We often hear that reform is needed in one or another area of ​​society. This word has become familiar and, therefore, non-specific. When we hear about reform again, we don’t particularly delve into the meaning. Well, we decided to change something there, so what? Is it worth delving into such political statements? Let's figure it out.

Definition

In dictionaries the term is explained quite clearly.

Reform is changes, particularly political ones. That is, the state decides that in some area of ​​its work there is stagnation or even regression. It is necessary to make adjustments to political methods. This is done with the help of reform. The algorithm is known. It is necessary to study how existing methods, including legislative ones, influence the process. Next, you need to analyze their work and identify shortcomings. The next step is to study the experience of countries that have achieved great results in this area. At the same time, wise minds are trying to invent own recipes. The last stage is implementation. Of course, in reality everything is much more complicated. However, the essence of the stages remains the same. Reform is gradual change achieved through non-revolutionary methods.

Distinctive features

Changes in society and politics are achieved in various ways. Everyone knows this. You can destroy everything and build a new one in this place. It's called a revolution. Of course, this is a progressive thing. However, it is very bloody and painful.

Such methods are not suitable for a democratic society due to the high risks for citizens. A softer way to make change is reform. This is the path of gradual transition from old to new. At the same time, both work (live) for some time. For example, housing and communal services reform. Everyone knows that this sector of the national economy has always been unprofitable. It is financially based on collecting funds from the population. They are clearly not enough for effective management of the housing stock. But more progressive methods have already been invented. However, it is difficult to introduce them into management at once. It takes time to raise enough funds to major renovation, other jobs. Therefore, housing and communal services reform is being carried out gradually and consistently. The old methods are working, and at the same time, new ones are being implemented.

Reforms of Russia

The modern history of the Russian Federation is a list of gradual and inevitable changes that are constantly being introduced into society. The fact is that after the collapse of the USSR, the political system became different. The state strives for efficiency, and therefore, to reduce its costs. In order to prevent a social explosion due to a decrease in the level of provision for those in need, it is necessary to find other, previously unknown sources of funding for programs.

In principle, the reform process has been going on for more than twenty years. It was necessary to rebuild the economic model, social and humanitarian spheres, and much more. Those who remember the USSR understand what a huge amount of work was done. Even what is visible to everyone makes an impression. This refers to the political system. We moved from an almost totalitarian one-party system to a democratic society. Citizens received such effective rights that they had never dreamed of before. Anyone freely expresses their point of view and can find something to their liking.

Social sphere

Most often it is this area of ​​public life that is reformed. This is quite reasonable, because a democratic state aims to take care of its citizens. For example, let's take elderly people. To ensure that they do not feel abandoned, and more importantly, beggars, pension reform is being carried out. The essence of the problem is the same for many countries. Life expectancy is increasing, but the birth rate, on the contrary, is falling. It turns out that the pension burden on workers is increasing. Through reform they are trying to find a path to stability in this area. That is, to practically find methods that will make it possible to provide for pensioners, while at the same time not driving employers into gray schemes. It is no secret that entrepreneurs are trying to reduce the tax burden. And in an aging society, pension contributions have to be constantly increased. Most often, reforms are aimed at gaining the loyalty of citizens. They are called socially oriented. On the other hand, transformations do not always have all the signs of reform. As a rule, they are carried out in the form of transformations. And this is a slightly different method of change. This is not a rejection of the old, but just a modification of it. Reforms imply extensive changes, the complete replacement of old policies with new ones.

On the eve of Knowledge Day, our correspondent met with the teacher - Hero of Labor Russian FederationLyudmila Kornilova to talk about the upcoming school year, students, their parents and, of course, teachers.

On Knowledge Day - an exciting meeting

About what this one will be like academic year. Every year brings something new. History teaching is undergoing a transition to linear system and completion of the concentric system in accordance with historical and cultural standards (the concentric system involved studying history in two stages: grades 5-9, and then studying the same material at a higher level in grades 10-11. - Author) . There will be certain innovations in the OGE. This year, in a number of regions, 9th grade students will take an oral exam in the Russian language. Astronomy teaching is returning to school. But the most exciting thing is the first meeting with my 9th grade class. It’s always interesting what the students have become, they’ve probably grown and matured. This period is the most difficult in their life. They are still children, but they already want to do adult things, but they are not always ready to be responsible for them.

- What reform, in your opinion, is not needed in modern schools?

I would not like it to be said, as in the 90s: “The school should provide only educational services.” Then all educational work was kicked out of her. I believe that school both teaches and educates a person, forms citizenship and patriotism. The educational direction needs to be strengthened.

- Who is to blame for poor parenting, the school or the parents?

And who said that modern children are worse educated than the previous generation? They are creative, mobile, hungry for everything new. I believe that there should be a union between parents and schools. Teachers develop what is already inherent in the child. If there is a dysfunctional situation in the family, the school will fight for him. It is, of course, unrealistic to blame all educational work on teachers alone. Yes, we teach, help, educate. What if a student sees and hears other examples at home?

Organizations without politics

- Is there a place in a modern school for any organizations, associations, or actions?

Of course, a complete return to the past is not necessary: ​​political organizations will not return to school. A children's public organization is needed and must exist. You just need to unite children according to their interests and areas, where teenagers will make a free choice of activities, show independence, argue, look for ways to solve problems, and creatively self-actualize. This is a volunteer movement, and search work, and an environmental direction. The options can be very diverse.

- What is your attitude towards the Unified State Exam? There is a lot of controversy about this.

The advantage of the Unified State Exam is that it evens out the chances. Children, regardless of where they study, in a village or city, have a chance to enter a university. A child from the outback with good scores can study in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Saratov. The downside is that students, having chosen subjects to take the Unified State Exam, study only them deeply; others consider them unimportant. There is another problem when passing: some tasks go beyond the scope of the school curriculum, introducing stress to the test taker. It would not hurt to simplify the procedure for carrying it out. Since this is an exam, the atmosphere should be more confidential.

- Is it difficult to be a teacher, starting from scratch, especially for young teachers?

Yes. The young teacher has a university diploma, but he has yet to become a teacher. And how great it is if at first you young specialist there will be a wise mentor nearby who will help, support, teach. If a teacher worked at a school for 2-3 years and did not leave, it means he will remain there for life. Sometimes you enter a class, there are guys in front of you, each with their own mood, problems, and you have to make him into a like-minded person in 45 minutes. And when, at the end of the lesson, you hear from the students: “Thank you for the lesson,” you are sincerely happy. Is this a bad job?

Your lyceum has the best students in the region. Have you ever been to a rural school where it’s cold and all the amenities are outside?

I myself studied at such a school in my homeland in the Stavropol Territory. The main thing, after all, is not the amenities, although they are important, but the teachers and the atmosphere. Then in our village there was not even a single building, we walked from one room to another, we had to walk 4 kilometers to school. By the way, I had a class teacher who worked while my father was studying. Hence the great respect, I still remember her. I am sure that you can study anywhere, even in such a school amazing, wonderful people grow up. If there is no desire, then all knowledge in the city will pass by the child.

Sometimes parents discuss the actions of the teacher. Is this appropriate?

No. The family should cultivate respect for the teacher. This is exactly how I was raised; judgmental conversations directed at teachers were never allowed in my presence. And I grew up in a family of teachers, my mother taught at school, and I saw what hard work it was. And when parents discuss a teacher in front of their children, this creates disrespect for the teacher. I always tell parents: “If you have problems, come, we’ll solve them together.”

- Parents complain about the huge volume homework. What does it depend on?

Regulated by SANPIN, it determines the level and scope of tasks. If a student goes to a specialized lyceum, he must prepare for an in-depth study of the subject, including on his own.

Why do students need ratings?

- How do current students differ from those who studied 10-15 years ago?

The previous generation studied in a collectivist environment. They tried to stay together and be friends. Now a generation has come whose upbringing is based on individualism. These are different children, they behave differently. And we all still have to see over time what they will become in the future.

Is it bad when a student strives to be the best? A person who can be a leader and will be able to prove himself is successful in life and in work. This means that this must be the case at school if we want to see young people adapted to modern life after graduation.

