Egor Gaidar award. Liberals shared Gaidar Prize

The Yegor Gaidar Foundation presented its annual awards 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 the correspondent of "Novaya Gazeta" Anna Baidakova. Oleg Budnitskiy became the laureate in history for compiling a book about the correspondence between historians V. Maklakov and M. Aldanov in exile. Receiving the award, Budnitsky noticed 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 award was given to former Israeli President Shimon Peres, who died on September 28 this year. The politician's son received the award.

“My father was a dreamer, a man of ambitious vision and optimism, he looked to the future, saw a better tomorrow and did everything to make it a reality,” 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 my mother singing to me,” said Yonatan Peres, recalling the origin of his father, who was born on the territory of present-day Belarus. “He spoke warmly about President Putin, whom he considered not only an outstanding statesman, but also an amazing interlocutor.”

“It 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, and what is especially important for me. And relations with Russia were a special topic for him. We have always felt a very special attitude, ”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, unfairness, and he builds an infrastructure in which there will be no dirt and lies,” said a member of the Guardian 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 intended not for him, but for the entire Council: "I am not a boss, I am a friendly interface."

Natalya Zubarevich, director of the regional program of the Independent Institute for Social Policy, became the Laureate in Economics. “Finally, the old lady of economics geography has been noticed by economists! - Zubarevich remarked with irony, 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. The times are really hard. 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 one million. So - patience, health, do what you must, and be what will be. "

The Yegor Gaidar Prize has been awarded since 2010 for individual achievements in history, economics, contribution to the formation of civil society and the development of international humanitarian ties with Russia. Over the years, Evgeny Yasin, Anatoly Vishnevsky, Olga Romanova, Dmitry Muratov, Svetlana Gannushkina, Alexander Guryanov, Leshek Baltserovich and many others became its laureates.

The Yegor Gaidar Prize in the category "For actions contributing to 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 board of trustees of the fund, the head of Rusnano Anatoly Chubais reminded the audience that in the 25 years since the creation of Gaidar's government, "three ideologies" have developed in Russia: leftist, nationalist and "ours, liberal."

"The founder of ours, without any doubt, was one man - Yegor Gaidar", - Chubais believes.

Ceremony host Nikolay Svanidze also recalled that "economic reforms are always very important, but very painful for people." Hence, according to him, the population has a dislike for reformers.

"Gaidar's team began in the hope that along with economic changes irreversible political reforms would begin, but, as we know, great difficulties arose with changes in the political system.", - reminded Svanidze.

The winner of the first nomination of the Gaidar Prize - "For Outstanding Contribution to the Field of Economics" - became an economic geographer, director of the regional program of the Independent Institute for Social Policy Natalia Zubarevich.

According to her, times are difficult now, however, "oddly enough, it is interesting to work in the profession."

For "outstanding contribution to the field of history" was awarded a professor at the Higher School of Economics, Director of the International Center for the History and Sociology of World War II and Its Consequences Oleg Budnitsky.

One of his works, in particular, is the book "Human Rights and the Empire", in which Budnitsky collected the correspondence of the leaders of the Russian emigration Vasily Maklakov and Mark Aldanov for the years 1929-1957.

According to Svanidze, today many people use historical facts to influence public consciousness..

However, only those who are "engaged in honest, correct scientific popularization" and "do not use history for myth-making," are nominated for the Gaidar Prize, he added.

For "contribution to the development of international humanitarian ties with Russia" was awarded the former President of Israel Shimon Peres... Unfortunately, he passed away on 28 September, so his son came to claim the award Nehamia Perez.

"Our family spoke Hebrew, Yiddish and Russian. He said:" When I come to Russia, I hear my mother singing to me. ", - said Peres Jr., reminding everyone of his father's Belarusian origin. And then, unexpectedly for all the gathered "Gaidarites", Peres' son remembered the President of Russia:

"He spoke warmly of President Putin, whom he considered not only an outstanding statesman, but also an amazing conversationalist.".

