06.12.2000, Kertman G.
|
The majority of Russians (60%) believe that «after their resignation, presidents shouldn't have privileges differing from other pensioners», while only 34% hold that «the state should ensure certain privileges for former presidents». Opponents of all kinds of privileges for former presidents prevail in all groups of the society, notably among senior citizens, rural dwellers, and people with low education and income levels. Representatives of such groups possessing considerable social resources, such as young respondents (38%), relatively well-to-do people (41%), those living in big cities (39%) and, especially, highly-educated persons (47%), stick to the idea of the state being obliged to ensure some guarantees for ex-presidents.
The surveyed expert opinions differ strikingly from those of «rank-and-file» citizens, with supporters of privileges for ex-presidents outnumbering their opponents by six to one.
To assess this data adequately, one should take two things into account. For one thing, most respondents were neither able nor willing to consider this issue exclusively in terms of constitutional law, abstracting from ideas and feelings linked to the name of Boris Yeltsin, the only ex-president Russia has at this time. Despite the moderators' titanic efforts, the group discussions' participants tended to restrict the subject to the specific privileges and guarantees given to Yeltsin by Vladimir Putin's recent decree. Undoubtedly, the nationwide poll respondents, too, when asked about ex-presidents in general, uttered their understanding of how Boris Yeltsin should be treated.
For another thing, people surveyed in the poll must have had trouble understanding the question itself, just as the focus group participants. The fact is that in context, the word «privileges» may mean provisions to ensure the former president's material well-being as well as his immunity from prosecution for what he has done while in office. The focus group participants, however, tried to separate these two aspects. Not infrequently, those who favored allocation of ample pensions for ex-presidents, objected to providing them immunity, and vice versa, those who spoke in favor of the immunity tended to «skimp» on the former heads of state in money.
Actually, the nationwide polls show that immunity is not regarded by the people as a built-in element of the set of ex-presidents' privileges currently discussed.
In your view, should a law be adopted that would protect former presidents from lawsuits over actions they took during their term?
| |
Total Russia |
Some believe that after their resignation, presidents shouldn't have privileges differing from other pensioners, while others hold that the state should ensure certain privileges for former presidents. Which of these two views is closest to your own? |
|
first |
Second |
Hard to answer |
|
Yes |
23 |
21 |
27 |
15 |
|
No |
68 |
73 |
63 |
49 |
|
Hard to answer |
9 |
6 |
10 |
36 |
|
Among those who believe that the state should ensure certain privileges for former presidents, there are slightly more prosecution immunity supporters than among those who are against all kinds of privileges; in both groups, opponents of immunity are more than twice as many as its advocates.
There is a noteworthy convergence on this point (i.e. the immunity issue) between the opinions of different groups in society that are so strikingly at variance as far as «privileges» in general are concerned. As the data below shows, people with a higher education are inclined to grant former presidents privileges much more often than those with primary education, whereas when it comes to immunity from legal prosecution, their stance does not differ much from that of others. The same is true for city and village dwellers, as well as for well-to-do and relatively poor respondents: notwithstanding differences of opinions on other items, all of them alike hardly support the idea of ex-presidents' immunity from legal prosecution. It is only the youth who are slightly more «generous» than the older generations.
| |
Total Russia |
Education |
|
Primary |
General Secondary |
Special Secondary |
Higher |
|
Some believe that after their resignation, presidents shouldn't have privileges differing from other pensioners, while others hold that the state should ensure certain privileges for former presidents. Which of these two views is closest to your own? |
|
First |
60 |
65 |
63 |
57 |
50 |
|
Second |
34 |
26 |
31 |
37 |
47 |
|
hard to answer |
6 |
8 |
5 |
6 |
3 |
|
In your view, should a law be adopted that would protect former presidents from lawsuits over actions they took during their term? |
|
Yes |
23 |
22 |
22 |
23 |
25 |
|
No |
68 |
64 |
69 |
70 |
69 |
|
Hard to answer |
9 |
14 |
10 |
7 |
6 |
|
A considerable portion of respondents, particularly the highly-educated, the relatively well-to-do, and the young, by «privileges» mean only the pensions for ex-presidents, but not guaranteed immunity from prosecution. As the focus groups show, however, the first question concerning «privileges» was obviously and correctly taken by many as implying immunity. This leads to the suggestion that, were it not for the unpopular idea of making former presidents «untouchable», the respondents wouldn't perhaps deny them «privileges» (consisting solely in pensions) so resolutely.