What is your attitude towards physical punishment applied to your own children? Previously, this approach was considered effective.

Unacceptable! A long time ago there was such a case in my practice. I spoke a lot with the father of such a student on this topic: “A person who is humiliated will never become successful and will not be able to stand up for himself.”

- Your advice to parents sending their beloved children to first grade for the first time.

See a teacher as a friend, an adviser. And go to school with all your questions and doubts, and not discuss them in the family with your child. As for specific, rather than general, advice, you should help the child adapt to school, not break down, and not scold if something doesn’t work out. You just need to explain that everyone has difficulties and we need to learn to overcome them. And further. You cannot compare a child with other children, saying how smart he is, but you... He is who he is. Just love your children!

The popular vote on the controversial reform is being disrupted

On October 17, the Central Election Commission (CEC) will decide to register a federal initiative group to hold an all-Russian referendum regarding the increase retirement age. The deputy chairman of the Central Election Commission announced this on Wednesday, October 10. Nikolay Bulaev.

“We assume that at the next meeting of the CEC we will consider these materials, I don’t want to call them documents, and the CEC, as always, will collectively make a judgment on these issues,” Bulaev said.

Let us explain what “materials” we are talking about.

On September 29, representatives of registered regional subgroups gathered for the first time at a meeting of the federal initiative group for holding a referendum. At the meeting, a single question was chosen for voting - after all, the Central Election Commission had previously approved five similar formulations. The option we settled on was proposed by Volgograd social activists.

Here it is: “Are you in favor of not raising the age established by the legislation of the Russian Federation on pensions as of July 1, 2018, upon reaching which citizens of the Russian Federation receive the right to receive an old-age pension?”

As stated by the chairman of the meeting Ilya Sviridov, this option sounds “simpler and more accessible to the people.” The organizers suggested not even considering the issues of A Just Russia and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation in order to avoid “pulling the blanket” and “political overtones.”

But then the launch of the referendum stalled. According to the law, for this it is necessary to register at least 43 subgroups (in half of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation), and their representatives must sign the petition for registration of the federal group. In total, the election commissions of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation registered 70 regional subgroups. But representatives of only 13 of them came to the historic meeting. Of the alternative subgroups to the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and A Just Russia (60 in total), only representatives of the Nizhny Novgorod, Voronezh and Orenburg regions were present.

In short, at the meeting on September 29 there was simply no quorum. This gave Nikolai Bulaev a reason, not without disgust, to recommend that the initiators of the referendum “take the matter seriously” and still gather the missing representatives before the next meeting of the Central Election Commission. According to him, the previous meeting could not be called anything other than “curious.”

He was objected to by the secretary of the meeting of the federal group, the first secretary of the Altai regional committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Maria Prusakova. According to her, the head of the Central Election Commission Ella Pamfilova“she herself called for unification, while the CEC did not take part in notifying regional subgroups about the holding of a general meeting.” But this remark did not change anything.

And now the Central Election Commission must decide whether a meeting of the federal initiative group, which is not in full strength, is legitimate. In the event of a negative conclusion, the referendum will be successfully completed - to the complete satisfaction of the Kremlin.

The Law “On the Referendum of the Russian Federation” does not stipulate the procedure for restarting the referendum in the event of the Central Election Commission’s refusal to register the initiative group. And Ilya Sviridov has already hastened to declare that it is “pointless” to start the whole procedure again.

Presumably, from the point of view of the presidential administration, attempts to organize a referendum played a role. They created the illusion that the decision to raise the retirement age could be reversed - while the scandalous bill was being pushed through the State Duma. And now the law has been passed and signed Vladimir Putin, and was generously paid for by the fall in the ratings of the Russian leader. In this situation, the referendum turned into a stone on the road to a new bright future. And with the hands of the Central Election Commission, it should be quickly thrown into a roadside ditch.

The initiative with a referendum took the authorities by surprise, notes Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Political Sciences Sergei Obukhov. - And the public outcry around the referendum was so strong that they were afraid to immediately declare the initiative worthless and legally untenable.

Let me note that in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Central Election Commission did exactly this: it recognized hundreds of thousands - without exaggeration - of signatures as unreliable or invalid, and immediately banned the holding of a referendum. Or regional election commissions decided to refuse to register initiative groups on the grounds that the proposed issues did not comply with the Constitution. This was the case in the fall of 2002, when the leadership of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation began to prepare an initiative to hold an all-Russian referendum.

But now, against the backdrop of acute dissatisfaction with the pension reform, the authorities were afraid to act in this way. Instead, they revived the law “On Referendum” and clearly showed how, within the framework of the law, any initiative with a popular vote can be destroyed.

“SP”: - What does the mechanism of this destruction look like?

The key contradiction in the law “On Referendum” is that the Central Election Commission can approve any number of options for questions on one topic, but in the regions it is possible to register only one initiative subgroup, which will promote only its formulation. It was precisely this contradiction that the authorities played on and were able to administratively “gore” the referendum.

Purely technically, this was done with the help of fake initiative subgroups. Thus, the election commission of the Omsk region registered a subgroup, which was headed by the head of the local branch of the Union of Gardeners of Russia. The Tomsk Election Commission decided to register a subgroup, one of whose authorized representatives is the responsible officer of the Tomsk Veterans Council. In the Lipetsk region, the organizers of the initiative subgroup were a cleaner and a driver of the regional budgetary institution “Center for Patriotic Education”.

But, according to my data, most of the initiative subgroups were registered by mothers with many children. It was they - poor women - who suddenly found several million rubles to pay for notary services and trips to the regions.

It is clear that behind all this there is an administrative resource. Everywhere where the Communist Party of the Russian Federation tried to register its subgroups, fake subgroups immediately popped up, which by some miracle managed to submit an application for a referendum earlier.

“SP”: - So, the Kremlin has solved the problem?

He chose an effective tactic, but only partially solved the problem. By turning to the topic of a referendum to channel the protest, the authorities showed that this instrument is within the scope of current legislation. This means it can be used in practice. We don't live just one day after all.

Now the Communist Party of the Russian Federation will now fight for holding a referendum in the Constitutional Court. Please note, Chairman of the Constitutional Court Valery Zorkin in an article in Rossiyskaya Gazeta published on October 10, he seriously criticized the pension reform. So, I think it is quite possible that an adjustment mechanism will be launched.

“SP”: - What did the referendum story change politically?

The very fact that the topic of the pension referendum lived for two months, and the authorities were afraid to immediately strangle it, speaks volumes. Yes, in the end the referendum was strangled. But we now see a lot of opportunities for developing the political process. And now I do not rule out that if the situation within Russia takes a sharp turn, the authorities themselves will resort to a referendum - to relieve social tension.

De facto, the idea of ​​a referendum proposed by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation was an attempt to give the authorities the opportunity to save face: by citing the voting results, cancel the reform. But the authorities did not take advantage of this opportunity. Well, persistence in a wrong cause always leads to losses. This applies, first of all, to the party in power - losses in the very near future.

Lawyer Dmitry Agranovsky: I will try to challenge the pension reform in the Constitutional Court

The famous lawyer and politician Dmitry Agranovsky believes that now that the pension reform has already been accepted by everyone who should have, there is only one chance left: to challenge it in the Constitutional Court.

The most important thing now is how real it is. Indeed, in reality, for the sake of the pension reform, the authorities took a very serious reputational risk and they are unlikely to agree with its abolition, since even if the pension reform has to be abolished by law, senior officials, even Putin, will not be able to restore their reputation.

What is pension reform?

Lawyer Dmitry Agranovsky called the pension reform “anti-people.” He believes that it fundamentally contradicts the social foundations of the Russian state, which are enshrined in the basic laws of Russia. According to the law of the Russian Federation, it is a social state. Should such clearly antisocial reforms really be adopted in a social state?

As Agranovsky believes, this reform is precisely in the spirit of Gaidar and the Russians will never approve of it, because they perfectly understand its entire meaning. In no way will this reform improve the well-being of citizens. It will only make things worse.

The reform, according to the lawyer, is a potential source of increased unemployment and, accordingly, poverty. Why it was necessary to violate the consensus is unknown. But the authorities clearly made a serious mistake.

