Still Astakhov goes. But his dismissal — voluntary-compulsory, is not so sudden as his rise to his post six and a half years ago.
The post of the Commissioner for children’s rights is a typical Western innovation, transplanted to Russian soil. There, in Europe, the children’s Ombudsman — is a full-time humanist. For this position are people with the appropriate background and mentality. And requirements of the society, concerned about the situation of minors, which according to modern concepts faces a lot of dangers are also clear.
We, in Russia, in the time of Peter, is a purely mechanical fashion learning from the West “Mulk” without a basic understanding of their content and substance. Somewhere someone heard that there are some commissioners childhood. Sounds good to me, children are sacred, why not implement? And implemented. And the first step was with HR point of view is very good. In 2009 the Ombudsman was appointed Aleksey Golovan, a recognized expert, former Moscow Ombudsman on the rights of the child. But after four months Golovan quit — the mysterious resignation of the decades, the answer to which journalists did not know.
And then emerged the figure of Pavel Astakhov. Technically is also good. Not official, a well-known public figure, though not the defender, but the lawyer. The language is very even suspended photogenic. The latter was very important because it quickly became clear that in Russia today the children’s Ombudsman is an important public relations position. I think that in any Western country nor a colleague Astakhov has not attracted as much attention as he. Plus for the Kremlin was important (probably more likely) his political loyalty is the founder of the movement “For Putin” in another stand and could not.
Pavel Astakhov pretty quickly got into trouble in politics — the “law of Dima Yakovlev” brought him to the forefront of confrontation with the West. His passion for publicity, to the attention of journalists, to spectacular statements are met to the highest degree. It is worth noting that the Commissioner for children’s rights is, by and large, sinecure: never meet, but from all I ask. For someone is the ultimate dream. And for someone — a convenient starting point. It is not known what was on the mind Astakhov, whether he wanted for as long as possible to savor the pleasure from his status, or he had more ambitious dreams.
But as fast as our hero ascended to the higher realms, it became clear that his relationship with the media does not add up. Astakhov repeatedly said is not what he expected “progressive community”. Charming high society party-goer rapidly turned into a minion of the regime, justifying its most unpopular decisions. Besides verbal incontinence Astakhov (the back of the advocate’s eloquence, his love of the sonorous phrase, have rendered him a disservice. Carefully press began to gather behind him all his mistakes and reservations.
A few years Astakhov, the Kremlin supported, moreover, considered indispensable, Putin himself said, “by the way, I see him aggressively, I would say, sometimes even dramatically and consistently fighting for the interests of the children… I think it somewhere even starting to fear, and it is very good. But the Ombudsman should not be afraid, that’s the whole thing. His task is not to “put themselves” in the eyes of other officials. Its mission is to instill trust and respect, serve as a moral tuning fork, as liked to say twenty years ago. The power of the Commissioner is not in direct communication not Mediterranean countries, and softpower. Boasting Astakhov, the number of Directors of orphanages, he took off after his audit, evidence of deep Soviet way of thinking.
However, the number of scandals involving the Ombudsman, was accumulated exponentially. A mismatch of human positions was becoming more obvious. Among other things, he lacked basic taste. Silly words about the tragedy on the Syamozero — “well, how did you swim?” were only the last straw (and maybe in parallel, there was the expense of the other errors — who knows the secrets of the Kremlin towers?).
Lesson Pavel Astakhov is that in order to achieve success in what you do, it is necessary in this case to believe, to fit him mentally. Astakhov, a former student-a former Soviet KGB officer and successful lawyer, did not meet her at all ideological parameters. And the post of Ombudsman for children — it is ideological. No wonder that until recently it did not exist — it arose in the West as a response to the latest trends in the field of child protection. Will not enumerate them — they are already quite well-known, at least by the criticism of homegrown conservatives, frightening national citizen the horrors of the juvenile justice and adoptions by same-sex families. In Russia, the mentality of the relevant services remains at the level of Soviet commissions on Affairs of minors.
Astakhov tried — as best they could. Not his fault he was in this position. Yes, he could have refused, realizing that not Senka cap. But in his circle of such proposals is not accepted to give, and the second time can call. As a politician he felt and realized really wanted, exerting all kinds of political services on the topic of the day, which was also unacceptable. Here, however blame and the highest government — what tasks she gave Astakhov, shows clearly its relation to his office.
By and large, the Kremlin as a children’s Ombudsman was needed a man like Vladimir Lukin or Ella Pamfilova — tolerant, not hurrying statements, not ambitious lawyer with an extensive career plans, not a social party animal. I would like to believe that such a figure will be found — after the failure Astakhov. Although, however, the appointment Moskalkova on a similar position does not inspire optimism. Still, the requirement of loyalty and predictability outweigh everything else. Although Lukin and Pamfilova was also loyal, and predictable, but they have to first plan out other personality traits.
Worse is the fact that the resignation Astakhov heralded them so that there remain great doubts — if he understood anything from its failure? All said it’s focused on one thing — that no one could think that the dissatisfaction of the society has any value. “I received a severe scolding from the President, received his deserved… Who was not there, who was not present who have not seen these circumstances, then, sorry, they can’t be an objective judge. I’m an employee, I am a soldier, I have a boss is the President, and I am his representative… After a very serious, a Frank conversation I applied, but the decision will be made by the President…” Thesis is simple — quit not because people are against it. The protesting voice of the public is thinner than a squeak, and then voting on the relevant website for his resignation, mostly bots. There is only the President who decides. It seems that such a move Astakhov, the Kremlin will appreciate.Related posts: