The history of the emergence of corruption in Russia has its roots in the deep past of Russia, in which it is very difficult to trace the facts of the introduction into everyday life of all kinds of "gifts with hidden intent", that is, the facts of giving, accepting and mediating in promises (bribes). Nevertheless, we know the main thing from the history of Russian corruption: in fact, for us, the most important is not when corruption appeared, but when it really began to struggle with it.
First, let's talk briefly about this, and then, to your attention, I propose an interesting ready-made abstract and a good report on this topic, indicating the primary sources, and also the book by Yu. AT. Kuzovkova, The World History of Corruption.
CONTENT
The history of the beginning of the fight against corruption in Russia
Under Ivan III in Sudebnik in 1497, for the first time in the Russian state, a ban was imposed on taking promises (bribes): "Sue the court with a boyar and okolnichim. And on the court of being among the boyars and among the okolnichih dyakom. A promise boyar, and okolnichim, and diak from the court and from grief not imati; tako do not imitate anybody to any judge. And the court does not take revenge, do not make friends with anyone. "
With the development of the Moscow state, central authorities were formed, among which the central authorities - orders - took a special place. Capital decrees were literally piled up with unresolved court cases, their passage moved very slowly, they "dragged along", from which the famous expression of "red tape" occurred. Favorable for the development of the political system and the fight against corruption were the reforms of the "Chosen Rada".
Boris Godunov (1598-1605) tried to destroy bribery with the help of fines, public cuttings, prison.
One of the measures to strengthen control over the prikaznoy system under Aleksei Mikhailovich was the creation of the Secret Order. "For the royal thought and deeds to be fulfilled all at his will, and the boyars and Duma people would not know anything about it." The Council of 1649 condemned bribery and provided for numerous punishments: pecuniary punishment, prohibition of office, beating with whips or batoga, execution or cutting off of the hand.
The spread of bribery and embezzlement undermined the credibility of power, the principles of state administration, and caused serious social upheavals. The 17th century went down in history as the "bombastic" unpopular measures of the government in the tax system were compounded by the larceny of officials.
Until the 18th century, officials in Russia lived thanks to so-called "feedings", that is, they did not have a salary as such, but they received offerings from people interested in their activities. They were presented not only with money, but also with "nature": meat, fish, pies, etc. The salary was at that time only at the Moscow officials, but also to them "feeding from business" was not forbidden. And already under Peter I all "servants of the sovereign" began to receive a fixed monthly fee, and bribes (gifts) in any form began to be considered a crime. But because of frequent wars the treasury was exhausted and could not always pay salaries. Deprived of the main and only at that time livelihood, many officials were forced to resume "feeding". Despite this, no one entered the position of impoverished clerks, and bribery did not cease to be considered a serious crime.
The main fight against bribery began under Catherine II. Even at the beginning of her reign, faced with bureaucratic arbitrariness, she was outraged:
"Our heart shuddered," Catherine wrote in her decree, "when We heard that some registrar Jacob Renberg, now swearing loyalty to poor people for us, took for himself every money, who swore an oath. We ordered this Renberg to be sentenced to perpetual living in Siberia for hard labor and did so only out of mercy, since he must be deprived of life for such a terrible crime. "
The Empress again appointed salaries to officials, but this time it was paid on time and was much higher than what was under Peter I.
The annual average salary of an employee in 1763 was 30 rubles in the district, 60 rubles in the provincial and 100-150 rubles in the central and higher institutions, with a pood of grain worth 10-15 cents. Now she had the right to demand from officials honesty and actions according to the letter of the law. However, the greed of officials was stronger than reason. So, when Catherine II was informed about the results of the inspections in the courts of the Belgorod province, she was so outraged by them that she issued a special decree to slander the corrupt judges:
"Many times the people printed decrees were repeated that bribes and bribery corrupt justice and oppress the poor. This deeply rooted in the people, even when we ascended to the throne, forced us... to manifest our admonishment to the people in a manifesto, so that those who are infected with this passion, sending the judgment as the work of God, refrained from such evil, and in case of their crime and for that our exhortation would not have expected more of our pardon. But, to our excessive regret, it has been discovered that even now there have been those who have grudged to the oppression of many and to the damage to our interest, and what is more, being bosses themselves and obliged to represent the pattern of keeping laws subordinate to their own, those same criminals were made the same evil was brought ".
At the time of the palace coups, when it was no longer up to the officials, they were canceled the salary and legalized the "feeding from work". At this time, honest employees and completely disappeared from the face of the Russian, as an offering from a bribe given for solving the problem in circumvention of the law, it was simply impossible to separate. The Supreme Authority was aware of this, but only shook the air helplessly, unable to change anything. "The insatiable thirst for self-interest," the Empress Elizaveta Petrovna was indignant, "has reached the point that certain places established for justice have become a marketplace, covetousness and predilection by the leadership of the judges, and indulgence and omission are endorsed by the lawless."
