We are being asked: whether in your struggle with corruption you are too engaged in paper work? Whether it's not antiquity? After all there are no real suits and results, real struggle, loud exposures, criminal cases... What is really necessary to do so that benevolent intentions turned to concrete actions?
The most ridiculous is that there are real suits, though they are few and they, as a rule, concern "switchmen". But even such cases our bureaucracy tries to ignore - probably not to injure make damaged to themselves and not to undermine own way of life.
Adjudication to long imprisonment term of a management of the Compulsory Medical Insurance Fund became the largest success of fight against corruption: from the chairman to the assistant to the bookkeeper. Investigation was carried out - that is atypical for our law enforcement bodies - rather qualitatively. Day of imposition of sentence - August, 12th - should become history as the Day of Fight against Corruption. However it would have huge educational effect, would frighten off many officials from extortion and would cause system damage to all corruption structure of our state. Probably, for this very reason we know practically nothing about this day.
For a real fight against corruption is necessary to enter, as in Italy, a rule according to which the briber in case of cooperation with investigation is relieved from responsibility. It's differently now in our country: here and there employee of a traffic police extorts bribe of the driver and when he gives it, it turns out to be special operation "on fight against corruption" and a person goes to prison for 2 years.
The second thing: corruption among country leaders always inseparably connected with organized crime. It's necessary to confiscate all actives allowing to influence a society from its representatives (including corrupted persons) not co-operating with investigation.
The third thing: to enter electronic system of decision-making allowing to see imperceptible for the official on basis of what documents he made these or those decisions.
It is enough: where there's a will, there's a way. The Russian state does not have desire as corruption, as long as it's possible to judge, already became basis of well-being of a class ruling Russia and original basis of our political system long time ago.
Council on fight against corruption should struggle not with concrete cases of corruption - there are corresponding bodies for this purpose - but with erroneous rules which admit its existence. It is system, not operative body.
If Medvedev really worries about messages about corruption in Internet - he can read site www.kompromat.ru or letters which people from all over the country write in his blog and on FORUM.msk. As he does not do it, probably, this theme actually is not interested in it.
How as a whole is possible to estimate the work of the president and the government on fight against corruption? Is it real fight or imitation?
I think it would be correct to answer - these are real conversations about imitation attempt, at that attempt is unsuccessful.
Successful attempt of imitation would provide at lest propaganda state reaction on the sharpest corruption themes exciting society. It is corruption in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and especially in traffic police, storage of money of the budget (that is of tax bearers) abroad under low interests at simultaneous intentions to take external loans under high percent, rather convincing conversations about 80-billion larceny in "Gazprom". Abramovich's recognitions to English court in criminal acquisition of company "Sibneft" and corporation "Daimler" - in mass and long-term distribution of bribes to the Russian officials - are also very interesting. Phenomenal success of petrotrader Gunvor which already for many years has been reselling more than a quarter of the Russian oil with huge profit also causes interest.
Specified actions would not eradicate corruption and would not lower its scale but would be rather effective imitation of fight against it.
It is clear that there is no even imitation of it now. Most likely, they try to wound each other by means of conversations about corruption - but they fail.
It is necessary to notice that Dmitry Medvedev more and more often is being compared to Michael Gorbachev - "there's a lot of chatter, little result". Whether it doesn't seem that political policies of these heads of the country become more and more similar?
However, whether it is possible to consider chatter and idleness "political policy"?
There will be real result of such "course" and it will be about the same as in Gorbachev's case. I will remind that his incapacity led to destruction not only of the great country where all of us lived but also of the Soviet civilisation as such.
Medvedev's incapacity can lead to destruction of the Russian civilisation painfully developing today. In any case it is already visible that Russia goes to system crisis at full speed, its course and results will force even the most irreconcilable critics of V.Putin consider him democrat and humanist sincerely.
The price of starry-eyed idleness in the modern world is unacceptably high: these are lives of millions, sometimes tens millions people. Unfortunately, there's nobody in the Russian state to remind president Medvedev about it.
They ask, whether it possible to move to country modernisation to which Medvedev calls without corruption eradication? Whether movement, development of Russia is possible, if there are still no real results of fight against corruption? If no, it turns out that ideas of the president about modernisation will simply be gone and will not be realized?
But let's not to confuse ideas with not properly executed benevolent intentions. There are only few concrete ideas which can be "touched with hands" within the limits of all conversations on modernisation. It is the broadband Internet - it's good but it is painfully insignificant on value for society, power saving up bulbs in which designs the state has lost its way in broad daylight, "the Kremlin Valley" in Skolkovo which project will be start being developed in the second half of next year and business school with the same name which differs by casual choice of listeners and placing in hotel "Balchug" opposite to the Kremlin.
Conversations about branch priorities are the same way incorrect and consequently are insignificant, as well as already forgotten conversations about four or five "I" and "national projects".
Thus, the very subject of conversations about modernisation is absent. Certainly, corruption blocks development - but while the state does not try to be engaged in this development, corruption does not disturb interfere with it.