The court can show civic courage

Agranovsky recalled that the Constitutional Court of Russia once recognized that Yeltsin’s decree on the liquidation of the Supreme Council was unconstitutional. Of course, this in no way gave any advantages to Yeltsin’s opponents, but at least it showed that the Constitutional Court was on the side of the people.

And now I wonder what the position of the Armed Forces will be. Of course, it is difficult to believe that the same thing that happened in 1993 will happen again, but the arguments in favor of the fact that this reform does not need to be canceled, that is, how this will be justified at the highest level, will still be no less interesting.

After all, it is clear that the Constitutional Court is unlikely to say that women are “ashamed” to retire at 55, and the rest want to work so much that they do not want to receive a pension at this time. Other arguments will be needed here, and this is of particular interest today. Moreover, citizens, Agranovsky is convinced, will continue to oppose raising the retirement age, despite the formal acceptance of the reform by the government.

The pension reform hit not only Putin’s rating, but also the rating of Shoigu and Lavrov

It is noteworthy that the pension reform affected not only the rating of President Putin, but also the rating of the two most popular ministers of the Medvedev government - Lavrov and Shoigu. It’s not even worth talking about Medvedev’s own rating. After all, it can be noted that even before the reform the level of his support was extremely low.

Let's look at how the pension reform affected the ratings of the most popular Russian politicians.

Putin

At the end of last year, the level of trust in Putin was 59%, that is, as you can understand, more than half of the citizens trusted the president completely. How has that changed now? In September, 39% trusted Putin, and now only 31%.

As you can understand, this pension reform hit Putin’s authority the hardest, since he thus ceases to find broad support, and the level of trust in him, which is symbolic, decreased to the level of the moment until Crimea was annexed to Russia.

It turns out that citizens no longer associate this event so strongly with Putin, and the pension reform causes negativity, which does not allow for a positive assessment of Putin, since Putin accepted the consequences of the reform, hoping that citizens “will treat it with understanding.”

Shoigu and Lavrov

For example, the level of trust in Shoigu was 23%, and now it is 15%. Lavrov’s situation is similar. It was 19%, now it is 10%. And such changes in the ratings of these politicians are strange for the reason that they certainly have nothing to do with the pension reform, since in principle they do not deal with these issues.

Why did Putin take responsibility for pension reform?

Pension reform is the most negative initiative of recent years from Russian government. The only noteworthy thing here is that initially the authorities did not expect such a negative reaction from the population.

Zakhar Prilepin noted that the government specifically organized the adoption of the pension reform during the period while the World Cup was taking place, so that people would not particularly notice this very reform. If we look at almost all the reforms of the government, the people for the most part were indifferent to them. Perhaps they didn’t feel pleasure, but they didn’t express emotions either.

With pension reform everything is different. And here we even had to go so far as to have the president himself take responsibility, which hardly saved the situation.

Reform at the beginning

As soon as Medvedev started talking about reform, his rating immediately fell down, over time he continued to say something, praise the reform, but everything only got worse. The press secretary leaves Medvedev, and the new press secretary suggests that the head of government reduce his activity in the media several times. As many remember, Medvedev really did not appear in public for a long time, not even on the Internet on his pages in in social networks didn't come in.

At first, Putin tried to distance himself as much as possible from the pension reform. He said through Peskov that he had nothing to do with the reform at all. But people asked questions and went to rallies. And here, in any case, something would have to be done.

Would Medvedev's speech, whose rating was 6%, be enough for the people? This would have completely buried Medvedev as a political figure in Russia, which must be clearly understood, so ultimately Putin had to speak out.

Putin's speech

Vladimir Putin spoke about pension reform, although he initially did not want to do this. The President believed that everything could be done here according to the old scheme: Medvedev takes all the negativity upon himself, the State Duma and the Federation Council adopt the law, and he then signs the matter.

The same thing happened with offshore companies in Russia. Putin has talked about deoffshorization in the past, but now he himself has signed a law on the creation of offshore companies in Russia, which have recently appeared. But, as can be noted, people mostly didn’t even notice this!

The topic here was too sensitive, it could not be ignored even if one wanted to. And Putin really thought that after his speech everything would stabilize, because he expected to justify the pension reform solely with his authority. However, it didn't work. Putin's ratings dropped after the speech, and the population as a whole remained disappointed, because some citizens expected Putin to cancel the pension reform as a whole, and not to adopt it with minor amendments.

How did television cover pension reform in Russia? Position of Kiselev and Posner

Moreover, the pension reform was often called “improving the pension system” and in general they approached the issue, not to say objectively. As a rule, raising the retirement age in in this case was simply ignored, and it was stated that the authorities only wanted to increase the size of pensions, that is, to improve the lives of citizens within the framework of Putin’s decrees.

In this regard, we will consider two positions, that is, analyst Kiselev, who is a pro-government journalist, and Pozner, who is supposedly considered a liberal and oppositionist. Why do they generally not see eye to eye, but were in agreement here?

Kiselev

Dmitry Kiselev not only praised the pension reform, but also noted that only “the crowd” could oppose it. And this is doubtful for the reason that in the past he criticized the pension reform in Ukraine, where the retirement age was also raised.

It turns out that raising the retirement age in Ukraine is slavery, but in Russia it is a great idea that benefits the entire population. It’s hard to say how this happens. But in addition to the contradictions, there was also an obvious lie.

Kiselev, for example, noted that it is “impossible” to hold a referendum on the retirement age, because referendums on raising the retirement age have never been held anywhere in the world. He even compared such a referendum to the distribution of free sausage. He directly stated that if the authorities decide to distribute free sausage to the population, then is it necessary to hold a referendum before that?

Logically, you can’t say anything, but here it should be noted that pension referendums have been held around the world, at least 5 times in the last 10 years alone. Last year, for example, there was a referendum in Switzerland. That is, we are talking about open lies and propaganda here.

Posner

“Independent” journalist Pozner came out sharply in support of pension reform, almost in the same spirit as he and other journalists sharply supported the film “Viking,” which his boss produced.

What can I say? We can say that it is strange when people with supposedly different positions look at things beneficial to the authorities in exactly the same way. Posner said that the reform needs to be supported because women are ashamed to retire so early, while men can and even want to work longer.

They, if you follow Posner’s logic, want to work longer, but not receive a pension. Really, why do they need a salary increase? This is overkill!

Yuri Boldyrev: Russians will pay for raising the retirement age

Economist Yuri Boldyrev noted such a sad point about the so-called pension reform: in fact, Russian citizens will pay for it themselves, although they oppose it.

As it turned out, Putin said that after his “softening” the pension reform became downright unprofitable for the state, that is, additional money would have to be spent on it. And this is strange for several reasons.

What will they spend the money on?

Putin said that decent sums would be spent on pension reform - 500 billion rubles. That is, less than the material motivation of officials, but if they talk about officials as if 630 billion rubles are mere pennies, then Putin said that 500 billion rubles seems like an amount that will be very difficult to find, Putin is just like that and stated that “we need to find the amount.” They will be found in the pockets of citizens, Boldyrev believes.

We are talking about spending here, but what is the spending going on? For example, the government decided to reduce the retirement age for both men and women by 5 years. Then it would be clear what the additional expenses are for.

Here the authorities do not plan to improve anything, that is, they will simply increase the retirement age - that’s all. People will not receive any bonuses, no additional expenses are required from the authorities. The authorities will receive less money from the pension reform, since women will retire not at 63, but at 60, but in fact this is not really a plus for women, but for the authorities it is +5 years in the sense that it is not necessary will pay a pension.

Power won't work?

Economist Boldyrev considers the president’s words absurd that the supposed pension reform is unprofitable for the government, but beneficial exclusively for the population. These words are exclusively needed to justify an obvious scam on a large scale.

After all, in fact, Kudrin stated in advance that the government would gain from 1 to 2 trillion a year from the pension reform. Due to Putin’s amendments, this amount may be reduced by a maximum of a quarter - no more.

But in addition to direct profit, the state will save a lot of money, if only because many people will not live to reach retirement age, but will pay contributions until the end.

