Citing the need to combat nondemocratic, ultranationalist movements, Russian
President Vladimir Putin has introduced legislation that would allow the banning
of extremist groups. Such laws exist in many countries, but experts express
concern that Putin's bill could be misused to shut down mainstream opposition
parties.
Prague, 10 May 2002 (RFE/RL) -- In terms of rhetoric, Russia's President
Vladimir Putin has fully embraced the global war on terrorism, while putting a
unique domestic spin on the issue.
In recent weeks -- most notably in his state-of-the-nation address on 18
April -- Putin has drawn a direct connection between terrorism and homegrown
ultranationalist groups that have appeared on the fringes of Russian society
over the past decade.
Putin says the skinheads, neo-Nazis, and other extremists who parade through
Russia's cities and have caused occasional violence, pose a threat to society.
He says the answer to the threat is new anti-extremism legislation that he has
put forward for parliament's consideration.
The head of the State Duma's Legislative Committee, Pavel Krasheninnikov,
agrees. He said this week that Russia is in urgent need of a new law restricting
not just extremist individuals but organizations as well, noting that almost all
European countries have such statutes.
Analysts believe the bill, which is now being considered by the Duma's
Justice Committee, has a good chance of passing. Public sentiment is with Putin
on the issue.
But some politicians, especially the Communists, have expressed worries that
certain of the bill's provisions could be used to muzzle legitimate expressions
of opposition. The fact that the Communist Party stands in opposition to a bill
ostensibly aimed at shutting down neo-Nazi organizations is an irony, but also
understandable.
Stephan de Spiegeleire, a Russia analyst at the RAND Europe think tank, said:
"You could understand how they would be worried, because the organization
of mass disturbances for any reason of intolerance -- and that could be defined
very broadly -- could be seen as a cause for activating this law. Under the
current law, it's only physical persons that can be tried for this and under
this law it would also be organizations, so you could see how the Communist
Party would have felt threatened by it and would still feel threatened by
it."
In other words, if the bill is approved, calls by the Communists or any other
party for a nationwide strike or other civil disobedience could give the
government an excuse to ban the party.
Attempts several years ago by former President Boris Yeltsin to have a
similar bill passed were blocked by the Communists. But the Communists were
recently removed from key committee posts in the Duma, leaving little to block
Putin's initiative.
De Spiegeleire agrees with Putin that Russia does have what is perhaps too
liberal a regime concerning neo-Nazi sympathizers.
"It's obviously true that Russia has had an extraordinarily liberal
regime on these kinds of matters. As you know, if you walk around in any
bookstore on the street or in any flea market --- it's amazing the amount of
things you can buy in Russia that you wouldn't be able to buy probably anywhere
else in the Western world. [Adolph Hitler's book] "Mein Kampf" is for
sale everywhere; Nazi paraphernalia really can be bought at a lot of flea
markets in Moscow and other Russian cities. So it is true that Russia has had an
extraordinarily liberal climate on all of this," de Spiegeleire said.
The reason for this anomaly goes back to Soviet times. Whereas all countries
in Western Europe instituted restrictions on various forms of extremism
following the end of World War II, the Soviets did not devote much attention to
the issue.
"In the Soviet Union there was this feeling that Soviet society was
immune to these forms of extremism. There really wasn't this entire legislation
that you would have expected and that you saw emerge in Western Europe. It's
really only in the Russian period that this issue became much more salient --
also because of the appearance of all these extreme-right and extreme-left
organizations -- that people felt something had to be done about it," de
Spiegeleire said.
All of this would appear to back Putin's argument. But de Spiegeleire said
both the timing of Putin's bill and the current state of Russia's judiciary
should cause some concern.
"Extremism, as it is outlawed or made more difficult under this law,
certainly doesn't seem to play the same role anymore in Russia that it did a
couple of years ago. It's a long time since we've heard about guys like Makashov
and Barkashov and Sterligov -- all these extreme-right leaders who had
paramilitary organizations going for them. So it seems to me that the timing,
from that point of view, may be a little bit off. And then also, if Russia had a
normal legal system, I would feel more comfortable in saying that this law is
perfectly O.K. Unfortunately, the legal system in Russia is far from perfect and
also the politicization, the continued politicization of the legal system makes
for a situation where laws like this could really be abused," De
Spiegeleire said.
The Kremlin cites Europe's example as it pushes for an anti-extremism law.
What has the continent's experience been with such laws in the post-war era and
what lessons can this offer?
Giovanni Capoccia is a political scientist at Oxford University who has
studied the issue. He said that preserving the interests of free speech and free
association in the broadest possible measure, while safeguarding democracy
against extremists, is a delicate balancing act. Different countries pursue
different models.
"After World War II and the experience of fascism or occupation regimes,
there were quite a lot of reactions in terms of legislation in different
countries, so the level of precision with which extremism or extremist actions
are defined varies enormously across countries. And so it's very difficult to
find one single equilibrium point across Europe that says: This is what an
extremist party is, this is what an extremist ideology is, and this is what an
extremist action is," Capoccia said.
Capoccia said some European countries have chosen narrow definitions of what
constitutes an extremist party -- banning only Nazi groupings, for example --
while others leave the matter more open.
"You have cases, for example, like Germany, where extremist parties or
groups or associations are defined quite narrowly, in the constitution and in
the jurisprudence of the constitutional accords. And you have cases like France,
where in the constitution for example, the definition of what parties cannot do
if they don't want to be unconstitutional is much more vague. So, it's
impossible to come up with one single European standard," Capoccia said.
While some countries focus on a party's or group's stated ideology in
assessing whether it is extremist, other countries, such as the United States,
focus on actions. As long as individuals or groups do not incite violence, they
may publicly advocate almost any position. Inevitably, whatever the laws in
force, it is the courts that become important arbiters in determining whether a
party has overstepped the bounds of constitutional behavior.
"The standards in this respect in Europe are that there is always --
except in exceptional circumstances where you have a state of emergency or
something like that -- there is always some form of judicial review,"
Capoccia said.
In the final analysis, laws are only as good as those who interpret them. And
as de Spiegeleire noted, Russia's judiciary is sometimes subject to government
pressure and the courts have not always demonstrated sufficient independence.