where did you get your Soviet consciousness from?” I believe that everything is to blame for the high level of inertia - both in our legislation, and in law enforcement practice, and in the public consciousness. Unfortunately, in the 90s we were unable to overcome this inertia, we were unable to turn the country so that it could only move forward, towards the goals defined in the 1993 Constitution. In fact, she did not go back - but in many ways she went somewhere sideways. In some ways, our country is moving forward, for example, we still have some kind of market economy now. And the Constitution that we have is a worthy document and for all of us now the main point of reference, the main support. If there were no Constitution, it would be much more difficult for us to defend our ideas about how to live and how to govern the state.
How do you feel about statements that we generally have such a mentality, that there is a desire for authoritarianism, for the so-called “strong hand”. Or is this really Soviet inertia and something needs to be done about it?
I think this is Soviet inertia, but it is also implicated in the centuries-old tradition of absolutism. There was, of course, a very short period of democratic development, which began with the reforms of Alexander II and continued with the Manifesto of Nicholas II of October 17, 1905. But it just so happens that a period of reforms is necessarily followed by counter-reforms. Therefore, I believe that we have two national modes of transport: the carousel and the swing. Reform - counter-reform, revolution - counter-revolution. We are chained in this sinusoid and cannot escape from it.
If this is such a long inertia, how to overcome it?
I hope that this sine wave has damped oscillations. For example, the kind of repressions that existed in the 30s no longer existed in the 50s and 60s. In the 90s, the pendulum swung in one direction, in the 2000s - in the other. But, again, the amplitude is not at all the same. By the way, technology development plays a huge role in this. For example, the Internet itself does not change anything in our social life, but it creates space for the development of democracy and the expansion of freedom.
We often say: how can we talk about human rights when we don’t have a healthcare system and the courts don’t work properly? It seems like human rights are an area for a more developed state and society. Or do you think it should be built in somehow?
Our entire daily life is nothing more than a struggle for the realization of human rights. If we are treated poorly at the clinic, it means that the human right to health care is not respected. If the court does not work well, it means that the person’s right to a fair trial has been violated. A person cannot find a job - human rights suffer, a person has nowhere to live - human rights, election fraud - human rights. Our whole life is full of human rights.
Isn’t that the reason that we have a state and all these mechanisms exist, as it were, not for a person, but on their own?
Many departments think exactly this way. But our Constitution precisely says that a person, his rights and freedoms are the highest value. For a totalitarian regime, the highest value is not the person, but the state.
But in people's perceptions, it seems that this is still the case.
In perception, unfortunately, this is very often exactly the case. But according to our Constitution, everything should be just the opposite - the priority of human rights over the rights of the state. In practice, we see, of course, the exact opposite: “Oh, you are against the state! Oh, you demand something from the state!” But, by the way, again, the situation here is not black and white, it is quite varied - both in different areas and in different regions. For example, if we look at the statistics on how many illegal acts and decisions of government bodies are appealed in court, we will see that the courts, as a rule, overturn these decisions and recognize them as illegal. The idea that suing the state is pointless is wrong. It’s just that we only see high-profile cases, decisions on which are often colored by political considerations. But there are still a huge number of non-resonant cases that are resolved entirely according to the law. Therefore, I am not ready to say unequivocally that we have bad courts. We have very good judges, decent, professional, honest people, I know them personally. But there are others - I often come across them in my work, trying to achieve a review of decisions that infringe on human rights. But court decisions can only be reviewed by a higher court, and not by the Human Rights Council. The Council can only give advice.
Our strategic goal is to educate independent judges and give them the opportunity to be independent. To do this, it is necessary to use, among other things, some organizational and legal mechanisms. Well, for example, such a simple thing as the election and rotation of court chairmen. But so far we have not been able to break through this.
But in general the situation with rotation is difficult for us.
Yes, finding a balance between rotation and continuity is a difficult task. But if we talk about the judicial system, then it is necessary, first of all, to take away administrative powers in relation to judges from court chairmen, because today judges consider the court chairman as their boss, and this contradicts the constitutional principle of the independence of judges.