And for some reason this point is not particularly discussed, although it is relevant within the framework of new realities. Indeed, in 47 regions of Russia, men actually live on average 65 years, that is, a considerable part of them will never be able to receive a pension, which must be admitted honestly.

Sergei Kurginyan: pension reform is Putin’s fatal mistake

Political scientist Sergei Kugrinyan believes that Putin made a fatal mistake when he supported and especially when he signed the pension reform. Because, Kurginyan believes, pension reform is the most blatant way of taking money from Russians.

There are various schemes that the government used in the 2000s, but, as a rule, they were not as overt, and thus both the president and the government are doing everything to destabilize the situation. Why do they need this, Kurginyan asks.

Is Putin no longer a guarantor of stability?

It is worth noting that Kurginyan previously supported Vladimir Putin, although he has a negative attitude towards Medvedev. Now, it seems, he has a negative attitude towards Putin. After all, Kurgiyan’s priorities were to maintain social stability more or less.

This was not full support for the authorities, but rather critical support for the authorities for maintaining a certain social peace for quite a long time. Now this is no longer the case and now no one will say that there is stability in Russia.

Unfortunately, the situation will only get worse, because the pension reform cannot but affect the lives of the majority in a negative sense, since not all people are ready to work for an extra 5 years, especially considering that even at the previous retirement age, about 40 people remained at work % of citizens. Where will the rest, that is, the majority, go now?

Loss of adequacy

Kurgiyan characterizes government members as people who have lost their adequacy. Because in reality, in order to maintain social stability, it was worth taking some measures to maintain the retirement age in the old format. After all, this is a consensus, why break it?

The pension fund deficit has recently amounted to 100-200 billion rubles. Is this a sufficient reason to carry out pension reform? This is not such a critical point, to put it bluntly. And for the stabilization of the pension fund there is the National Welfare Fund, where there are more than 5 trillion rubles!

Kurginyan believes that the consequences for the authorities can be very different, including the most negative, especially during the years of this very reform. Kurginyan also noted that the government has proven that it does not care about the people. Kurginyan’s movement “The Essence of Time” collected 1 million signatures of Russians and took them to the State Duma. The State Duma not only ignored this, but also representatives of the ruling party called opponents of the pension reform “demagogues” and “chatterboxes.”

Dmitry Medvedev: Russia's priority is to support companies that suffer from sanctions. Is this the reason for the pension reform?

Dmitry Medvedev now rarely speaks publicly, but when he speaks out, interesting points immediately emerge. The fact is that Medvedev recently appointed himself to be responsible for the economic development of Russia, which, of course, can hardly be considered something positive.

Since he took up this matter, he now indicates Russia's priority tasks. And although his words are as vague as possible, we still note some points and perspectives.

About support and development

Seriously listening to how Medvedev plans to develop innovations in Russia is not even funny; many remember 2008 very well and how these same innovations ended. Actually, the treasury spent a lot of money, for some reason it cut the Russian Academy of Sciences, but Rusnano and Skolkovo appeared, that is, unprofitable structures where many former government officials work.

Support for our private companies is support for the richest citizens of Russia, for example Vekselberg, Deripaska and so on. They are losing from the sanctions, so they need help. And it’s good to help.

The government allocated $1 billion to Vekselburg, that is, a very decent amount. And such measures will continue, as Medvedev hinted. And for Deripaska, that is, a person with dual citizenship, offshore companies were created in Russia at 0%.

Is there a connection with pension reform?

In this case, the connection with the pension reform is direct. The fact is that the state had a choice: who to help. Either do everything to maintain social stability, or do everything to maintain stability for a narrow group of people - officials and billionaires. The authorities chose the second option. And by stability in this case we also mean income growth, as they say real facts, since the richest in Russia are only getting richer during the years of sanctions. But there are no losses and cannot be, since the government “does not abandon its own.”

Since the government has settled on the second option, this means that no additional funds will be allocated to support the population, since billionaires need funds to ensure stability.

Therefore, it simply says in whose interests the Russian government is acting. It’s definitely not in the interests of voters, because 75% of Russians are against pension reform, and neither Medvedev, nor Putin, nor any other senior official wants to take this point into account.

Putin-Siluanov: You deceived me with the pension reform, and you will pay for it

How should we understand the president’s words that the reform brought nothing but losses to the budget?

In the photo: First Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation - Minister of Finance of the Russian Federation Anton Siluanov and Russian President Vladimir Putin (from left to right) (Photo: Mikhail Metzel/TASS)

Pension reform after presidential amendments will give a negative financial results for the state. This was announced on October 2 Vladimir Putin at a meeting with the government. The Cabinet of Ministers must find funds to finance these changes, the head of state noted.

“Another very sensitive issue. When planning the pension reform, the government assumed that there would be a positive financial result from these measures within several years. But after the adoption of the presidential amendments, it became clear that there would be no income, but, on the contrary, the government would have to finance the presidential amendments,” Putin said.

Here's what the situation looks like in numbers. The previously proposed government plan provided for “saving” more than 3 trillion between 2019 and 2024 by raising the retirement age. rubles These funds were supposed to be used for increased indexation of pensions in order to increase its size to 20,000 rubles per month. The Minister of Labor spoke about this on August 21 Maxim Topilin. However, Putin’s amendments proposed at the end of August reduced the size of the “savings” by 0.5 trillion. rubles for six years. At the same time, plans to increase pensions, which still require 3 trillion. rubles, no one refused. As a result, the missing 500 billion will need to be found somewhere.

To these words of the president, the First Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Finance Anton Siluanov reported: The Ministry of Finance will increase transfers to the Pension Fund from the federal budget in order to finance the presidential amendments. The volume of these additional transfers at first will amount to about 100 billion rubles per year.

Note: the fact that financing the presidential amendments will require an additional 0.5 trillion. rubles for six years is not news. Earlier, both Siluanov and the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned this figure Tatiana Golikova. The news is different - that the budget will remain at a loss as a result of the reform.

If so, why was it necessary to fence the garden? Why was it necessary to push through the most stringent option of raising the retirement age? Crash the ratings of United Russia, put the bill up for voting in the second and third readings, just to quickly remove the irritant that has already come back to haunt the crushing defeat of three Kremlin candidates in the gubernatorial elections? Finally, why risk the rating of Putin himself, which, according to VTsIOM, in just 9 months of this year fell from 84% to 63.7% - that is, by a staggering 20%?!

In essence, the presidential amendments provide the opportunity for men born in 1959−1960 and women born in 1964−1965 to retire six months earlier, the right to early retirement for mothers of many children, and a three-year reduction in length of service giving the right to early retirement (up to 37 years). years for women and up to 42 years for men) - were a forced concession from the Kremlin. Since if the president had not softened the reform, it is possible that the whole country would have rebelled.

What is behind the president’s words, what does the situation with financing the pension reform actually look like?

Let me remind you main principle systems pension insurance: it must be autonomous and self-financing, says Doctor of Economics, independent expert on social policy Andrey Gudkov. - But our insurance rates are too low, and this does not allow us to make the system self-financing. In 2000, when Vladimir Putin was first elected president, the tariff was 29%. Of this, 28% was paid by the employer, another 1% was taken from the employee. And now the tariff is only 22% - and that’s all.

At the same time, in July 2018, the State Duma of the Russian Federation finally ratified Convention No. 102 of the International Labor Organization. From the point of view of this convention, the pension should be no less than 40% of average earnings. You can, of course, understand differently what average earnings are. But according to the methodology adopted by the OECD, everything is considered extremely simple. A fund is taken wages country, divided by the number of employees - and 40% is taken from the result.

Since the convention has been ratified, pensions in Russia need to be increased. Now they make up approximately 34% of the average salary, and this is significantly less than in Soviet times. Let me remind you when our pension system was just emerging - in 1932-1933, when Stalin- we were talking about 50%. That is, the old-age pensioner had to receive half the salary. And almost everything post-war years The Soviet government supported this situation.

In modern times, only in 2011, when the tariff was raised to 26% at Putin’s insistence, the pension system did not have a deficit, and the wage replacement rate with pensions reached 41%. But this lasted less than a year.