In the 19th century, corruption actually turned into a mechanism of state administration. Especially it became tougher under Nicholas I. So, for certain it is known that the landlords of all the provinces of the Right-Bank Ukraine annually collected a considerable sum for the police. Kiev Governor I. AND. Fundukley explained this by saying that if the landlords do not allocate funds for the maintenance of police officers, "they will receive these funds from thieves".
In 1881, Alexander III established a committee to draft a Criminal Code. A special decision was adopted that prohibited the combination of public positions with posts in joint-stock companies and banks. However, the officials found a way out and began to "push" their relatives to these organizations.
In 1922 a law was issued, according to which a shooting was required for a bribe. Subsequently, tough punitive measures to combat corruption were included in the constant practice of the Soviet state, especially with I.V. Stalin, which, influenced the reduction of corruption.
Source of publication
Memorandum to the employees of the institution "On criminal responsibility for obtaining and giving bribes and measures of administrative responsibility for illegal remuneration on behalf of a legal entity" developed by the legal department of the Committee for Social Protection of the Population of the Volgograd Region.
Report on "The history of corruption in Russia"
Everybody knows what a bribe is. Moreover, it has become an integral part of our lives. But how to deal with this phenomenon has not yet been decided. "Need to do something. Stop waiting. Corruption has become a systemic problem and we must counter this systemic problem with a systemic response, "Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said. A. Medvedev. And he was right, as the history and experience of the previous rulers - "bribe-takers" show, can not be helped by separate measures or even more half-measures. Neither the whip, the carrot, nor the finger of public opinion pointing to the atrocities, nor even the change of the system itself, this defect generating, with corruption, failed to cope.
A short digression into the history
Whip
According to the surviving records of the chroniclers, bribes appeared in Ancient Rus, and immediately with them they began to fight resolutely. Thus, Metropolitan Cyril condemned the bribery along with drunkenness and witchcraft, for which he insisted to punish appropriately, that is, the death penalty (according to the records in the Russian Truth - "If wife zelenitsa, sorceress, best girl - to execute her"). The first "anti-corruption legislation" in Russia was adopted in the reign of Ivan III. And his grandson, Ivan IV the Terrible, issued the same decree, according to which the officials who had been sullied had to be immediately executed.
In the legal terminology of the 18th century bribes were called "promises" (violation of the law for any fee). For them, the perpetrators were subjected to corporal punishment. For example, in 1654, for prattle, the prince Alexei Kropotkin and the deacon Ivan Semenov, who took money and a barrel of wine from merchants for the promise not to send them to Moscow, where they were to be resettled by the order of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, were whipped.
With the full version of the text of the report, you can find it here by downloading the document in doc format to your computer.
Corruption in world history
On the Internet there is a wonderful book Yu. AT. Kuzovkova, "The World History of Corruption", published in 2010 by the publishing house Anima-Press. The book is devoted to the phenomenon of major corruption in the history of states and civilizations, as well as in the modern world. It examines examples of states affected by major corruption, from antiquity to today, analyzes the causes of their death or, conversely, the subsequent heyday. The work is based on an analysis of about a thousand books and works in the field of general, social, economic and demographic history; the book contains a quintessence of these works on the topic under consideration, outlined in a language accessible to the general reader - which is, by the author's own definition, the method he uses, the method of historical synthesis. According to the author, the study of the world history of corruption made it possible to formulate a new historical conception of the development of mankind (instead of the concept of Marx that has lost its actuality), which is stated at the end of the book.
I will give an example of the information blocks contained in the book:
Section 1. Corruption in the pre-feudal states of Europe and the Mediterranean
Chapter I. Corruption in antiquity
- In the Hellenistic world
- In Carthage
- In the Roman Republic
- Corruption, the oligarchy and Roman civil wars
Chapter II. Corruption in the Roman Empire
- The globalization in history and its relation to corruption
- Corruption in the Yuliyev-Klavdiyev era (the end of the first century. BC. - the end of I c. AD)
- Civil war 68-69 years. AD and its causes
- Cycles in the social and economic history of Rome
- "Golden Age" of the oligarchy
- Why did corruption and crisis hit the West, but did not strike the East of the Roman Empire?
Chapter III. Corruption in the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) inV-VII centuries.
- Transformation of the Political and Economic System of the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity
- Corruption in the era of the collapse of the Roman Empire (V-VI century. AD) and its causes
- The emperor-oligarch
- Corruption, civil war and the disintegration of Byzantium in the 7th century
Chapter IV. Corruption in Byzantium in the Middle Ages
- Transformation of Byzantine society in the era of the early Middle Ages (VII-IX cc.)
- Strengthening corruption in the X-XI centuries.
4.3. The collapse of Byzantium in the XI-XII centuries.
- Crisis of corruption of X-XII centuries. in the history of Eurasia
- The last centuries of Byzantium (1204-1453 gg.)
