Kommersant
Law on NGOs improved but remains vague - expert
A special task from the Russian lower house of parliament will decide the fate of the bill Monday that stipulates harsher rules for the operation of non-profit organizations in Russia. The critique the president sent to the State Duma on the bill Friday cites the "need for considerable improvements."
President Putin suggested softening provisions regarding foreign NGOs while stipulating even stricter rules for Russian non-governmental agencies. He forwarded his conclusions after the Duma approved the bill in its first reading and planned for a second reading December 16. At this stage, the Kremlin usually makes concrete amendments and not analytical recommendations.
Alexander Petrov, deputy director of the Moscow office of Human Rights Watch: "The main thing is that two silly provisions have been removed: interest clubs and public organizations need not register as a legal entity and not all foreign organizations should register as Russian public organizations. But all the rest remains vague."
Valentin Gefter, director of the Human Rights Institute: "I can understand liberalization regarding foreign companies, but the president has not said a word about the membership of foreign citizens in Russian organizations. This is an alarming sign because the bill is directed against those who do not live in Russia and do not want to have anything to do with politics. Moreover, too much has been left at the disposal of officials, who will both register and control."
Valentina Melnikova, executive secretary of the Union of Soldiers' Mothers Committees of Russia: "I don't understand what stopped the president and his administration from making amendments instead of drafting conclusions. This has put us at the mercy of Duma lackeys."
Sergei Kovalev, chairman of the Memorial Society: "The concept of the bill has not changed. The guarantor of the constitution [the president] makes no secret of the reason for it: foreign funding of political operations is inadmissible."
Vremya Novostei
Experts debate Russian constitution's role
On December 12, 1993, a nationwide referendum approved the Russian constitution. The entire constitutional system, which focuses on the president as head of state and attempts to establish a system of political parties in Russia, has, in the past 12 years, failed.
The constitution reflects the numerous fears of its authors. Those jurists, who helped draft the country's fundamental law, were so afraid of political disintegration, a dissenting Supreme Soviet, or parliament, and a possible Communist comeback that they stipulated the transfer of all power to the president whenever necessary. The Russian Federation is by law a semi-presidential republic. But, in reality, the head of state is the only source of power.
For instance, the president has the right to dissolve the government and parliament. At the same time, he enjoys near immunity. "One cannot say that the president has excessive powers. But nothing seems to counter-balance some of his powers," said Mikhail Krasnov, Boris Yeltsin's former legal adviser and the vice president of the INDEM Foundation.
"A popular head of state can neutralize parliament and vest himself with additional powers. The president now has the right to grant specific powers to regional governors and to appoint them." Krasnov said. The center of Russian political life has now shifted from parliament to the Kremlin. "Regardless of election results, neither the government, nor the State Duma can influence national politics," he said.
Retired Constitutional Court Judge Tamara Morshchakova disagrees. She says the constitution stipulates clear-cut presidential prerogatives. "The ability of all three branches of the government to limit the president's powers in line with such constitutional guarantees is another matter...unlawful and covert mechanisms for controlling the public processes are responsible for the drawbacks of our political system."
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
Russia's Right: coalition or political suicide
Last week saw a number of developments in the liberal wing of the Russian political arena. The leader of a new movement was announced, others merged or took each other over. Can the existing players revive the right movement, or is it a hopeless endeavor? Do they have to leave the field for new people to come and the liberals to come alive on their own?
Boris Nemtsov, member of the SPS party: "They do not have any other choice but to unite. Either that or they will find themselves at a political cemetery."
Yevgeny Yasin, head of research, the Higher School of Economics: "Our estimates show that 25% of the electorate all over Russia are ready to vote for liberals and democrats. The events are throwing democrats into each other's arms, whether they want to [be thrown] or not. Those who cannot or do not want to find a common language with others will leave, as they will not be able to stand the competition. But you have to understand that the democratic movement will not mount the revolution we saw in 1991. The situation is completely different and growth will be slower."
Stanislav Belkovsky, director of the Institute of National Strategy: "The very concept of democratic forces is in a deep crisis. Yabloko and the SPS are completely incompatible ideologically. Yabloko is not [leftist], but [rightist], while the SPS is a classic [leftist] party. We need a radically new concept, and it should not be a [leftist] concept. Today the only platform for the [liberals] is opposition to United Russia's one-party rule and to the bureaucrats in power. Russia's liberal electorate will never exceed 8-9%."
Alexander Lebedev, State Duma deputy: "Today's Russia does not have a right or left, liberal or conservative movements. The United Russia model shows that it can embrace people who call themselves either rightists or leftists. The movement we considered to be [liberal], i.e. [Boris Yeltsin's former First Deputy Prime Minister] Anatoly Chubais, [SPS leader] Irina Khakamada, [Yabloko leader] Grigory Yavlinsky, has discredited its very essence. I do not see the possibility of a revival."