This suggestion is backed up by the fact that the percentage of those surveyed who approve of providing bodyguards for ex-presidents is noticeably higher than for those who think that «the state should ensure certain privileges» for them.
In your view, should the state provide personal bodyguards for former presidents, or not?
| |
Total Russia |
Some believe that after their resignation, presidents shouldn't have privileges differing from other pensioners, while others hold that the state should ensure certain privileges for former presidents. Which of these two views is closest to your own? |
|
First |
Second |
Hard to answer |
|
It should |
40 |
31 |
57 |
26 |
|
It shouldn't |
54 |
66 |
38 |
26 |
|
Hard to answer |
7 |
3 |
5 |
48 |
|
Moreover, about one-third of those denying former presidents any privileges differing from other pensioners consent to their bodyguards being paid by the state. At the same time, there are even more supporters of privileges who oppose the idea of providing state-paid bodyguards for ex-presidents, but this is a different issue.
As for the experts, their stance on ex-presidents' being immune from prosecution is more ambiguous than that of the common people, but the majority of them are also against it. It has to be pointed out that, in distinction from the nationwide poll, the experts were asked this question prior to more general questions concerning privileges. From this, they must have inferred that immunity and privileges were two different issues, which encouraged them to speak in favor of the latter all the more resolutely, as it was believed to have nothing to do with the former.
In group discussions, the chief argument most frequently adduced by opponents of any privileges for ex-presidents, be it immunity or pensions, was to the effect that after resignation, the former head of state becomes an ordinary citizen:
- "The president is an ordinary person. Why should he have any privileges other than all the rest? What guarantees does an engineer or a factory director get when he is discarded?"
- "A president is a man just like anybody else. Why should he be given special guarantees?"
- "As long as he is in office, he should enjoy special privileges to work better and rest better, so that he can perform properly. But as soon as he works no more, he is a man like all the others, a pensioner".
A woman participant of a group discussion expressed indignation at Boris Yeltsin's "junket" trip to Yekaterinburg to attend an old students' homecoming, saying: «It's wrong, because he is nobody now». Indeed, this incident had impressed the respondents deeply and was cited many times during group discussions.
Some of the discussion participants don't agree with this quasi-egalitarian logic. They felt it's inadequacy, though, rather than understanding it, and couldn't verbalize articulate arguments.
- "I don't think the president is a man just like anybody else. Being a president alone means being not like anybody else»,
a woman respondent said.
– Even after he retires?", a man demurred.
– Even after he retires, nevertheless, the woman insisted. – There ought to be some guarantees, but limited ones. This must be stipulated by the law".
Another woman participating in the discussion tried to object the thesis that «a president is a man just like anybody else», and claimed:
- "The fact is that not everyone is born to be a president... So he must keep some privileges, all the same".
On the surface, opponents of privileges for ex-presidents represent a constitutional, lawful, democratic type of reasoning that postulates equal rights for all citizens, whereas the advocates of privileges stand for an archaic political culture, as subjects ascribing their ruler features of a nearly sacred figure, even after he has left his «throne».
These two notions of the presidency clash here. In the first one, a president is a «normal», though high-ranking, official; when his term of office expires, he automatically forfeits his right to any perquisites of «selectness». By the second notion, these perquisites belong not to the person who quits the president's office, but to the presidency itself. Through being elected by the whole people, a president comes to be not «like anybody else». After his presidential term is over , he is allowed to keep his privileges, less as an additional «bonus» for the execution of his office as head of state, than as a tribute rendered by the people who chose him to head the country. It is arguable which of these two attitudes better fits the principles of modern constitutionality and justice, but there is no reason to regard the first one a priori as «more democratic» than the second.
