The Yegor Gaidar Foundation presented its annual awards for achievements in the study of economics, history, contribution to the formation civil society in Russia and the development of international humanitarian ties, - reports the correspondent " Novaya Gazeta"Anna Baidakova. Oleg Budnitsky became the laureate in history for compiling a book about the correspondence of historians V. Maklakov and M. Aldanov in exile. Receiving the award, Budnitsky noted that Maklakov, having spent years in exile, made an attempt to reconcile with the Soviet authorities, but was alone the point on which he could not agree with Stalin was human rights.For the development of international relations with Russia, he received the award ex-president Israel Shimon Peres, who died on September 28 this year. The son of a politician received the award.

“My father was a dreamer, a man of great 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. “Although he was already over 90 years old, we all feel that he left us too soon. Our family spoke Hebrew, Yiddish and Russian. He said: “When I come to Russia, I hear as if my mother sings to me,” Jonathan Perez said, recalling the origin of his father, who was born on the territory of present-day Belarus. “He spoke warmly of 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," said the host of the ceremony, Nikolai Svanidze, - went to 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,” said a member of the Trustees about the laureate Board 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 for him, but for the entire Council: "I'm not the boss, I'm a friendly interface."

Natalya Zubarevich, director of the regional program of the Independent Institute, became the laureate in economics social policy. “Finally, the old woman of economic 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 desirable not to turn this into a form of schizophrenia. Times are really tough. We are all obsessed with Moscow, and in the regions we notice only arrests and protests. But 21% of citizens live in million-plus cities. 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 the field of history, economics, contribution to the formation of civil society and the development of international humanitarian ties with Russia. IN different 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 nomination "For actions contributing to the formation of civil society" was awarded to the head of the Presidential Council for Human Rights (HRC) Mikhail Fedotov.

The award ceremony was held the day before in the Moscow Youth Theater.

In his welcoming speech, the chairman of the board of trustees of the fund, the head of Rosnano Anatoly Chubais reminded the audience that in the 25 years since the creation of the Gaidar government, "three ideologies" have developed in Russia: the leftist, nationalist, and "ours, the liberal."

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

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 dislikes the reformers.

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

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 for Social Policy Natalya Zubarevich.

According to her, times are hard 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 National Research University 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 "The Rights of Man and Empire", in which Budnitsky collected the correspondence of figures of the Russian emigration Vasily Maklakov And Mark Aldanova for 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 relations with Russia" was awarded the former President of Israel Shimon Peres. Unfortunately, he passed away on September 28, so his son came to collect the award. Nehamia Perez.

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

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

In the nomination with the largest "prize" - 1 million rubles, while in all the rest the reward is 500 thousand rubles. - "For actions contributing to the formation of civil society" was awarded the head of the Human Rights Council Mikhail Fedotov.

"Sounds like an article of the Criminal Code"- joked Svanidze, announcing the nomination.

According to Leonid Gozman, a member of the Committee of Civic Initiatives, one can accuse a person "of collaborating with the system", but "he does the 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 much about myself before. good words". According to the head of the HRC, he was even called a "human rights saboteur," Kommersant quotes him.

Fedotov promised to transfer the received reward to the construction of a 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 at first, of course, he would pay taxes.


Chairman of the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights Mikhail Fedotov this year became the winner of the Yegor Gaidar Prize in the nomination "For actions contributing to the formation of civil society."

The solemn 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 contributing to the formation of civil society" and "For outstanding contribution to the development of international humanitarian relations with Russia" .

Natalia Zubarevich, a Russian economic geographer and director of the regional program of the Independent Institute for Social Policy, received the award in the nomination "For Outstanding Contribution to the Field of Economics". For contribution to development historical science in Russia, Oleg Budnitsky, Russian historian, director of the International Center for the History and Sociology of World War II and Its Consequences, was awarded. 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 award.