4.6. General conclusions and observations on Section 1 (Corruption in the pre-feudal states of Europe and the Mediterranean)
Here we consider the history of corruption in a number of ancient states - in the states of antiquity and in ancient Rome - Byzantium for almost two millennia of the existence of this state. This allows us to draw a number of conclusions that can be considered largely universal, applicable to different historical epochs
A source:
- An e-book file in pdf format can be downloaded and viewed here:http://dusshrh.ru/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Kniga-2-1-Yuriy-Kuzovkov- World-History-Corruption.pdf
- You can visit the site of the author Yuri Kuzovkov at:http://www.yuri-kuzovkov.ru/second_book/
Summary on the "History of Corruption in Russia"
Bribery and covetousness
Corruption in Russia historically varied according to whether there was an unreasonable advantage for the commission of legal actions ("bribery") or illegal actions ("lichoimism").
Corruption
This word is increasingly heard in the speeches of politicians, the media are paying more attention to it. Increasingly, ordinary citizens, small entrepreneurs and large businessmen face this phenomenon in everyday and business life. In connection with the scale of corruption that has assumed a systemic nature, there are even statements that this is almost a national feature inherent in Russia. In fact, this is not so. As noted in an interview for the press, the first deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on Security, MI. Grishakov:
"The West was a long and difficult way to organize effective work in the field of fighting corruption. Today it is clear that countries that are free of it do not exist, only its level and scale differ. "
Corruption has been known since ancient times
Mention of it can be found in the historical sources that have reached us, referring to all the centers of the ancient Eastern civilizations, including Ancient Egypt, China, India and others, as well as to the ancient civilizations of Ancient Greece and Rome. The term corruption, as most researchers believe, comes from the Latin word corruptio, which means corruption, bribery. The mention of corruption, its condemnation is present in all leading religions of the world. Find evidence of this can be found in the Bible and the Koran. In the modern world, the term "corruption" refers primarily to the use by an official of his official position for personal gain.
If we consider the origins of the appearance of corruption in society, then, apparently, they should be sought in primitive society. Probably, they are connected with pagan beliefs - our ancestors, who were completely dependent on the forces of nature, tried to appease the gods, personifying these forces. People brought sacrifices to them, which in their essence were original gifts. With the development of society and the emergence of the first worshipers - shamans, sorcerers, healers, guildmasters, etc., "close to the gods," they also began to make gifts and offerings in order to achieve the favor of the gods themselves. With the emergence of the state and the emergence of professional officials, the custom of bringing gifts to those on whom the fate of a person depended (kings, rulers, priests) began to extend to them, especially since at the beginning of the state's constitution, the highest secular and spiritual authorities, as a rule, face. The development of statehood, the emergence of vast states inevitably led to the emergence of a significant bureaucratic apparatus, a special caste of bureaucrats, who received increasing powers in the society. As the rulers believed, officials had to exist at the expense of a fixed salary, but in practice there was a different way. The custom of making gifts to them began to take root, in order to achieve their location and fulfillment of their requests, since expensive offerings allocated the ruler from the mass of other interested people. In the overwhelming number of states, where a significant bureaucratic apparatus was formed, its representatives sought to use their positions as a source of secret proceeds. And often this phenomenon in many states took a mass character and turned into a peculiar norm of behavior of officials.
Such a state of affairs naturally could not but disturb the rulers, and they took appropriate measures to punish the guilty. Moreover, punishments usually differed in cruelty and were indicative in nature. In the history of mankind there is a lot of information about how the rulers fought corruption. The first of such information refers to the second half of the XXIV century BC. E., when the fight against corruption was led by Urukagin, the Sumerian ruler of the city-state of Lagash. But, despite the fight against corruption, which was conducted throughout the existence of mankind, it was virtually impossible to defeat it anywhere. Usually it was possible only to reduce the level of the most dangerous crimes. There were many reasons for this, and they depended on the specific historical features of the development of the state, but one of them was that up to modern times everywhere in the world, including in Western Europe, the standard of behavior was the gift of expensive gifts, in fact bribes, by the very rulers, who also considered the state treasury as their own. Thus, it turned out that the rulers themselves did what they were fighting against, and the whole fight against corruption actually amounted to fighting against rival officials who also took bribes and encroached on the tsar's property.
The theory of social contract
During the New Period in Europe, the theory of the social contract, which had its logically completed form in the 17th-18th centuries, became more widespread. According to this theory, the state arose as a product of people's conscious activity, as a result of some agreement between them. Under this agreement, those who lead the state and ordinary citizens have a number of mutual rights and obligations that imply and the mutual responsibility for their implementation. Citizens are obliged to comply with laws passed by the state, which, in turn, is obliged to respect and protect the rights of citizens provided for by law. In case of abuse of power, citizens have the right to terminate the contract, up to the overthrow of those who do so. The theory of a social contract, democratic in its content, was of great importance for the subsequent development of the political system of European states and objectively struck a blow to corruption.
This concept violated traditional religious beliefs about the origin of power, supposedly given given people "from God" and therefore had the moral right to use it at their discretion. She claimed that the people contained a government that must strictly observe and protect the rights of citizens.
The liberal reforms
In European states at the request of the population in the XVIII-XIX centuries. liberal reforms were implemented, enshrining the clause that state power should exist for the benefit of citizens, and officials should strictly observe the laws, and, consequently, do not take bribes. For example, in the US Constitution adopted in 1787, it was explicitly stated that taking a bribe is one of those crimes for which an impeachment can be declared for the US President.