In the nomination with the largest "prize money" - 1 million rubles, while in all others the reward is 500 thousand rubles. - Head of the HRC Mikhail Fedotov was awarded for actions contributing to 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 Civil Initiatives Committee, a person can be accused of "cooperating with the system," but "he does business, 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, unfairness, 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 HRC, he was even called a "human rights saboteur", he is quoted by Kommersant.

Fedotov promised to transfer the received reward to the construction of the monument to the victims of political repression.

"This monument is planned to be installed in Moscow at the corner of Sakharov Avenue and Sadovaya-Spasskaya Street"- explained the head of the HRC, adding that first, of course, he will pay taxes.

This year, the Chairman of the Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights of the Russian Federation, Mikhail Fedotov, won the Yegor Gaidar Prize in the category "For actions contributing to 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 nominations: "For Outstanding Contribution to the Field of Economics", "For Outstanding Contribution to the Field of History", "For Actions Contributing to the Formation of Civil Society" and "For Outstanding Contribution to the Development of International Humanitarian Relations with Russia" ...

Natalya Zubarevich, a Russian economic geographer, director of the regional program of the Independent Institute for Social Policy, received the prize in the nomination "For Outstanding Contribution to the Field of Economics". 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 World War II and Its Consequences, NRU HSE, Oleg Budnitsky. In the nomination "For actions contributing to the formation of civil society" - Mikhail Fedotov.

In the special nomination "For Outstanding Contribution to the Development of International Humanitarian Relations with Russia", the Yegor Gaidar Prize was awarded posthumously to an Israeli politician and statesman, President of Israel in 2007-2014 Shimon Peres. On his behalf, the politician's son, Nehemia Perez, received the prize.

The Yegor Gaidar Prize was established in 2010. Over the years, Yevgeny Yasin, Anatoly Vishnevsky, Olga Romanova, Dmitry Muratov, Svetlana Gannushkina, Alexander Guryanov, Leshek Baltserovich and many others became its laureates.

INTERVIEW WITH MIKHAIL FEDOTOV
Timed to coincide with the 2016 Yegor Gaidar Prize ceremony

"Any independence begins with the relationship between a person and his conscience."

Human rights activist, adviser to the President on human rights Mikhail Fedotov on overcoming totalitarianism in public consciousness, the reformist sinusoid 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, adviser to the President of the Russian Federation. Nominated for the 2016 Yegor Gaidar Prize in the category “For actions contributing to the formation of civil society”.

There is such a fact in your biography: you were expelled from Moscow State University for your participation in the human rights movement. Can you remember that moment now? What did you feel then?

It was January 1968. My comrades, with whom we repeatedly went to Pushkin Square for a "demonstration of 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" trial was going on. Everything was calm, only a middle-aged militia chief was loitering around our group all the time. When people got hungry and froze, I was sent to the square of three stations for hot pies. Returning, I saw from a distance how my comrades were being pushed into a police car that had arrived. This lawlessness was commanded by the same police chief.

In the evening, on my way home, I happened to be in the same subway car with this very police chief. And I was in my second year at the Faculty of Law of Moscow State University, and I had a portfolio with me with comments on the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. And so I sit down to this foreman and, blocking the noise of the metro, I begin to read aloud to him and list which articles of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure he violated and what he is entitled to for this under the RSFSR Criminal Code. I ended my impromptu lecture as follows: "And now, mark my word, the time will come when you will appear before the court and answer for the knowingly illegal detention of law-abiding citizens."

At the station "Kropotkinskaya" I had to get off. When I went to the exit of the carriage, the foreman grabbed my hand and dragged me into the police room. There he called somewhere, he was told, as I understand, that all those detained near the building of the city court had already been released and that I should also be released after drawing up a protocol. In the report, he wrote: "He threatened a police officer with reprisals while on duty." When I signed the protocol, I added my own explanations: "I explained to the police officer the position of the Soviet criminal and criminal procedure legislation." On this we parted, and I went home.

A couple of days later I was summoned to the dean's office and returned the certificate of maturity and other documents. When I asked what happened, the course inspector replied in a whisper: "They called from the KGB and said to be expelled." When my mother found out that they had kicked me 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 agitated two more professors, her fellow classmates: August Mishin and Oleg Chistyakov. And they came to Ivanov with the words: "Zhora, we need to help the boy." Eventually, I was allowed to continue my evening studies. Then I started working as a reporter for the Vechernyaya Moskva newspaper. So journalism and jurisprudence intertwined in my life and defined the main theme - freedom of speech and press. You can say that I am the singer of one song - a song about media freedom.