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

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


“All 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 mind, 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 Council under the President of the Russian Federation 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 nomination "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 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 had previously repeatedly taken to Pushkin Square for a “glasnost demonstration” - Alik Ginzburg, Yuri Galansky, Lesha Dobrovolsky and Vera Lashkova - were tried in the Moscow City Court. And we just stood at the court building on Kalanchevka, waiting for news from the hall where the "open" court session was going on. Everything was calm, only a middle-aged foreman of militia was patrolling around our little group all the time. When the people were hungry and cold, I was sent to the square of three stations for hot pies. Returning, I saw from a distance how my comrades were stuffed into a police van that had arrived. The same police officer commanded this lawlessness.

In the evening, on the way home, I happened to be in the same subway car with this very foreman of the police. But I was a second-year student at the Faculty of Law of Moscow State University, and I had a portfolio with me with comments on the Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes. 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 Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR he violated and what he is supposed to do under the Criminal Code of the RSFSR. I ended my impromptu lecture like this: “And now, mark my word, the time will come when you will stand trial and answer for the obviously illegal detention of law-abiding citizens.”

I had to get off at the Kropotkinskaya station. When I went to the exit of the car, the foreman grabbed my arm and dragged me into the police room. There he called somewhere, he was told, as I understand it, that all the detainees at the city court building had already been released and that I should also be released, having drawn up a protocol. In the protocol, he wrote: “He threatened to kill a police officer while on duty. official duties". When I signed the protocol, I added my 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 my matriculation certificate and other documents. When I asked what happened, the course inspector answered in a whisper: “They called from the KGB and said that you should be expelled.” When my mother found out that I had been expelled from the Faculty of Law (my father had already died by that time), she immediately rushed to our dean G.V. Ivanov, who was her classmate. And she campaigned for two more professors, her schoolmate friends: 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. At the same time, I started working as a reporter for the Vechernyaya Moskva newspaper. So journalism and law intertwined in my life and determined main theme- Freedom of speech and press. You can say that I am a singer of one song - a song about freedom of the media.

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

I must say right away that the term "de-Stalinization" very roughly reflects the task that our Council set for itself. When Louis XV was executed in France, after all, no one carried out "debourbonization", but built a republic. De-Stalinization in the Soviet Union was 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 constitutional state. Stalin was nothing more than a function totalitarian regime: whoever was 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 - more or less - but the essence would have remained the same.

When I assumed the functions of the 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 Society "Memorial", developed a concept for the return historical memory, which is now called "On Perpetuating the Memory of the Victims of Political Repressions".

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 political repressions were launched for the entire long historical period, culminating in the collapse of Soviet state. Therefore, it is ridiculous 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, moreover, solely for the sake of rating, for the sake of advertising income. And the task of eradicating the stereotypes of totalitarian consciousness remains unfulfilled by our media: it is not profitable for them, which means they are not interested.

The totalitarian regime has become so ingrained in the public consciousness that today I often ask my students, graduate students: “You were born when Soviet power was no longer there - where did you get Soviet consciousness? Guess it's all to blame high level inertia - both in our legislation, and in law enforcement practice, and in public consciousness. Unfortunately, in the 1990s we were unable to overcome this inertia, we were unable to turn the country around so that it could only move forward towards the goals that were defined in the 1993 Constitution. In fact, she did not return back - but in many ways she went somewhere sideways. In some ways, our country is moving forward, for example, after all, some kind of market economy we now have. And the Constitution that we have is a worthy document and for all of us now is the main reference point, 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 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, after all, Soviet inertia, and something needs to be done about it?

I think that this is Soviet inertia, but it is also involved 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 happened with us that the 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 is counter-reform, revolution is counter-revolution. We are chained in this sinusoid and cannot break out of it.

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

I hope that this sinusoid has damped oscillations. For example, there were no such repressions that were in the 30s in the 50s and 60s. In the 1990s 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 public 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 healthcare system, the courts do not work normally. It seems like human rights are such an area for a more developed state and society. Or do you think it should somehow be built in?

All our everyday life- nothing more than the struggle for the realization of human rights. If we are treated badly 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 the human 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, falsification in elections - human rights. Our whole life is continuous human rights.

But isn't it 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 do just that. 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, as it seems, so far so.