Thus, society in European countries began to have an opportunity to effectively influence the quality of the work of the bureaucracy. With the further democratization of the political systems of European states, thanks to the existence of a real multiparty system, a network of various public organizations engaged in protecting the rights of the population, the level of corruption in developed countries during the 19th and 21st centuries has significantly decreased compared to other countries in various parts of the world. At the same time, it should be noted that it was not possible to finally defeat corruption in the developed countries.
Corruption in Russia
Corruption in Russia, as well as in other countries, has its long-standing roots and specifics. In Russia, corruption historically varied according to whether there was an unreasonable advantage for the commission of legal actions (bribery), or illegal actions (covetousness).
The emergence of Russian statehood took place in very difficult conditions. The invasion of the Mongolo-Tatars, and then the establishment of their yoke over the north-eastern and north-western lands, led to a breakthrough, a certain discreteness of the natural historical development of the Russian lands. A qualitatively new situation has developed: the democratic veche traditions have become a thing of the past, now the Russian princes should not be considered with the opinion of the people's assembly (veche), but with the opinion of the Golden Horde khans and their governors in the Russian lands - the Baskakovs. From their location depended on whether the Russian prince received a label (reading and writing) for his reign or not. For the label it was necessary to go to Saray, the capital of the Golden Horde, it was impossible to go there without gifts to the khan and his officials. In fact, these gifts were bribes, and this practice has become the norm. All well understood that the more expensive and more gifts the prince will bring to the Horde, the greater the chance that his request will be resolved positively, especially if it was a question of getting a label for the Grand Duke Vladimirsky. A big role in deciding whether to get a label was played by the amount of money (Horde yield) promised to pay the Horde to the challenger. Thus, a situation arose in which it was necessary to pay to obtain power, and this adversely affected the mentality of the elite of the emerging Russian state. The prince and his entourage, constantly forced to carry gifts to the Horde, began to perceive this as the norm, and, as a rule, people who are forced to make gifts do not themselves object to receiving them. The system of offering expensive gifts to those who have been convicted of imperious powers has become an obligatory rule, and was no longer perceived as a kind of bribe, but as a kind of a sign of respect.
The specifics of the formation of the united Russian state were also in the fact that the political prerequisites for the unification of the Russian lands were clearly ahead of the economic ones. It was necessary to unite as soon as possible in order to overthrow the yoke of the Horde, therefore violence was dominated by the unification. The Moscow principality by force of arms attached to itself other Russian lands. And the process of unification of lands in a single state at the turn of the XV-XVI was very rapid. At the beginning of Ivan's accession to the throne (1462-1505), the territory of the Moscow State was estimated by the historian to be 430,000. sq. m. kilometers, and by the end of the reign of Basil III (1505-1533), it grew sixfold. On the map of Europe appeared a powerful state with a vast territory, which had an increasing influence on international politics, and with which it was necessary to reckon.
Moscow State and its political system
The political system of the Moscow state developed in the direction of centralization, but there was still not enough state apparatus. The administrative-territorial division was archaic. The power in the localities was transferred to the governors and volostels, who received separate territories (counties, volosts) for management. For the performance of administrative and judicial functions, they received at their disposal court fees and part of the taxes from the population collected in excess of the established taxes to the treasury, i.e. they were, as it were, "fed" at the expense of the population of the territories they controlled. Such a service was called "feeding". The governors and volostels were appointed from Moscow. Feedings were inherently remunerations for past military service, so "kormlenshchiki" tried to get as much income as possible from the population in their favor. Besides, the government bodies subordinated to them did not consist of state officials, but of their own servants. The arbitrariness of the servants of their servants was quite common.
The state sought to limit the arbitrariness and abuse of the feeders, somewhat weaken their power, as the population suffered from their expropriations and complained to the central authorities. The state tried to put the activities of the feeding men under its control both "from below" on the part of the elected representatives of the local population and "from above" from the central state bodies. However, it was not possible to establish effective control over the activities of the feeders, since the feed system itself created a fertile ground for corruption. In 1555 the system of feeding was officially abolished, in practice it was in one form or another and continued to exist until the 18th century.
With the development of the Moscow State, central authorities were formed, among which the central government took a special place - orders, whose role was constantly growing. In the second half of the 16th century, the country had a rather ramified order system. The peculiarity of the order system was that almost every order performed not only administrative functions, but also judicial ones. Very favorable for the development of the political system and the fight against corruption were affected by the reforms of the "Elected Rada" - the so-called government circle that was formed around the young Tsar Ivan the Terrible in the late 40s of the 16th century. The elected Rada held during its existence, i.e. until the end of the 1950s, a series of very important reforms that contributed to the political centralization of the country and largely limited the abuse of people in power.