Thus, now we are talking about the following: by raising the retirement age to 65 for men and 60 for women, and increasing the replacement rate to 40%, our government will have to slightly increase funding for the fund social insurance. For those same 500 billion rubles.

Let me emphasize: this only happens because of the reduced tariff. If the tariff had been the same as in 2011 - 26% - half a trillion rubles would not have been needed. Moreover, the government would be able to eliminate the Pension Fund deficit. According to the draft budget of the Pension Fund for 2018, it amounts to 318 billion rubles. Agree, with a total fund budget of more than 7 trillion. rubles is not very much.

In fact, what the government and specifically Vladimir Putin are doing now to increase pensions is the minimum possible.

“SP”: - Why doesn’t Putin raise the insurance rate again?

This mystery is great. Government economists claim that raising the tariff means increasing the burden on business, which business allegedly will not bear. In fact, now the share of wages in the cost of production is about 30%. And an increase in the insurance rate will increase this share by literally one percent. Which, given automation, a reduction in material consumption, an increase in labor productivity, and ultimately an increase in output, makes the tariff increase a completely insensitive measure.

I'll say more. Increasing the insurance tariff and insurance payments will expand the sales market for Russian products. Pensioners, even with increased pensions, remain a low-income segment of the population that buys relatively cheap products. Mostly Russian products.

Roughly speaking, choosing between imported apples at 150 rubles per kilo and Stavropol apples at 70 rubles, a pensioner will definitely choose the latter. And even if his pension is increased, he will not run for imported apples, but will simply buy two kilograms of Stavropol ones.

For comparison, increasing VAT does not have such an effect. On the contrary, this measure, although it replenishes the federal budget, restrains consumption growth.

“SP”: - Can we say that the President and the Cabinet of Ministers make such decisions because they are playing on the side of big business?

I got the feeling that the economic bloc forced Putin to raise the retirement age, saying that otherwise - without increasing budget revenues - the military program would not be implemented. But economists deceived the president a little, saying that this decision would not entail any political consequences.

However, the political consequences are obvious. And now the only way out for Putin to regain his rating and strengthen his authority is a truly rapid and noticeable increase in the well-being of pensioners. That is, pension increases at a rate higher than inflation.

In addition, our economy has resumed growth. And soon workers who have lost real wages since 2013 will demand an increase. As a result, the average salary in the country will jump - at least this is what can be expected. And along with it, the pension must rise to reach the level of 40% of the salary.

And it is quite possible that Putin’s words spoken to Siluanov at the meeting can be understood as follows: “Well, my dear, I followed your lead in raising the retirement age. And now you will still comply with my decision of 2009 that the insurance tariff rate for the Pension Fund should be 26%. Because otherwise we won’t keep pensions at the level of 40% of the average salary.”

If so, this is welcome.

Siluanov: we will create a new funded pension system. Will Russians be connected to it without asking?

Anton Siluanov said that soon, probably in 2020, the so-called individual pension capital will be created. This a new version storage system. The previous one, as you know, was frozen.

This point means that people need to be attracted to this scheme, because the government wants to make money in this way, since Siluanov provides in advance the opportunity to invest funds from the pension capital of citizens.

Why was the old storage system “frozen”?

Before Siluanov’s new project, there was an old accumulation system. There isn't much difference. The point of both projects is that Russians should save for their own retirement, and should slowly abandon the solidarity system that existed in the USSR.

However, here's the problem - the state constantly got into the savings system, helping banks, Gazprom and other similar institutions. And what is the result? Just freezing.

Of course, freezing is a word that supposedly suggests that they can reconsider this decision and return all savings. However, this will never happen, since the money has been withdrawn. And they’re not just introducing a new system. They still want to raise money.

Is it worth believing? Will citizens have a choice?

Siluanov states that nothing bad will happen 100% with the new savings system. He notes that although people like Chubais and others will get involved, no one will actually freeze the system.

After all, it is clear that the people who take Russians’ money from there will spend it effectively: they will invest it and receive a big profit, that is, pensioners will have even more money! Which, of course, is hard to believe.

Now regarding the voluntary-compulsory nature of this very system: information appeared in RBC that “silent people”, that is, Russians who do not renounce individual pension capital in writing, will simply be transferred there without asking. Therefore, it is worth considering this point in advance and not spending extra money on a structure that may disappear in a few years.

After such information appeared on the Internet, Golikova immediately began to say that not everything had been decided yet; that there will always be a choice. However, Golikova does not have much faith, especially since we always take into account previous experience. Mistakes in Russia are never taken into account. Take the same Rusnano. The first five-year plan is unprofitable. They promised to check everything, correct the situation and make Rusnano an effective company. The second five-year plan was just as unprofitable for the state. And so on.

For what reason are Russians' pension savings disappearing?

Pension savings of Russian citizens is a sore point for the Russian government, which regularly “reforms” pensions so that it is less profitable for ordinary citizens, but beneficial for the elite.

Let's consider individual factors why pension savings are disappearing and whether it is even possible to correct this within the current system.

Non-state pension funds

Non-state pension funds are now the most unprofitable sector in terms of pension provision. In fact, every year the largest NPF participants report losses in the amount of several tens of billions of rubles.

It is noteworthy that until recently the main figure in the field of private pension funds was a certain Mints, a friend of Chubais and Kudrin. Not long ago he left with his family for London, after which the authorities noticed huge losses from his activities.

The formal reason that “there is no money” is ineffective investment of funds, that is, the money of future and current pensioners is managed as if it were their personal capital. They simply invest them and, apparently, are not particularly worried about losses. So far there have been no benefits from such activities. And in the coming years, judging by the dynamics, it is worth preparing for the bankruptcy of a number of non-state pension funds.

Savings system and pension fund

With the funded system, everything is clear: the state, when there is not enough money, always cuts the social or a sphere close to it. Since the money of the savings system was perceived as state assets, although this is strange, part of the funds went to support banks and Gazprom. If someone thinks that Gazprom is a profitable company, then it is worth noting that the price of Gazprom as an asset is regularly declining.

This is actually why these funds were frozen. If we consider that a new savings system is now being prepared - known as individual pension capital - we can conclude that this money will not return anywhere.

As for the state pension fund, there are obvious problems. Money is controlled very poorly - hence the shortage. There are more than 100 thousand employees in the state and for some unknown reason palaces are being built using pension funds, the maintenance of which costs, according to the head of the Pension Fund, “only” 1 billion rubles.

The conclusion from these facts is obvious: the system is ineffective. Unfortunately, instead of taking an example from the effective systems of other countries, in Russia we will talk about a “special path” so that we can make good use of budget funds and carry out dubious reforms almost every year. By the way, these same reforms ultimately led to an increase in the retirement age.

The President signed the Federal Law “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation on the Issues of Assignment and Payment of Pensions”, adopted by the State Duma on September 27, 2018 and approved by the Federation Council on October 3, 2018.

The head of state also signed federal laws “On amendments to Articles 46 and 146 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation in terms of expanding the list of budget revenues of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation”, “On ratification of the Convention on Minimum Standards of Social Security (Convention No. 102)”, “On the introduction changes in Labor Code Russian Federation”, adopted by the State Duma on September 27, 2018 and approved by the Federation Council on October 3, 2018, and the Federal Law “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation”, adopted by the State Duma on September 25, 2018 and approved by the Federation Council on October 3, 2018.

The Federation Council mercilessly pushed through the predatory law, the president signed

The Federation Council overwhelmingly approved changes to the package of documents on pension legislation, which had previously been hastily adopted by the State Duma of the Russian Federation. The documents were also quickly sent to the president for signing, and he approved them immediately.

Coincidentally, the consideration and final approval of this painful issue fell on October 3. On this day 25 years ago between supporters of the president Boris Yeltsin and the Supreme Council, a confrontation began. A state of emergency was declared in Moscow, tanks were brought in, and shelling of the White House began. More than 150 people died in the outbreak of armed clashes. The opposition was defeated, on December 12, 1993, a new Constitution was adopted, and the country followed the socio-economic course determined by President Yeltsin and his government.

Apparently, some senators remembered this when discussing the law, or rather a package of laws, on the so-called pension reform, but the majority were not bothered by this coincidence.