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! Oh, you demand something from the state!” But, by the way, again, the situation here is not black and white, it is rather motley - both in different areas, and in different regions. For example, if we look at the statistics with you, how many illegal acts and decisions are appealed in court government agencies, then we will see that the courts, as a rule, cancel these decisions, recognize them as illegal. The notion that suing the state is pointless is wrong. It's just that you and I see only resonant cases, decisions on which are often colored by political considerations. But there is more great amount non-resonant cases that are resolved quite according to the law. Therefore, I am not ready to unequivocally say that we have bad courts. We have very good judges, decent, professional, honest people, I know them personally. But there are others - I often encounter them at 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. Council can only give advice.

Our strategic objective- 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, this simple thing, as the election and rotation of chairmen of the courts. But so far we haven't been able to break through.

But we have a difficult situation with rotation in general.

Yes, finding a balance between rotation and succession is a difficult task. But if we talk about judicial system, then it is necessary, first of all, to take away administrative powers in relation to judges from chairmen of courts, because today judges consider the chairman of the court as their boss, and this contradicts constitutional principle 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 is why we are now trying in our schools to try to implement the idea of ​​a school court, a school ombudsman. I agreed with the chairman of the Tverskoy regional court that he suggested that the leaders of the district courts invite schoolchildren not to 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 that children's eyes are looking at him, he will realize that he has no right to fool these uncorrupted souls. I think that would be very cool. And the child who will be a judge at school, having received a mandate to sort out conflicts between peers, already at this young age will 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 preserve it. This is what we are trying to implement now.

And you do not have the feeling that any attempts to reverse this entire system,Is getting independence from within a bit akin to quixoticism?

Agree. No wonder I have a figurine of the hero Cervantes on my table. But the fight for human rights is not only quixotic: it requires patience, perseverance, consistency and, if you like, tediousness.

And, apparently, the belief that it is possible.

Certainly. 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, for example, the same program to perpetuate the memory of the victims of political repression. We presented it to the President on February 1, 2011. Medvedev approved it, pointing out in his resolution "This is very important for Russia." But then we ran into dull resistance in various corridors of power. We had to overcome all these bureaucratic obstacles for a long time: persistently, systematically, patiently, boringly. Persuade, prove, even intrigue, if necessary. You know, when patience ends, endurance begins. Very important quality for human rights activities. And finally, four years after the presentation to the president, on August 15, 2015, this concept was finally approved by the government. Now we have achieved a presidential order on the creation of a non-departmental working group, whose tasks include coordinating activities for the implementation of this document - the Concept public policy to perpetuate the memory of the victims of political repression. That is, we already have not only a legal 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 was 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 it? Is there a moral choice that needs to be made?

No. I always say what I think.

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

No. If I had been appointed and told to sit quietly and say everywhere that everything is fine with our human rights, I would immediately refuse. When asked, I always answer that in Russia human rights are poorly protected, but at the same time I add: “In some ways it got better, in some things it got worse, in some ways there was 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 they fought with him.

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 something managed to be defended. And in the law on insulting religious feelings, we have achieved very serious progress, because at first it was completely cannibalistic. We managed to defend a variant 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 impede the implementation of worship. After all, in our country there are different religious organizations, including those that are very unsweetened.

For example, we have 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. A variety of people are kept in our prisons - there are, of course, hardened criminals, but there are also many who got there by accident and undeservedly. And these people also need to be taken care of, so it's great that we managed to create a system of public monitoring commissions that monitor the situation with respect for human rights in places of detention.

How do you daily justify the need to remain in this post, to do this business, given that our freedoms and rights seem to be curtailing more now?

So you need to do everything so that they do not collapse. To do everything to ensure that there is 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 do you motivate yourself? We are all human, and pushing through such resistance is not easy.

Thank God, we have 54 people in the Council. I wouldn't have been able to do this alone. Moreover, I am not the head of the Council - I am a friendly interface. My task is to create conditions for contact between the Council and the authorities and to get 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 done clearly not enough compared to 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 yet managed or could not do. Shame, I must say, is a great motivator.