New "Tsarist" Judgment
In 1550 a new Code of Law was published, which was called Ivan IV or "Tsar". It was compiled on the basis of the Code of Laws of Ivan III (1497). It reflected changes in Russian legislation, focusing on governance and the judiciary. According to Sudebnik, the role of the central judicial organs increased, and the importance of the royal court increased. For the first time in Sudebnik 1550 penalties were imposed for the boyars and the deacons-bribe-takers.
Reforms to some extent limited the power of the king. Undoubtedly, further implementation of reforms would have a beneficial effect on the future Russian statehood, but this did not happen. The elected Rada ceased to exist, its leading members were subjected to repression, and Ivan the Terrible began to conduct a new domestic policy, called oprichnina and aimed at the undivided strengthening of his personal power. The method of implementing oprichnina was terror. Oprichnina combined with a protracted Livonian War, lasting 25 years and ending with the defeat of Russia, undermined all the moral foundations of society, everywhere lawlessness and corruption reigned.
Time of Troubles
Russia's entry into the early 17th century during the Time of Troubles further exacerbated the situation, and even a real threat arose of the loss of national statehood. The consequences of all these events made themselves known for a very long time. In fact, it was necessary to restore not only the destroyed economy, but also statehood. This recovery was on the way to further centralization. The system of local self-government, formed as a result of the reforms of the Elected Council was eliminated, and in fact, there was a return to the feeding system. In the XVII century, power in the localities was concentrated in the hands of the governor, appointed from the center. They were retired military men, their service was not paid for by the state. The voevoda and his people contained a local population. Control of the governor's activities was weak, especially in remote counties, which created a fertile ground for abuse.
Corruption also increased in the central government bodies, where a bureaucratic apparatus was being formed. In the beginning, it was still very small. Under Ivan III - no more than 200 people, but in the XVII century there were already 4,500. human. The expanded command system was very confusing, orders often duplicated each other's activities, so the same thing could be in different orders. The imperfection of legal proceedings and legislation also had an effect.
In addition, the state tried to concentrate various court cases at the center, and therefore, in most court cases, it was necessary to go to Moscow. The voivodes on the ground solved only the most insignificant legal cases. Capital decrees were literally piled up with unresolved court cases, their passage moved very slowly, they "dragged", from where the famous Moscow "red tape" occurred. The servants of the orders, the clerks and the clerks, first of all considered the cases of those who bribed, and who did not have this opportunity, he was forced to languish in anticipation for an indefinite time.
Order of secret affairs
Moscow tsars attempted to limit bribery and embezzlement, but they could not overcome them. One of the measures to strengthen control over the order system was the creation under the Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich of the Secret Order (order of secret affairs). He was completely subordinate to the tsar and consisted only of clerks and clerks, boyars did not enter into him. The order was called upon to unite in the hands of the tsar the threads of control over state administration. According to the contemporary, the order of secret affairs was created "in order that royal thought and deeds were fulfilled all at his will, and the boyars and Duma people would not know anything about it." However, soon after the death of Alexei Mikhailovich, the order of secret affairs was closed.
Undermining trust in power
The spread of bribery and embezzlement undermined the credibility of power, the principles of state administration, caused serious social upheavals, and it was not for nothing that the XVII century entered the history of Russia as a "rebel". A vivid example of the consequences of corruption in a difficult time for the state is the Salt Riot of 1648 in Moscow. The government's unpopular measures in the tax system were exacerbated by the larceny of high-ranking officials. Particularly distinguished were the head of the Zemsky Order LS. Pleshcheev, who on false charges put people in jail and released only for a bribe, as well as the head of the Pushkarskiy order P. T. Trakhoniotov, who appropriated the salaries of the servicemen. Therefore, during the riots, its participants demanded that the said lichoites be extradited to the people, which was done. The executioner led Pleshcheyev to the square, and the crowd literally tore the bribe taker away. The next day the tragic fate fell upon Trakhoniotov. He was taken with a shoe round his neck around the capital, and then executed. This served as a good lesson for other officials, although bribery did not stop.
The Time of Peter's Reforms
The first quarter of the XVIII century entered the history of Russia as a time of Peter's reforms, which had a huge impact on the development of Russian statehood. Prepared largely by all the previous socio-economic development of the country, the reforms, however, were not of a smooth nature. They led to a rapid leap in the development of Russia, accompanied by the introduction of numerous innovations that did not organically and peacefully fit into Russian reality, but broke in abruptly and harshly, often violently imposed from above. " This was due to a number of reasons: firstly, the reforms took place in the conditions of war, because Russia conducted a large part of the reign of Peter the Great in a state of war, and secondly, the tsar did not have a clear plan for their implementation, and they went rather chaotically, spontaneously, under the pressure of specific circumstances. Naturally, this led to huge losses and costs.
The reforms carried out by Peter I completed the process of forming an absolute monarchy in Russia. The essence of absolutism was expressed even in the Military Statute (1715): "His Majesty is an autocratic monarch, who should not give an answer to anyone in the world about his affairs; but the strength and power has its own states and lands, as a Christian sovereign, by its own will and blessing to rule. " The absolute monarch belonged to the fullness of the legislative, executive and judicial powers, he was also the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the country. The Moscow state has become a Russian empire. In October 1721, after the victory in the Northern War, Peter I took the title of Father of the Fatherland, Emperor of All-Russia.