Gazeta
The difference between political lobbyism and party corruption
Transparency International published its Global Corruption Report for 2005 late last week. According to the document, Russia's law-enforcement system is the most corrupt national institution of state authority. It is followed by political parties, the parliament and the judicial system.
This country has recently switched over to the proportional voting system. However, most Russians do not understand the system's advantages and believe that it leads to greater party corruption, rather than more effective accountability in the face of the terrorist threat (as the authorities claim).
Russians see several reasons behind partisan corruption, including subjective factors. "First, our people have no idea of how political parties are financed. And this leads to doubts. Second, many respondents see no difference between legal parliamentary lobbyism and corruption, which is punishable by the law," said Kirill Kabanov, a board member at Transparency International - the Russia Center for Anti-Corruption Research.
Fifty percent of local respondents, who were polled by Transparency International - Russia, said they do not think that the situation will improve. This share is higher than anywhere else in the world.
So, what is the difference between political lobbyism and partisan corruption?
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader, Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) and Deputy State Duma Speaker: "Only Duma majority parties suffer from lobbyism and corruption because they are responsible for passing new laws."
Andrei Metelsky, head, Moscow City Duma's United Russia faction: "No Russian law can discern between corruption and lobbyism. It is unclear when personal interests become more important than public interests. A bill on lobbyist activity now being drafted by our faction would legalize lobbyism in the good sense of the word."
Vedomosti
Market takes Gazprom liberalization for granted
At the end of last week, the Russian parliament adopted a bill changing the regulations on the Gazprom share market, prompting experts and officials to note that the state-run energy giant's complete liberalization is not far behind.
On December 9, the State Duma endorsed amendments to the bill in its second and third readings. They have abolished the 20% quota for foreign ownership and fixed the share to be held by the Russian government and state-owned companies at 50% plus one share.
The state holds 38.37% in Gazprom directly, and 10.78% through state-owned Rosneftegaz. Another 0.9% to form a 50% stake will be taken from state-owned Rosgazifikatsiya.
The bill was supported by United Russia and the LDPR, with passing with 335 votes out of 450.
There are currently no other restrictions on buying Gazprom's shares. They are traded on only four stock exchanges, and to buy them, a foreign company must obtain permission from the Federal Service for Financial Markets. Due to the two-tier market structure, the cost of domestic shares and globally traded ADRs is different.
"The bill's adoption does not mean immediately abolishing all the restrictions," explains Steven Dashevsky of the investment company Aton. "But it is the biggest step toward the market's liberalization." An Economic Development Ministry official said a set of documents is being prepared to eliminate other restrictions, including those limiting the number of stock exchanges and those granting permission for acquisition.
Last week, Oleg Vyugin, head of a financial market watchdog, said he was positive that Gazprom's shares would be fully liberalized beginning January 10, 2006. At a time when the bill removing the ring-fence comes into force, the Russian president and the government will sign decrees regulating the turnover of the gas monopoly's shares in the new situation.
The stock market's response to the news was uneventful. "No one is doubting that liberalization is inevitable; in fact, it is no longer news," said Vladimir Sinitsyn, trader with Broker Credit Service.
Biznes
Europe refuses to finance Kliper program
Talks between European Space Agency head Jean-Jacques Dordain and his Russian counterpart Anatoly Perminov produced no results December 9. The ESA does not trust Russia's "half-baked" Kliper space shuttle because there is no feasibility study, experts say. Europe has therefore confirmed its refusal to finance the Kliper program.
"This project was dubious from the very beginning," said a well-informed space industry source who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of an unofficial ban on voicing any negative opinions of the Kliper program. "No tender was announced. The [Russian] rocket and space corporation Energia suggested a project and the state seized this opportunity," he said.
The state, which owns 38% of Energia shares, possibly wants to prop up the company. They have now started advertising the Kliper, which will not lift off before 2012. Such haste could be explained by their interest in receiving 10 billion rubles ($345.78 million) worth of federal appropriations from the Federal Space Program.
"There is no guarantee that 10 billion rubles would not increase to 30 billion rubles ($1.04 billion) by 2012 because no one has seen this project's feasibility study. But any new project would have to be completed, once it takes off the ground, no matter what," the source said.
Energia President Nikolai Sevastyanov supports the Kliper project. He says the Kliper shuttle will fly re-supply missions to the International Space Station. Unfortunately, the first test flight will only take place in 2012 and regular flights will not start before 2013. The ISS program will be completed in 2015.
Kliper designers have said that the ESA would need it for manned missions. But the ESA does not seem to see the shuttle part of its program.