Although the backers of privileges for ex-presidents cannot articulate a clear refutation of the «egalitarian» reasoning, they do refer every now and then to the fact that the president leaving office came into it by the people's will. Thus they grope towards the motive behind their stance.
"We have elected him, and providing for his maintenance is the least we can do", a discussion participant said. Another expressed his support for Vladimir Putin's providing Boris Yeltsin with certain immunity guarantees, and points out that "we elected this man not just for one term, but for a second term, too. We did know already what we were doing, [we did know] what he had accomplished and what he hadn't... it was us who elected him".
However, opponents of privileges are unimpressed by such arguments. The following dialogue is illustrative in this respect:
- "But it is we who elected him.
- We elected a pig in a poke".
The question whether former presidents should be immune from prosecution gave rise to the most heated debates during the group discussions.
Adversaries of immunity mostly stressed that the prospect of punishment after the end of a presidential term would «bring presidents under discipline» while they are in office, and prevent them from violating the law:
- "A man must know that he won't remain unpunished if he breaks the Constitution".
- "Yes, maybe that will make a person filling such a post think of the consequences. Otherwise certain people can disobey the law with impunity...
Doing what they like with impunity.
No limits. I'm the president, I do what I want. And I'm not going to [be punished] for it – see the guarantees I've got".
- "In case he violates [the law], the punishment must be unavoidable, whether we feel pity for him or not...Don't we feel pity with the one who is shot for being a deserter? Isn't a soldier like all the others? And why is he shot? Because it is of educational value for the others. Lacking this, there impiety and impunity spread".
- "What if he starts executing [people]? What if he restores Stalinism? It's quite possible".
- "As to the paragraph concerning immunity, I wouldn't include it in [the law], because we never know what he will do next. We don't know by what principles he is going to execute his power.
The same here. For the time being he is alright, but half an hour later something might go to his head and he'll become an insane man".
By rejecting immunity for ex-presidents, some of the participants evidently thought of the possible prosecution of Boris Yeltsin. This idea was sometimes spoken clearly:
- "Yeltsin tolerated unlawful actions and committed crimes, such as when he began the war in Chechnya. Why shouldn't he be prosecuted for it? The laws are the same. To my mind, he should be prosecuted for it. There has been much bloodshed".
- "Accusing Yeltsin of genocide, one shouldn't leave this unpunished lest another [president] allow himself anything of the kind in the future".
The chief argument expressed in support of immunity is that a former president must be protected against his successors' political vengeance, disguised as criminal prosecution:
- "Otherwise, we would do like the savage people, who get their chief and devour him. I mean, they fear him [as long as he is alive], but everybody can kick a dead lion. I think it would mean the humiliation of ourselves and our country, because it's we who elected him".
- "He should not be prosecuted for his political activities during his presidential term".
- "One cannot satisfy everybody. You are always welcome to some people, and to others you are not. And you never know which of them will come into power next".
- "Each president does something for the country, so he must have some guarantees, because there are always some malcontents who can do harm to him if he has no guarantees".
Although the opponents of immunity admit that this problem exists and the jeopardy under discussion is real, they don't think granting ex-presidents an immunity guarantee would be an appropriate remedy to avert it.
At the same time, the supporters of immunity don't mean it to be comprehensive, either. They stress that exemption from jurisdiction must apply only to political actions taken by the president during his term:
- "What kind of guarantees can this man be given? That he won't be prosecuted, whatever he does? To my mind, the guarantee must stipulate that if the president wasn't ousted during his term, if there was no impeachment, he is not to be prosecuted for what he has done when executing his office. Once he has served his term, until the new elections, everything he has done should be considered in line with the law and he shouldn't be prosecuted for it".