By that time, absolutist regimes already existed in most countries of Western Europe. But in the West, absolutism, which was inherently a feudal regime, arose in the conditions of the existence of capitalist relations, and there was a kind of "balance" between the forces of the bourgeoisie and the nobility. In Russia this was not. Therefore, we can say that in Russia there is a special type of absolutism, different from the Western one. The difference was, first of all, that there was actual independence of the regime in relation to civil society, which put it above society.
The reforms of the state apparatus and administration carried out by Peter I had colossal consequences for the development of Russian statehood. In fact, it was under Peter I that the foundations of a totalitarian state were laid in our country. Peter I was able to create a so-called "regular state" - police-bureaucratic in nature, in which the life of each person was strictly regulated. For this type of characteristic system of comprehensive control, passport regime, denunciation.
Under Peter I a huge bureaucratic apparatus was created, which gradually expanded, and its role in governing the state grew more and more. The interests of the bureaucratic apparatus were in conflict with the interests of social development, since the criterion for the successful work of bureaucrats was, first and foremost, orderly clerical work, and not the real state of affairs. In addition, the content of the ever-increasing bureaucratic apparatus required ever greater expenditures, which often clearly exceeded the material resources of the state, which became apparent already under Peter I, and, above all, in the work of local authorities. Naturally, the lack of funding officials compensated for the losses from the population.
Thus, it can be concluded that the reforms of Peter I not only did not eliminate the conditions for corruption in Russia, but even created a more favorable ground for it.
It should be noted that the Tsar himself understood the real state of affairs quite well, had no illusions about the evaluation of the moral qualities of people who filled numerous offices, and was suspicious of officials. As one of the researchers of this period in the history of Russia, N. AND. Pavlenko, the tsar, "was almost ready to see in each of them the embezzler, the bribe-taker, the extortioner, the man who knows no bounds in quenching his thirst for profit by robbing the state and individual subjects of the sovereign."
Proceeding from such assessments of officials, Peter I paid much attention to the creation of supervisory bodies, which were created simultaneously with the management apparatus. It is significant that in 1711 the Senate and the Institute of Fiscal were established on the same day.
The fiscals had to "secretly investigate, inform and denounce, without interfering in the course of the case itself." They obeyed only the Ober-Fiscal, whose office was established under the Senate. It was to him that they reported all the violations revealed.
New executive authorities
Of the College
In the years 1718-1721. New executive bodies of the central power were created - they were colleges, replacing the intricate order system (by that time there were 44 orders). Matters in colleges were considered and decided collegially. One of the collegiums, the Justice Collegium, was in charge of court cases. Peter even attempted to separate the judiciary from the administrative one, but he could not do this.
The Preobrazhensky Order
Great importance in the Petrine state had a punitive body, called the Preobrazhensky order - it originated in the late 17th century and conducted investigations, as well as a court for political cases. In 1718, another punitive body was created - the Secret Chancery. She also carried out an investigation and a court on political matters, but her business was mainly concerned with matters relating to St. Petersburg and the district. An important role was played also by the "Cabinet" -the so-called personal chancellery of Peter I.
Establishment of the Public Prosecutor
In 1722 in Russia the most important control body was created - the Prosecutor's Office. During the Senate, the highest in the country position of the Prosecutor General was established, and in the collegiums - prosecutors. Unlike the fiscal authorities, prosecutors, when they discovered a violation of law, had to correct it. The Procurator-General was endowed with very great functions and could only be appointed or removed by the tsar. He supervised the sittings of the Senate and exercised control over his activities. In the decree issued by Peter I, the following was said about the post of procurator-general: "This is the rank, as our eye and solicitor for the affairs of the state." The first prosecutor-general was appointed P. N. Yaguzhinsky.
Abuse of dignitaries
But, despite the existence of a developed control system, corruption in Russia under Peter the Great continued to exist. And they noticed that there were very high-ranking officials in the abuse, including those who, according to their duty, had to fight against covetousness, and even people from the closest circle of the Tsar. So, in embezzlement, the Siberian Governor Prince M.P. Gagarin. He was charged with not only stealing official money, but also receiving bribes, extorting gifts from merchants and appropriating other people's goods. He even went so far as to take three diamond rings and a diamond in his nest, which was intended for the wife of Peter I - Catherine.
Abuses were so obvious that the provident governor did not even deny them, and in his petition in the name of the king asked only for the preservation of life in order to go to the monastery. However, he received no such favor from Peter and was publicly hanged in public in July 1721 for the edification of another embezzler in front of the building of the justice collegium. Merit in exposing Prince Gagarin belonged to Ober-Fiskal Nesterov. A few years later, in January 1724, Nesterov himself was publicly spinning, and as it turned out, he was also involved in very serious abuses. Petersburg vice-governor Ya.N. Korsakov for public embezzlement after torture publicly burned the language, and then sent to exile. The same fate befell the senator Prince Grigory Volkonsky.