Apparently, because he distributes benefits, and a lot depends on him?
So this is what needs to be changed if we want to have an independent court, although this is not enough. For an independent court to exist, there must be independent judges - and any independence begins with the relationship between a person and his conscience. And that’s why we are now trying to implement the idea of a school court, a school ombudsman, in our schools. I agreed with the chairman of the Tver Regional Court to invite the heads of district courts to invite schoolchildren not on excursions, but to real court hearings. It seems to me that such visits had a very important educational effect both for schoolchildren and for judges. When the judge sees children's eyes looking at him, he will realize that he has no right to fool these unspoiled souls. I think that would be very cool. And the child who will be a judge at school, having received a mandate to resolve conflicts between peers, will already at this young age understand what it means to be truly independent, what it means not to be afraid to make a fair decision. In other words, this independence must be formed in the child, and conditions must be created for the adult so that he can maintain it. This is what we are now trying to implement.
Don’t you have the feeling that any attempts to break this entire systemIs gaining independence from within a little akin to quixoticism?
Agree. It’s not for nothing that I have a figurine of the hero of Cervantes on my table. But the fight for human rights is not only quixotic: it requires patience, perseverance, systematicity and, if you like, tediousness.
And, apparently, the belief that this is possible.
Certainly. If a person does not believe in what he is doing, then he should do something else. I believe that we will succeed, although I know that we will not succeed in everything at once. Take, for example, the same program to perpetuate the memory of victims of political repression. We presented it to the president on February 1, 2011. Medvedev approved it, indicating in his resolution “This is very important for Russia.” But then we encountered mute resistance in various corridors of power. We had to overcome all these bureaucratic obstacles for a long time: persistently, systematically, patiently, boringly. Convince, prove, even intrigue if necessary. You know, when patience ends, endurance begins. A very important quality for human rights activities. And, in the end, four years after being presented to the president, on August 15, 2015, this concept was finally approved by the government. Now we have achieved a presidential order to create a non-departmental working group, whose tasks include coordinating the implementation of this document - the Concept of State Policy to Perpetuate the Memory of Victims of Political Repression. That is, we already have not only a regulatory framework on which we rely, but also an organizational mechanism with the help of which we will continue to promote this concept, overcoming both inertia and conscious resistance. You know, I often repeat: if the task had been easy, we would not have been called.
Lyudmila Alekseeva, commenting on your appointment to this post, said that you will have a very difficult situation, because on the one hand there will be society, and on the other the state, and everyone will pull on themselves. Do you feel this? Is there some kind of moral choice that needs to be made?
No. I always say what I think.
That is, you don’t feel that society believes that, of course, you compromised, worked with the authorities, and the state, on the contrary, seems to have appointed you nominally to a position on human rights, and that’s good.
No. If they had appointed me and told me to sit quietly and say everywhere that everything is fine with human rights, I would immediately refuse. When people ask me, I always answer that human rights are poorly protected in Russia, but at the same time I add: “In some ways it has become better, in some ways it has become worse, in others there is no progress. Let's work to improve the situation." For example, from the first day we were against the law on foreign agents, from the first day we fought against it.
As with the law on rallies...
Yes, as with the law on rallies. And, by the way, we managed to defend something there.
But he was accepted anyway.
But we managed to defend something. And we have made very serious progress in the law on insulting religious feelings, because at first it was completely cannibalistic. We were able to defend an option that, in general, did not introduce anything terrible into our criminal system and, in fact, is a repetition of Article 282 of the Criminal Code. In addition, we took advantage of the moment to include in the Criminal Code responsibility for punishing officials who interfere with religious services. After all, we have various religious organizations in our country, including some that are having a very hard time.
For example, we also achieved several amnesties: for the 20th anniversary of the Constitution, for the anniversary of the Victory. Do you think it was easy? No, all our initiatives are perceived with great difficulty, but this never stops us. We understand that the prison population needs to be reduced, a system of resocialization of prisoners needs to be introduced. Our prisons contain a variety of people - there are, of course, hardened criminals, but there are also many who ended up there by accident and undeservedly. And these people also need to be taken care of, so it’s very great that we managed to achieve the creation of a system of public monitoring commissions that monitor the situation with respect for human rights in places of detention.