As far as the maintenance of former presidents is concerned, supporters and opponents of privileges meet each other half-way. Virtually all of them agree that the expenses for Boris Yeltsin's maintenance are too high now. At the same time, only a few insist that ex-presidents' pension should be equal to that of "common" pensioners. The majority says these persons should hold "a reasonable amount of money": some of the respondents advocate ample pensions for ex-presidents, while others suggest that a president in office should be paid a salary big enough to allow him to provide for his old age. However, the discussion participants seem to conceive of the debates over this issue as largely abstract, since all of them are deeply convinced that by the time of his retirement, a president of Russia is sure to be a very wealthy man, regardless of how big a salary he is paid. Corruption among high-ranking officials is commonly believed to be permanent and ineradicable, as the frequently sounded and never refuted disrespectful remarks show. This notwithstanding, respondents rarely object to discussing whether ex-presidents should be allowed to keep their country residences after resignation. This subject-matter didn't arouse much interest among focus group participants, though. Some of them think that former presidents should be allotted some country houses, only more modest ones than the "Rus" Residence, while others object to even that, saying "and what about us, the common [people]?" or "we just can't afford it", meaning that an ex-president should be in position to build a country house at his own expense.
A topic that provoked greater interest among focus group participants was the former presidents' personal guard. Those advocating the appointment of personal bodyguards for an ex-president referred mostly to the necessity for protecting him against attempts on his life by persons hating the former head of state for actions he took during his term. Quite obviously, it's not an abstract ex-president these respondents mean, but precisely Boris Yeltsin.
- "He was the top person of the state. Anyone might have attacked him, for there were many disaffected people. And I think a security [service] is necessary, a reasonably-sized one, of course".
- "To prevent a terrorist action against him. Because people are indignant at many things [he has done]... Many people are resentful of Yeltsin".
- "See what happens: he is elected and thereby put into such circumstances that he can't but have more potential enemies than any of us. Whether he is good or bad, he can't satisfy all. There are always many people who have scores to settle with him".
In a group discussion in Moscow, this topic received a somewhat unexpected treatment. The former president "knows many military secrets", the respondents said, so measures must be taken to prevent their being revealed. What mattered to the respondents was no longer whether ex-presidents need protection, but whether their contacts with other people should be restricted on behalf of the state. This point of view had its supporters, too.
Amazed at such a twist, one of the discussion participants exclaimed:
- "It's just like we are talking about some scoundrels, those presidents, who are eager to go abroad and divulge secrets. After all, we don't elect such [people presidents]. Well, it can happen"
, someone objected.
Those opposing the provision of bodyguards backed up their stance either by saying that no bodyguard is efficient enough, or by saying that budgetary funds should not be spent on guarding former presidents. Many held that ex-presidents should maintain their bodyguards at their own expense:
- "He may maintain them privately".
- "Let him hire them at his own expense".
- "This man has funds of his own, so let him pay them from this fund".
These remarks show clearly the conviction shared by some respondents that the financing of ex-presidents' bodyguards is a false problem, since former presidents command sums of money that perfectly allow them to maintain their bodyguards without resorting to the state's aid.
Virtually all of the discussion participants objected to any institutionalized participation of former presidents in the country's political life, although, as many respondents admitted, their advice might in principle be useful for active politicians. A consultative body consisting of ex-presidents is not considered very topical at the moment, as the following dialogue shows:
- " A presidents' Council is a very useful thing, provided they are still in their right minds.
- Well now, which one [of our ex-presidents] is in his right mind?"
At the same time, nobody protested the idea of former presidents remaining politically active, chairing foundations, providing advice, etc. Sometimes, the name of Mikhail Gorbachev was approvingly mentioned in this context:
- "Gorbachev retired from the presidency, but he didn't disappear. He keeps doing the same business. That's the right thing to do".
Involving former presidents in political activities, creating institutions and spending budgetary funds for that end was considered unacceptable, perhaps due to the respondents' reluctance to see the first president of Russia in the political arena again. In fact, one may suggest that over time, when the current president's term nears its end, Russians will probably change their stance on these issues.
|
|