In the contractual machinations, high-ranking nobles who were trusted by the tsar - Admiral F.M. Apraksin, Chancellor G.I. Golovkin, A.V. Kikin, U. Sinyavin. Repeatedly involved in the investigation on charges of embezzlement and the favorite of the king - Alexander Menshikov, and only the indulgence of Peter I to his favorite allowed the prince to escape severe punishment. However, as many historians believe, Menshikov could easily share the fate of other embezzlers, if the emperor lived a few more years.
Age of palace coups
After the death of Peter I in Russia came the era of palace coups, characterized by instability and uncertainty of political power, favoritism. Most of the time this era on the throne were women, some of them could be called empress only on formal grounds. Naturally, this created favorable conditions for abuse, especially since officials were often detained, and sometimes did not pay at all, because the treasury did not have enough money to maintain the bureaucracy.
Catherine II
The situation improved somewhat during the reign of Catherine II, Russia even took the right steps to create a rule-of-law state. Measures were taken to streamline the proceedings, but corruption continued to exist. The same can be said for the periods of the reign of Paul I and Alexander I.
Nikolay the First
Entering the throne after the suppression of the uprising on December 14, 1825 in St. Petersburg, Nicholas I demanded the creation of a collection of testimonies of the Decembrists on the internal state of Russia. This document clearly showed the whole degree of lawlessness in administration, court, finances, etc. The reasons were hidden in the uncontrolled image of state administration and accompanying corruption in almost all echelons of power.
Nicholas I understood that it is possible to change the situation in the country only through reforms, that one must make concessions to the "spirit of the times", but was afraid of reforms and their consequences. Nikolay I saw the way out of this situation in strengthening personal power, bureaucratization and militarization of the country, combating dissent and strengthening punitive bodies. The bureaucracy began to grow at an unprecedented pace. By the end of the reign of Nicholas I, it increased by about six times compared to the beginning of the century, and the population of Russia only doubled during this time.
It was almost impossible to verify the truthfulness of thousands of reports submitted to various authorities, besides, most army agencies, including ministries, were armed with army generals who were new to the new case for them. In such a situation, the leaders fell into some kind of dependence on their subordinates. The average bureaucracy began to play an increasingly important role in the management of the state. This was acknowledged by Nicholas I, who once said that "Russia is governed by the chiefs." The officials themselves understood this, which contributed to the spread of corruption.
Absence of a single set of laws
Impunity for abusing officials in Russia was also helped by the fact that no new unified code of laws was drawn up in the country since the time of the Council Code of 1649. There were a lot of manifestos, decrees, provisions, which often contradicted each other, than very cleverly used by experienced bureaucrats for their own mercenary purposes. Nicholas I ordered the drafting of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire, which, in his opinion, should help to bring order to the country without changing its political system. The code of laws was drafted and approved in 1833, however, in the presence of general corruption, this did not change the situation in the country. The government in Russia under Nicholas I turned into a kind of estate, invulnerable and conscious of its power. This estate, with some modifications, exists safely to this day, posing a real threat to the development of the country, still engaged in bribery and covetousness.
The defeat of Russia in the Crimean War showed the whole inconsistency of the policy of Nicholas I, the need for reform, which was done in the 60-70s of the XIX century by Alexander II. One of the first reforms was judicial reform (1864). The court became unconscious, public, independent and co-extensive. A jury trial was also introduced. It seemed that Alexander II's reforms could radically change the history of the country and, moreover, put an end to corruption, but this did not happen, because the reforms that were carried out were not backed by political reforms. Autocratic power was preserved, moreover, after the assassination of Alexander II by the People's Willers, his son Alexander III joined the throne, who began to pursue counter-reform policies and strengthen the monarchical order.
The bureaucratic apparatus very soon adapted to the new conditions and realized that post-reform Russia opened new ample opportunities for all kinds of abuses, giving them some civilized appearance. Entrepreneurial activity in Russia completely depended on the permits of officials, extorting solid bribes. Huge means, including state ones, were directed not to investment in industry, but settled in the pockets of officials. Corruption has clearly become an obstacle to the development of market relations. To restrict bribery and extortion under Alexander III, a special decision was adopted that prohibited the combination of public positions with posts in joint-stock companies and banks. However, the officials found a way out and began to "push" their relatives to these organizations.
Nicholas II
The reign of the last Russian Emperor Nicholas II is also characterized by the flourishing of corruption, in which not only officials of all ranks were involved, but people close to the emperor and even members of the imperial family. Suffice it to recall the deeds of the "holy old man" Grigory Rasputin, who openly took bribes for solving all sorts of cases, including for appointing high public offices. It was corruption, along with other contradictions in society, that caused the ripening of revolutionary sentiments in the country and ultimately contributed to the coming to power of the Bolsheviks.