How do you justify to yourself every day the need to remain in this position, to do this work, given that our freedoms and rights now seem to be curtailing more?
This is how everything needs to be done so that they do not curl up. Do everything to ensure that there is a movement not towards the infringement of rights, but, on the contrary, towards the expansion of human rights. This is what we are doing.
But how to motivate yourself? We are all human, and pushing through such resistance is not easy.
We have 54 people on the Council, thank God. I couldn't handle this alone. Moreover, I am not the boss of the Council - I am a friendly interface. My task is to create conditions for contact between the Council and the authorities and get our proposals through to them. In fact, of course, we have done a lot. But this is absolutely no reason to rest on our laurels. On the contrary, we have clearly not done enough compared to what we should do. And I can tell you: I am not at all ashamed of our Council. Everything we have done and are doing is correct and worthy. I'm only ashamed of what we haven't done yet or haven't been able to do. Shame, I must say, is a great motivator.
The Yegor Gaidar Foundation presented its annual prizes for achievements in the study of economics, history, contribution to the formation of civil society in Russia and the development of international humanitarian ties, reports Novaya Gazeta correspondent Anna Baidakova. The laureate in history was Oleg Budnitsky for compiling a book about the correspondence between historians V. Maklakov and M. Aldanov in exile. Receiving the prize, Budnitsky noted that Maklakov, having spent years in exile, made an attempt at reconciliation with the Soviet regime, but there was one point on which he could not agree with Stalin - human rights. For the development of international relations with Russia, the prize was received by former Israeli President Shimon Peres, who died on September 28 of this year. The politician's son received the award.
“My father was a dreamer, a man of big vision and optimism, he looked into the future, saw a better tomorrow and did everything to make it happen,” he said from the stage. “And although he was already over 90 years old, we all feel that he left us too early. Our family spoke Hebrew, Yiddish and Russian. He said: “When I come to Russia, I hear as if my mother is singing to me,” said Jonathan Perez, recalling the origin of his father, who was born in what is now Belarus. “He spoke warmly about President Putin, whom he considered not only an outstanding statesman, but also a terrific conversationalist.”
“This is such a storehouse of wisdom, the ability to reason about what will happen to the globe at the end of the 21st century, what nanotechnology means for humanity, which is especially important for me. And relations with Russia were a special topic for him. We have always felt a very special relationship,” Anatoly Chubais said from the stage, noting that Peres agreed to personally come to Moscow for the ceremony, but did not have time.
The award for the development of civil society - “sounds like an article of the Criminal Code,” noted the host of the ceremony, Nikolai Svanidze, was received by the head of the Presidential Council for Human Rights, Mikhail Fedotov. “There are hundreds of cases in which he and his comrades solve specific problems, save people from justice, save people from cruelty, lies, injustice, and he builds an infrastructure in which there will be no dirt and lies,” a member of the Board of Trustees said about the laureate Council of the Gaidar Foundation Leonid Gozman. Accepting the award, Fedotov said that he had recently been called a “human rights saboteur,” but the award was not intended for him, but for the entire Council: “I’m not a boss, I’m a friendly interface.”
The laureate in economics was Natalya Zubarevich, director of the regional program of the Independent Institute of Social Policy. “Finally, the old lady of economic geography has been noticed by economists! — Zubarevich noted ironically while receiving the award. — But seriously, the country is very different; we are bruised by space, and it is advisable not to turn this into a form of schizophrenia. Times are indeed very difficult. We are all fixated on Moscow, and in the regions we only notice arrests and protests. But 21% of citizens live in cities with a population of over a million. So - patience, health, do what you must, and come what may.”
The Yegor Gaidar Prize has been awarded since 2010 for individual achievements in the field of history, economics, contribution to the formation of civil society and the development of international humanitarian ties with Russia. Over the years, its laureates have been Evgeny Yasin, Anatoly Vishnevsky, Olga Romanova, Dmitry Muratov, Svetlana Gannushkina, Alexander Guryanov, Leszek Baltserovich and many others.