Senator from the Irkutsk region Vyacheslav Markhaev noted that this government initiative caused mass protests, which, unfortunately, went unnoticed. According to him, this norm contradicts the country's Constitution: Article 7 - Russia is a social state, and Article 55 generally prohibits the issuance of laws that abolish or diminish the rights and freedoms of man and citizen.

"Being elected to State Duma, under the beautiful veneer of caring for the people, they are stamping laws orchestrated by the government. Name at least one government initiative that was for the benefit of our population and increased welfare? It will be difficult to remember anything,” he stated.

The senator is also interested in why the pension is formed only from tax contributions from citizens. At the same time, he recalled that in 2005, after the introduction of monetization of benefits, pensioners took to the streets and blocked roads.

“And the proposed reform is even more painful and kills the people’s last faith in their future. This step is a consequence of all previous policies. Having completely destroyed production, agriculture, the country and people were left with only shopping centers, robber banks and an army of security guards and police officers. What will be taken away next: the last thing - education and medicine? Now the state will solve all problems at the expense of those from whom it can be taken?” - the senator is indignant.

In his opinion, for the state, raising the retirement age is just a way to save money. He also fears that with the development of technology, even young people will not have jobs.

“We need to lift the economy from its knees, and not deceive us with an increase of a thousand rubles,” Markhaev emphasized. He also recalled that even in the most difficult years of the war, men over 60 were not allowed to go to the front and asked: “So, the situation now is worse than in 1941?”

The senator emphasized that the only source of power in the country is the people, and “the people live poorly.”

Senator from the Vladimir region Anton Belyakov believes that the bill does not answer the questions that were raised in the conclusion of the Accounts Chamber for the second reading in the State Duma, and also does not take into account a number of amendments.

“This is, as before, an attempt to break the knee, raise the retirement age, say that “you work as much as you can until the end, regardless of your health status, whether you are needed in this profession or not,” possible discrimination in the labor market, on the contrary, against young people age,” he said, adding that there are a huge number of complaints about the law.

At the same time, the Speaker of the House Valentina Matvienko I noticed that senators are no longer considering the draft law, but the law itself.

“We are adopting a law that has been corrected and adjusted taking into account the amendments of the president... It (the law - ed.) is completely different from the version on which the Accounts Chamber gave an opinion,” she emphasized.

However, not all senators were satisfied with even this version of the law. Senator from the Oryol region Vasily Ikonnikov noted that, despite the amendments made to the second reading, more than 2/3 of the country's population does not support raising the retirement age. And this is a reason, in his opinion, to pay attention to the consequences of the adoption of this law.

“You and I do not live in the Looking Glass and we know the state of affairs in the regions. It can be stated with confidence that after the adoption of the law, a bitter aftertaste of social injustice remained in the minds of most people, which gave rise to distrust in the authorities and delayed protest,” he said.

He also drew attention to the accumulated dissatisfaction among the population caused by the decline in living standards, which was a consequence of the government’s financial and economic policy.

“We see that an explosive mechanism is being laid for stability in Russian society, the trigger of which may be overseas. Given the use of hybrid warfare methods against Russia by the United States and its allies, the factor of dissatisfaction among the population with the ongoing social policy could lead to irreparable consequences,” the senator warned.

The head of Russia, Vladimir Putin, addressed the government and called for the implementation of the amendments he proposed to the pension reform.

The President announced this during a meeting with the Cabinet of Ministers. Putin noted that earlier the question additional funding reform was not raised because it was assumed that the initiative would have a positive economic result. However, the amendment to the bill determined an increase in expenses, which, on the contrary, will require the attraction of additional state funds.

According to Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, we are talking about 500 billion rubles, which will need to be allocated to the Russian Pension Fund over the next six years. Vladimir Putin called on the government to find these funds to implement the reform as planned.

Writer Bushin: there is nothing surprising in the pension reform. The government has been depriving citizens of their rights for 30 years

Writer Vladimir Bushin, one of the few famous writers of our time who did not abandon their principles after the collapse of the USSR, said that in reality pension reform is a natural process.

The fact is that our government ceased to represent national interests back in the years of perestroika, when the main task of propagandists led by Yakovlev was to convince people that communism is worse than fascism.

Process of abolition of social rights

Since the late 80s, citizens have been consistently taken away social rights. In the past, public property provided many benefits to people. Now this property is in private hands, and the results of privatization are the foundations of modern Russia, which no one will touch.

Putin himself stated that revising the results of privatization is something unacceptable, which proved that he is not fundamentally different from his predecessor. In fact, relative stability for citizens was only due to the preserved Soviet legacy, Primakov’s economic reforms and expensive oil.

All these factors have disappeared in principle. Therefore, even the ideology of the ruling party has changed, which not everyone noticed. Previously " United Russia“was a party of moderate left (some publicists even call them “pink”) and right, that is, it was a centrist party, which actually included people of different views.

But since 2015, there are no more “leftists” there. Now the official ideology of United Russia is liberal conservatism. That is, in practice something in the spirit of Yegor Gaidar, but in words, of course, patriotism. That is, the difference is this: in the 90s, social rights were taken away as cynically as possible, but now it is veiled and a little slower. But the result is always the same.

This is a retreat before the west

Bushin believes that the main problem of modern Russia is complete dependence on the West. Even sanctions will not convince management to give up this dependence. The reason is simple: Russian elite keeps its savings in countries that work against Russia.

Therefore, under the current system, Russia will never give any special answers to the West, which can be admitted with great regret. Our head of banks is Nabiullina, who regularly visits the United States and is praised by the IMF for her “effective work,” which has led to what Nabiullina herself admits - the Russian economy is at the bottom.

United Russia has made amendments to the pension reform

Since most regional subgroups do not show any activity, in mid-October 2018 the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation will most likely stop the procedure for organizing a referendum on raising the retirement age in our country. The parties of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Socialist Republic intend to appeal to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the near future with a request to check current legislature about referendums.

As VEDOMOSTI Ural previously reported, last Thursday, September 27, 2018, deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation in the third, final reading approved the scandalous government bill on raising the retirement age in our country. 332 deputies voted for this decision, 83 were against it, and there were no abstentions. Based on the voting results on the most scandalous bill of the 7th convocation of the lower house of parliament - pension reform - it turned out that out of 332 votes in favor, 330 belonged to deputies from United Russia. Natalya Poklonskaya distinguished herself again by refusing to support the bill. Previously, for such a “trick,” the ex-prosecutor of Crimea had already been subjected to party sanctions and lost her post as head of the Duma commission for monitoring the reliability of information about the income of deputies, and the day before, when considering the document in the second reading, she did not vote. One way or another, Poklonskaya became the only United Russia member who voted against the pension reform.

For a protest to be effective, for it to be heard by the authorities, you need to come to the polling stations and express your position by voting. And people are not used to this. The vast majority of citizens stay home on Election Day. But if you ignore the elections, the authorities ignore you.

“We have adopted Convention 102, the minimum will be 40% of the salary with which a person leaves,” he noted.

“I’m not yet used to the fact that I don’t have money. Because I earned very, very decent money and spent even more,” recalls pensioner Zoya Latypova.

Although she is already over 70, she still wants to work. Ready to be a guide, personal escort on foreign trips. Knows English and French.

The president softened the pension reform: in particular, he promised to preserve benefits, tying them to age (60/55 years for men and women), but not to pensioner status.

The initial version of the bill introduced by the government was adopted by the State Duma in the first reading on July 19. Then only representatives of the constitutional majority voted in support of the initiative. All opposition factions (CPRF, LDPR, “ Just Russia") came out against it.

“These people are not fired from the company. This agreement is secured by the agreement of the State Unitary Enterprise Mostransavto. These drivers are valuable to us because they have great experience“said Alexander Pyatibratov, Deputy Director for Traffic Safety at State Unitary Enterprise Mostransavto.

“This is an extremely important decision that people have been waiting for a very long time. We don’t need to mislead a huge number of people now. Today, the decision affected 46.5 million people, and we need to talk about it,” the politician called, responding to criticism of the law from the opposition.

But the main thing is that the state takes people of pre-retirement age under protection. From now on, they cannot be fired without explanation or not hired without justification. For this there is criminal liability.