Politics of War Communism
The policy of "military communism" pursued by the Bolsheviks during the civil war led to the emergence of a new bureaucracy, which assumed the distribution functions. After the end of the civil war and the transition to peace, a new administrative apparatus is surrendered, but the Bolsheviks could not refuse to involve old officials in this work because of the lack of their trained personnel. Therefore, a kind of merging of the new bureaucracy with the old pre-revolutionary bureaucracy gradually began, which resulted in the emergence of the Soviet bureaucracy, which inherited all the vices of former times, and, above all, corruption.
NEP
Already in the period of the NEP, this problem has shown itself with all evidence: numerous cases of bribery, plundering of state funds, raw materials from state enterprises are revealed. All this forced the young Soviet state to take cruel punitive measures. In 1922 a law was issued, according to which a shooting was required for a bribe.
Stalin I. AT.
Subsequently, tough punitive measures to combat corruption were included in the constant practice of the Soviet state, especially under I. AT. Stalin, which undoubtedly influenced the reduction of corruption. However, to conclude that in the Stalin period in the USSR there was no corruption, it is impossible. It existed, but not in such forms and sizes as in tsarist Russia. The fact is that at that time the relationship "power and wealth" was particularly clearly traced, and wealth is not in the classical sense of this concept. The official did not need money to buy a car, a mansion, an apartment, etc. All this gave him a position in power. Buying a car for money received for a bribe, the official would certainly have ended up in prison, and even under the shooting. Moreover, it was simply impossible to buy a car in the USSR then, and it was not forbidden to use the state car with a personal driver, which was assigned to a state official, at its discretion. Therefore, in the higher echelons of power there was a fierce struggle for a place in the power structures, and not for receiving bribes.
The bureaucratic apparatus under I. AT. Stalin grew significantly and became stronger, there appeared the so-called nomenclature, which in its essence and position in society was very similar to the class of bureaucrats that was formed under Nicholas I.
Brezhnev L. AND.
This similarity became especially evident in the period of L. AND. Brezhnev, especially in the last years of his life. Even in the general principles of the state policy pursued, the period of "developed socialism" was very reminiscent of the times of Nicholas I during the "apogee of the autocracy". To describe these two periods, one term is very suitable: stagnation. Corruption began to penetrate all the echelons of power, discrediting it and entering into flagrant contradictions with the needs of society. Undoubtedly, corruption greatly aggravated the crisis of the era of socialism and brought the collapse of the USSR closer.
It was during the last period of LI's reign. Brezhnev bribery began to penetrate more and more in such spheres of society as health and education, something that was not observed in the USSR before.
The collapse of the Soviet Union
The disintegration of the USSR and the formation of independent states from the former republics were accompanied by political, economic and social crises, conflicts on national soil. The emergence of a new Russian statehood also took place under extreme conditions of hyperinflation, unemployment, hasty voucher privatization, more like simply looting state property.
Treacherous privatization
There was a criminalization of the society against the backdrop of inaction of law enforcement agencies and a fierce struggle for power. It is at this time that those trends are formed that largely explain the enormous scale of corruption in our days.
First, there is a privatization of property, as a result of which its owners become either the representatives of the nomenclature themselves, or those who had connections with them and thus gained access to privatization.
Secondly, representatives of the criminal world were included in the process of privatization to some extent, which also proved to be connected with representatives of the nomenclature. Many of them then managed to legalize their business and criminal mores.
Thirdly, there was a return to the times of "feeding".
In the conditions of non-payment of salaries people of different professions, including doctors and teachers, law enforcement officers, etc. began to use their work to generate additional income, some to survive, others to enrich themselves.
Fourth, there was a further increase in the bureaucratic apparatus, the backbone of which was the former nomenclature. Thus, it turned out that a significant part of representatives of big business became such through abuses and outright crime. The bureaucratic apparatus now has enormous power in the country and uses it for its own mercenary purposes. Corruption has become widespread in society, and all levels of society are involved in it to some extent. Corruption has become a norm of life, especially in the sphere of business, politics, bureaucracy.
However, this can not continue for a long time, since the level of corruption has already exceeded all permissible norms. It literally paralyzes society, becoming a serious obstacle to the development of democracy, economy, statehood, generates immorality and crime. According to the report of the international organization Transparency International in the rating of corruption, Russia currently occupies 143rd place out of 180 countries, competing in this field not with developed Western countries, but with African ones [1].
The leadership of the country is well aware of the state of affairs and develops a set of measures to combat corruption. President of Russia D. Medvedev declared the fight against corruption a priority direction of state policy. In his opinion, "corruption is the enemy number one". In Russia, a presidential package of anti-corruption laws has already been developed and there are reasons to believe that after it is approved, an effective fight against corruption will begin in the country.
Contemporary assessments of corruption
| 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 |
| 2,58 | 2,27 | 2,4 | 2,4 | 2,1 | 2,3 | 2,7 | 2,7 | 2,8 | 2,4 | 2,5 | 2,3 | 2,1 | 2,2 |
Literature
- The whole world to fight global corruption!
- K2 Capital.
- http://www.k2kapital.com/analytics/opportune/276853.html
- https://xreferat.com/22/3801-1-istoriya-korrupcii-v-rossii.html
