It has been 25 years since I hear the following dialogue. The opposition – “The authorities are robbers.” The authorities – “Give names, let the prosecution’s office deal with it.” The opposition – “You know these names better than us.” Naturally, the majority of citizens are very pleased with the opposition’s “arrogant” behavior but the problem, unfortunately, continues to remain in the deadlock. Because proving the crime is much more difficult task than voicing accusations in the air. Of course, sometimes, it happens that the official simply takes a bribe as it is presumably done by the Russian Minister of Economic Development Alexei Ulyukayev. Russian law enforcers whom the “Rosneft” appealed (which in fact is the business of government circles) have dealt with this case for about one year, and eventually, in their own words, the Minister was caught at the moment of the crime.
But this happens very rarely. As to what general has stolen something from the army, we have not reported, we do not have the video to take this general to the court. We are already dealing with the fact, the general has a mansion the price of which exceeds several hundred folds his wages received during his entire service. Irrespective of whether this house is registered under the name of his mother-in-law or a relative-in-law, the fact in itself that the general is living in a house like this already gives rise to suspicions. The law enforcement agencies should deal with the general, and the supreme commander should think over whether such general can serve.
In short, it is necessary to oversee not only the revenue but also the expenditures if it comes to the statesmen. Suppose, the Prime Minister has a house worth one million dollars, suppose he used to receive a salary of 20 thousand dollars per month at “Gazprom” of which 10 thousand dollars was spent on the construction of the house, consequently, he could have built such a house in 7-8 years. In other words, obtaining some data and the combination thereof can very quickly confirm or deny the suspicions about the statement.
Which agency should deal with it? I think the parliamentary special commission which should not include representatives of the ruling party. The Commission should have the right to receive any reference and call any statesman for clarifications, starting from the president (later, starting from the prime minister). After all, the task of all statesmen is not to rule but to serve, is it?
Read also
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