“We ratify Convention 102 of the International Labor Organization, which imposes Russia internationally recognized obligations on a number of social norms, including the norm that the pension should be at least 40% of lost earnings,” explained Andrey Isaev, first deputy head of the United Russia faction in the State Duma of the Russian Federation.

Voting is the simplest and most effective way to influence government. In the last elections, in those regions where the turnout was slightly higher, the result changed dramatically. In Primorye, turnout in the first round was low, and the opposition candidate scored almost half as much as active governor. And in the second round the situation changed simply because people came. And in the Khabarovsk Territory it’s the same story. And in the Vladimir region.

“Today the average pension is about 14 thousand rubles. And unless you and I increase pensions at a rate higher than inflation, then 46.5 million people will live very poorly,” the speaker warned immediately after voting on the bill.

Presidential Amendments last month hotly discussed in the Duma Committee on Labor and Social Policy. The changes that Vladimir Putin proposed in August were ultimately supported by the majority of deputies, as the last two readings showed. The bill adopted by the Duma must now pass Council of the Federation and lie on the president's desk.

In the Sverdlovsk region, the 57-year-old ex-leader of the scandalous Ekaterinburg organized criminal group "Uralmash", former deputy of the Yekaterinburg City Duma, Alexander Kukovyakin, was released from Ivdel colony No. 62, a VEDOMOSTI Ural correspondent reports.

Proposals to improve the government bill came not only from State Duma deputies, but also from their regional colleagues, representatives of business, public organizations and trade unions.

The announcement of the pension reform provoked numerous protests across the country and a decline in the ratings of United Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Moreover, even the “party in power” itself admitted that the decision to raise the retirement age had a negative impact on United Russia’s rating and its results in the elections on September 9, 2018 (following the results of a single voting day, United Russia suffered several unexpected defeats in the gubernatorial elections ).

“And our task is to do everything to ensure that the pensions of our pensioners grow, grow quickly, and this very task was solved through the adoption of a law that received the support of 332 deputies,” Volodin emphasized, noting that the number of those who supported the bill has become larger compared to previous readings.

All week they argued, convinced and even protested in their own way. Up to violation of regulations. Communists Valery Rashkin and Denis Parfenov came to discuss changes in pension legislation not in suits, but in T-shirts. With the numbers 65 and 63 crossed out. This is exactly the retirement age for men and women that was going to be established according to the bill proposed by the government. But only two of the entire communist faction wore protest T-shirts.

In total, more than 300 amendments were received. Their mixing was carried out by a specially created working group in the State Duma to improve pension legislation. As Vyacheslav Volodin stated, the group will continue to work after the adoption of the pension package of laws and will “study law enforcement practice, receiving feedback from citizens, so that the laws work effectively for results.”

On September 25, the chamber adopted, at the initiative of the president, another important law as part of the pension package, which introduces fines of up to 200 thousand rubles for refusing to hire or dismissing people of pre-retirement age. Pre-retirement age is understood as “the age period of up to five years preceding the assignment of an old-age insurance pension to a person.”

"As such organized movement there was no opposition to raising the retirement age. There was a spontaneous protest. Russians are not in the habit of expressing their opinions publicly. Basically, everyone prefers to express dissatisfaction at home, sitting on the couch, or complain on social networks. The authorities do not particularly react to this.

Reform(from Latin reformo - transformation) - a change carried out from above by the ruling circles in any significant aspect of social life while maintaining the foundations of the existing one social structure. Reforms vary in scope. They can be large-scale or complex and cover different aspects of social life, or they can concern only certain aspects. Comprehensive reforms implemented in a timely manner, solving pressing problems through peaceful means, can prevent revolution.

Reforms, compared to revolutions, have their own characteristics:

Revolution is a radical transformation, reform is partial;

Revolution is radical, reform is more gradual;

Revolution (social) destroys the previous system, reform preserves its foundations;

Revolution is carried out to a large extent spontaneously, reform - consciously (hence, in a certain sense, reform can be called “revolution from above”, and revolution - “reform from below”).

There are different types of reforms:

1. Radical (systemic). They affect many aspects of social life, and as a result, a gradual change in the basis occurs, and society moves to a new stage of development. For example, the economic reforms of E. T. Gaidar.

2. Moderate reforms. They preserve the basics of the previous system, but modernize them. For example, the reforms of N. S. Khrushchev.

3. Minimal reforms. Reforms that lead to minor changes in politics, government, and the economy. For example, the reforms of L. I. Brezhnev.

Russian reforms had their own characteristic features:

Reforms almost always started from the top, except for reforms carried out under the pressure of the revolutionary movement during the first Russian revolution of 1905-1907.

When embarking on reforms, reformers often did not have a clear program for their implementation and did not foresee their results. For example, M. S. Gorbachev, who started “perestroika”.

Reforms were often not completed and were half-hearted due to the indecision of reformers, resistance of officials and certain social strata, lack of finance, etc.

In the history of Russia it was extremely rare to conduct political reforms aimed at democratizing society. The most global of them are the political reforms of M. S. Gorbachev.

Big role in Russian reforms played personal character, much depended on the ruler. It was he who made the final decision.

Russian reforms alternated with counter-reforms, when the results of the reforms were eliminated, resulting in a partial or complete return to the pre-reform order.

When carrying out reforms in Russia, the experience of Western countries was widely used.

Reforms were always carried out at the expense of the people and were accompanied by a deterioration in their financial situation.

Reforms of the 20th century were no exception. They began with the reforms of the Prime Minister of Russia 1906-1911. - P. A. Stolypin, who tried to solve the problems of socio-economic and political development after the first Russian revolution of 1905-1907, in order to prevent a new revolutionary explosion. In August 1906, he proposed a program of activities that included: carrying out agrarian reform, introducing new labor legislation, reorganizing local self-government on an estateless basis, developing judicial reform, educational reform with the subsequent introduction of compulsory primary education, the introduction of zemstvos in Western Russian provinces, etc. .d. The main goal of this program was to continue the bourgeois modernization of Russia, but without sudden leaps and while respecting the interests of the “historical system” of the country. To implement it, he asked to give Russia “twenty years of internal and external peace.”

The main place in this program was occupied by agrarian reform, designed to solve the agrarian question “from above.” The goal of this reform was to create a class of landowners as a social support for autocracy in the countryside and an opponent of revolutionary movements. To achieve this goal ruling circles took the path of destroying the community and organizing the resettlement movement of peasants beyond the Urals with the aim of allocating them with land there.

The results of the new agricultural course were contradictory. On the one hand, Stolypin’s agrarian reform contributed to the development of the agricultural sector, the growth of agricultural production, and the development of territories beyond the Urals, but, on the other hand, a significant part of the peasantry did not accept the reform, which was pro-Western in nature. Because of this, the agrarian question remained one of the main ones in the subsequent Russian revolutions of 1917.

Further reform of the country in the 20th century. associated with the activities of the Bolsheviks and their followers in different periods of Soviet history.

1. Summer 1918 - March 1921 - the period of the policy of “war communism”, which was formed under the influence of a) Russian historical tradition, when the state actively intervened in economic management, b) emergency conditions civil war and c) the ideas of socialist theory, according to which the new communist society was presented in the form of a state-commune without commodity-money relations, replaced by direct product exchange between city and countryside.

Thus, within the framework of this policy, an attempt was made to make a leap into communism with the help of coercive measures on the part of the state, serious economic transformations were carried out aimed at the complete nationalization of industry, planning, the abolition of commodity-money relations, and the forcible confiscation of the product they produced from the peasants etc. Such transformations were in deep contradiction with objective laws social development, led to negative results and forced Lenin to abandon the policy of “war communism”.

2. 1921-1928 - years of the New Economic Policy (NEP), within the framework of which changes were made in agriculture, industry and trade, commodity-money relations were restored, the private sector, market relations, etc. were allowed. On the basis of the NEP, the restoration of the national economy was successfully carried out, but the NEP was considered by the Bolsheviks as a temporary retreat, it went through a series of crises and was cancelled.

In January 1924, in connection with the formation of the USSR on December 30, 1922, the first Constitution of the new state and the second Constitution in Russian history after the Constitution of the RSFSR, which consolidated the power of the Soviets in 1918.