When you just started your activity as chairman of the council, you said that one of your tasks is to “de-Stalinize public consciousness” ...

I must say right away that the term “de-Stalinization” very approximately reflects the task that our Council has set itself. When Louis XV was executed in France, after all, no one carried out the "deburbonization", but a republic was being built. The 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. It was precisely “de-Stalinization”, but not the construction of a democratic rule of law. Stalin was nothing more than a function of the totalitarian regime: whoever was in his place, the inhuman essence of the dictatorship would not have gone anywhere. Perhaps the forms of repression would have been different, the level of cruelty would have been different - more or less - but the essence would remain the same.

When I took over 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 mind, in legislation and law enforcement practice. And we, together with the International Society "Memorial", have developed a concept for the return of historical memory, which is now called "On the perpetuation of 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 was given to political repression 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, of our television to create an image of a kind of "Stalin-light", and, moreover, solely for the sake of rating, for the sake of advertising revenue. And the task of eradicating stereotypes of totalitarian consciousness remains unfulfilled by our media: it is not profitable for them, which means it is not interesting.

The totalitarian regime has become so ingrained in the public consciousness that today I often ask my students and postgraduates a question: "You were born when the Soviet regime was gone - where did you get the Soviet consciousness?" I believe that the high level of inertia is to blame for everything - both in our legislation, and in law enforcement practice, and in 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 that are defined in the 1993 Constitution. In fact, she did not come back - but in many ways she went somewhere to the side. In some ways, our country is moving forward, for example, we still have some kind of market economy. And the Constitution that we have is a worthy document and for all of us now is the main starting point, the main support. If there was 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 the statements that we generally have such a mentality that there is a desire for authoritarianism, for the so-called "strong hand"? Or is it really Soviet inertia and something needs to be done about it?

I think that 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 so happened in our country that the period of reforms is necessarily followed by counter-reforms. Therefore, I believe that we have two national modes of transport: carousel and swing. Reform is counterreform, revolution is counterrevolution. We are chained in this sinusoid and cannot escape from it in any way.

If this is such a long inertia, how to overcome it?

Hope this sine wave has damped oscillations. For example, there were no such repressions, which were in the 30s, 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, the development of technology plays a huge role in this. For example, the Internet itself does not change anything in our social life, but creates space for the development of democracy, for the expansion of freedom.

We are often told: how can we talk about human rights when we do not have a health care system, courts do not work normally. It seems like human rights are such an area for a more developed state and society. Or do you feel like it should somehow be embedded inside?

All our daily life is nothing more than a struggle for the realization of human rights. If we are poorly treated in a polyclinic, it means that the human right to health care is not respected. If the court does not work well, it means that a 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 solid human rights.

Isn't that the reason that we have a state and all these mechanisms exist as if not for a person, but by themselves?

Many departments think that way. But our Constitution just says that a person, his rights and freedoms are the highest value. This is the highest value for a totalitarian regime - not a person, but a state.

But in the perception of people, it seems so far.

In perception, unfortunately, this is very often 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! Ah, you demand something from the state! " But, by the way, again this is not a black-and-white situation, it is quite variegated - both in different spheres and in different regions. For example, if we look at the statistics with you, how many illegal acts and decisions of state bodies are appealed in court, we will see that the courts, as a rule, cancel these decisions, recognize them as illegal. The idea that it is pointless to sue the state is wrong. It's just that we only see resonant cases, decisions on which are often colored by political considerations. But there is still a huge number of non-resonant cases that are resolved quite 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 at work, trying to get a review of decisions that infringe on human rights. But court decisions can only be reviewed by a higher court, not by the Human Rights Council. The council can only give advice.

Our strategic goal is to educate independent judges and enable them to be independent. To do this, we need to use some organizational and legal mechanisms. Well, for example, such a simple thing as the election and rotation of court presidents. But so far we have not been able to break through.