3. Pre-war period 1929-1941. associated with the accelerated construction of the foundations of socialism (industrialization, collectivization Agriculture, cultural revolution) and the establishment of an administrative-command system, which would intensify during the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945 This period was characterized by the intensive dismantling of the NEP: small-scale commodity production was completely forced out of the economy, centralized management of the national economy, planning and strict control over the work of each enterprise were established.

In the countryside, there is an accelerated liquidation of individual peasant farms, their dispossession of up to 15%, although in 1929 kulak farms accounted for only 2-3%. The purpose of this was to eliminate the “last exploiting class.” As part of the cultural revolution - an integral part of Lenin's plan for building socialism - associated with industrialization and collectivization, the elimination of illiteracy begins, the training of specialists for the national economy begins, technical and agricultural universities are created, often with a reduced curriculum, workers' schools appear to train young people who want to graduate secondary and higher education.

The Cultural Revolution also solved another task - the formation of the socialist consciousness of the working people, the mass indoctrination of the population in the spirit of communist ideology. Affirming the principle of partisanship in literature and art, the principle of “socialist realism”, communist party strictly monitored the prevention of dissent there and in society as a whole.

In December 1936, a new Constitution was adopted, where Soviet Union proclaimed a socialist state.

4. In the post-war years 1945-1953. the course towards strengthening the totalitarian system continued. In 1947, a monetary reform was carried out, which made it possible to overcome the complete breakdown of the monetary and financial system, the card system was abolished, and price reform was carried out. During this period, an attempt was made to reform degrading agriculture; censorship in the spiritual life of society has intensified, ideological campaigns and repression have expanded.

5. 1953-1964 - the “thaw” period - a period of controversial reforms by N.S. Khrushchev in the political, economic and social spheres within the framework of the administrative-command system. This is the time of the exposure at the 20th Congress of the CPSU of Stalin's personality cult, the beginning of the dissident movement, the first steps towards the democratization of Soviet society.

6. 1964-1985 - this is the time of L.I. Brezhnev (until 1982) and his successors Yu.V. Andropov and K.U. Chernenko, a time of increasing crisis phenomena in society. The first years of Brezhnev's rule were associated with the 1965 reforms in the field of agriculture with the aim of raising it through the use of economic levers (procurement prices were increased, the plan for mandatory grain supplies was reduced, prices for the sale of above-plan products to the state were increased by 50%, etc.) ; industry in order to expand the independence of enterprises; management of the national economy within the framework of the administrative-command system, which gave only temporary success, and then the country began to plunge into “stagnation”.

In 1977, a new Constitution of the USSR was adopted - the Constitution of “developed socialism”, which consolidated the leading role of the CPSU in society (Article 6 of the Constitution), which during this period actively fought the dissident movement.

7. 1985-1991 - the time of Gorbachev’s “perestroika”, deep reforms in the political, economic, social and cultural spheres, it was characterized by glasnost, the abolition of censorship and the monopoly of the CPSU, the beginning of the creation of a multi-party system and the democratization of the electoral system, attempts to reform the national-state structure of the USSR.

Thus, the 20th century was filled with a large number of reforms and attempts to implement them. It is characterized, on the one hand, as a historical period of great world achievements and victories in various areas of life, and on the other, as a period of large-scale mistakes due to disharmony between the economic and political systems of the state. Due to this, before modern Russia a historical task arose to move to organic development through new radical reforms.

We invite you to familiarize yourself with 10 reforms in the history of Russia, information about which is given on the website of the Ogonyok magazine.

1. Reforms of Ivan the Terrible
The beginning of the reforms of Ivan IV is considered to be the convening of the first Zemsky Sobor in 1549 with the participation of boyars, nobles and the highest clergy. The Council decided to draw up a new Code of Law, which, in particular, introduced punishment for bribes. In 1550, the tsar created the first regular streltsy army, and in 1555 he carried out a reform of local government, creating elected governing bodies in the districts. In the 1560s, the period of reform gave way to the oprichnina, which resulted in a decline in the power of the army, an economic crisis and the strengthening of the power of the tsar.

2. Adoption of the Council Code
In 1649, during the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov, the Zemsky Sobor in Moscow adopted the Council Code, which regulated almost all legal issues. The document consisted of 25 chapters summarizing the norms of state, administrative, civil and criminal law. The Code finally formalized serfdom, determined the regime for entry and exit from the country, and also for the first time separated state crimes from criminal ones. The document remained legitimate until the adoption of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire in 1832.

3. Monetary reform of Alexei Romanov
In 1654, by decree of Emperor Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov, minting began in the country silver coins, popularly nicknamed "efimki". On one side the inscription “ruble” and a double-headed eagle appeared for the first time, on the other - a king on horseback. An attempt to introduce fiat money into circulation led to inflation, increased internal tension and ended in popular unrest. A year later, the issue of the first rubles was stopped and was resumed only in 1704 under Peter I.

4. Reforms of Peter I
WITH late XVII century, by the will of Peter I, Russia plunged into reforms for three decades that affected many areas of its life and influenced the future of the country. The most important of them are the transformation of Russia into an empire, a change in the chronology system, the emergence of secular educational institutions, the abolition of the patriarchate and the elimination of the autonomy of the church, the creation of a regular army and navy, the adoption of the Table of Ranks, which divided the service into civil and military, the opening of the Academy of Sciences and others.

5. Provincial reform of Catherine II
In 1775, Empress Catherine II carried out a local government reform that brought the administrative-territorial division of the country closer to the modern one. Instead of 23 provinces and 66 provinces, 50 provinces appeared in Russia, each divided into 10-12 districts. The province was headed by a governor, appointed and removed by the monarch. The rule of law in the region was supported by the provincial prosecutor, and the governorates supervised the provinces, reminiscent in their functions of the current presidential envoys in the federal districts.

6. Ministerial reform of Alexander I
On September 8, 1802, Alexander I signed the manifesto “On the Establishment of Ministries,” which laid the foundations for a new system of public administration in Russia. The document transformed the former collegiums into eight ministries - foreign affairs, military ground forces, naval forces, internal affairs, finance, justice, commerce and public education. The manifesto also spoke of the creation of a committee "composed solely" of ministers. Until 1906, the Committee of Ministers remained supreme body executive power countries.

7. Reforms of Alexander II
In 1861, Alexander II signed the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom, which gave peasants freedom and the right to dispose of their property. In 1864, two more key reforms took place - zemstvo, as a result of which zemstvos became elected bodies of local self-government, and the reform of judicial institutions, which introduced all-class courts, jury trials and the bar. In 1874, Alexander II carried out another important reform - military. The country introduced universal conscription, and the service life was reduced from 25 to 5-7 years.

8. The first decrees of the Soviet government
In November 1917, the Bolsheviks, who took power, issued a number of documents, the most famous of which for a long time remained the declarative decrees on peace and land. But the Decree on the abolition of estates and civil ranks, the Decree on the separation of church and state and the nationalization of banks and large enterprises really radically changed life in the country. Among other decrees of that time that influenced life, one can name the transition from Gregorian calendar to Julian and spelling reform.

9. Industrialization and collectivization
In 1927, at the XV Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, a decision was made to unite individual peasant farms into collective farms. By the fall of 1932, they comprised 62.4 percent, and by 1937 - already 93 percent of farms, and collective farms became one of the foundations of the Soviet economy. At the same time, in the late 1920s, the authorities set a course for industrialization - the development of heavy and defense industries and overcoming technical backwardness. The result of the reforms was: the economic growth, and consolidation of the administrative-command model of management.

10. Reforms of Yegor Gaidar’s team
In 1991-1992, the Russian government adopted a number of drastic measures developed by Yegor Gaidar’s team for the transition from a socialist to a capitalist economy. The main ones were price liberalization, freedom of foreign trade and voucher privatization. Simultaneously with the disappearance of the trade deficit, there was a sharp rise in prices, which led to a rapid decline in the standard of living of the population. The hasty privatization, popularly nicknamed “privatization” due to the unfair conditions for its implementation, also deserved considerable criticism. -O-