But in our country with rotation in general, the situation is difficult.

Yes, finding a balance between rotation and succession is a difficult task. But if we talk about the judicial system, then it is necessary, first of all, to take away from the chairmen of courts the administrative powers in relation to judges, because today judges regard the chairperson of the court 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 so we are now trying in our schools to try to implement the idea of \u200b\u200ba school court, a school ombudsman. I agreed with the chairman of the Tver regional court that he suggested that the heads of district courts invite schoolchildren not on excursions, but to real court hearings. It seems to me that such visits had a very important educational effect for both schoolchildren and judges. When the judge sees that childish eyes are looking at him, he will realize that he has no right to fool these unspoiled souls. It seems to me that it would be very cool. And that child who will be a judge at school, having received a mandate to sort out 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 needs to be formed in the child, and the adult needs to create conditions so that he can maintain it. This is what we are trying to implement now.

And you do not have the feeling that any attempts to break this whole system,to gain independence from within is a little akin to quixoticism?

I agree. It's not for nothing that I have a figure of the hero of Cervantes on my table. But the struggle for human rights is not only quixotic: it requires patience, perseverance, consistency and, if you like, boring.

And, apparently, the belief that this is possible.

Sure. If a person does not believe in what he is doing, then he should be doing something else. I believe that we will succeed, although I know that we do not succeed in everything and not immediately. Take at least the same program for perpetuating 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 dull 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 work. And finally, four years after being presented to the president, on August 15, 2015, the concept was finally approved by the government. Now we have obtained a presidential order on the creation of a non-departmental working group, whose tasks include coordinating the implementation of this document - the Concept of State Policy for Perpetuating the Memory of Victims of Political Repression. That is, we already have not only a legal and regulatory framework on which we rely, but also an organizational mechanism with which we will continue to promote this concept, overcoming both inertia and conscious resistance. You know, I often repeat: if the task were easy, we would not have been invited.

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 it on yourself? Is there a moral choice that needs to be made?

No. I always say what I think.

That is, you do not feel that society believes that, of course, they made a compromise, working with the authorities, and the state, on the contrary, seems to have nominally appointed to a position on human rights, and that's good.

No. If they appointed me and told me to sit quietly and say everywhere that we are doing well with human rights, I would immediately refuse. When I am asked, I always answer that in Russia human rights are poorly protected, but at the same time I add: “In some things it has become better, in some things it has become worse, in some things 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 with it.

As with the law on rallies ...

Yes, as with the law on meetings. And, by the way, we managed to defend something there.

But he was accepted anyway.

But we managed to defend something. And in the law on insulting religious feelings, we have made very serious progress, because at first it was completely cannibalistic. We managed to defend the option, which, 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 obstruct worship. After all, in our country there are various religious organizations, including those that are very uncomfortable.

For example, we have achieved several amnesties: for the 20th anniversary of the Constitution, for the anniversary of Victory. Do you think it was easy? No, all our initiatives are taken with great difficulty, but this never stops us. We understand that the prison population needs to be reduced, it is necessary to introduce a system of re-socialization of prisoners. All kinds of people are held in our prisons - there are, of course, hardened criminals, but there are also many who got there accidentally and undeservedly. And we also need to take care of these people, so it's great that we managed to achieve the creation of a system of public monitoring commissions that monitor the situation with respect to human rights in places of detention.

How do you for yourself on a daily basis justify the need to remain in this post, to engage in this business, given that we now have freedoms and rights, it seems, are curtailed more?

So you need to do everything so that they do not fold. To do everything to ensure that there is a movement not to infringement of rights, but, on the contrary, to expand human rights. This is what we are doing.

But how do you motivate yourself? We are all human and pushing through such resistance is not easy.

Thank God, we have 54 people on the Council. I couldn't have done it alone. Moreover, I am not a boss in the Council - I am a friendly interface. My task is to create conditions for contact between the Council and the authorities and to push our proposals through 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 in comparison with what we should do. And I can tell you: I am not at all ashamed of our Council. Everything that we have done and are doing is all right and worthy. I am ashamed only for what we have not had time or could not do. Shame, I must say, is a great motivator.