OK let's try again in normal size

[cle-fable.livejournal.com]

Hi, everyone's been really helpful do far.  I've run into an argument i can't quite make sense of but I've highlighted the bits that I'm unsure of.  Also given my tranlsation for all of it just in case but feel free to ignore the bulk of it.

С 1994 года бурно стал развиваться и парламентский, прежде всего думский, лоббизм. Поскольку Констиуция 1994 года лишила парламент возможности всерьез заниматься политикой, Дума довольно быстро стала превращаться в экономическое торжище. Именно в это время бюджет, становящийся из года в год все более подробным, превратился в документ основного лоббистского спроса. А бюджетные прения -- временем лоббистской страды. Бюджетным спортом были равно увлечены все депутаты, невзирая на партийные отличия. Особое усердие проявляли думцы-одномандатники. Были случаи, когда такие депутаты поддерживали документ вопреки мнению своей фракции, исключительно ради бюджетной строчки. Например, нынешний омбудсмен Олег Миронов, состоявший в КПРФ, из года в год нарушал партийную дисциплину ради денег, выбиваемых им на строительство моста через Волгу от Саратова до Энгельса. Мироновский мост даже стал нарицательным. И в Думе одно время ходила шутка: «У каждого депутата в бюджете свой мост».

From 1994 onwards, parliamentary lobbying, especially in the State Duma (the lower house of the Federal Assembly of Russia) began to develop on an unprecedented scale.  Since the new constitution of December 1993 had stripped parliament of much of its political power, the Duma in a fairly short space of time regressed to a marketplace.  At the same time, the budget, which was becoming more detailed with every passing year, became the fruit of lobbying efforts, and budgetary debates – the time of toil.  All deputies without exception were swept into the budgetary fray, irrespective of their political party affiliations, with single-mandate deputies displaying particular zeal.  On occasions these deputies would support the budget on the basis of a few lines, against the opinion of their political factions.  The current Human Rights Commissioner, Oleg Mironov, formerly a member of the Communist Party, frequently broke party discipline to secure money to build a bridge over the river Volga  from Saratov to Engels – the eponymous Mironov Bridge, as it became known.  At one time a joke circulated in the Duma “Every deputy has his bridge in the budget.”

Строка в бюджете и сам бюджет превратились почти в универсальное средство торговли не только по экономическим, но и по политическим вопросам. На бюджетные деньги покупались целые фракции (аграриев, например, традиционно в последний момент склоняли голосовать за бюджет, прибавив денег по разделу «сельское хозяйство») и совершались политические сделки. В декабре 1997 года Борис Ельцин впервые лично посетил думское заседание, чтобы уговорить депутатов принять бюджет, пообещав взамен подписать 1.закон о правительстве и собрать «круглый стол» по Земельному кодексу.

1. Is this a refernec to Yeltsin reshuffling the cabinet and banning dual ministerail posts to stop Chubais from having control over two ministries at once.

A line in the budget or the budget itself came to assume the status almost of universal tender, not only on economic issues but also on political ones.  Entire factions could be bought for budgetary money and political deals closed (the agrarian faction, for instance, could traditionally be counted on to back the budget, having secured funding for agriculture).  In December 1997, Yeltsin attended a Duma session for the first time in order to persuade the deputies to back the 1998 budget, having promised in exchange to sign a law on the government and to organise round table talks on the Land Code.

Но и кроме бюджета уже в первой Думе (1994--1995) думцы начали оттачивать свое мастерство на других законах. Проектов, которые представляли интерес для бизнеса, шло немало: о банках и банковской деятельности, об основах налоговой системы, о ЦБ, о соглашениях о разделе продукции и т.п. Во второй Думе (1996--1999) мастерство депутатов настолько возросло, что, казалось, законов, в которых не было бы ничьего лоббистского интереса, и вовсе не бывает. Помимо традиционного слета лоббистов к дележу бюджетного пирога активные действия наблюдались в ходе обсуждения налоговых законов. Кроме того, в это время пошла мода на отраслевые законы -- о такой-то промышленности, о поддержке такой-то отрасли. Бесспорными хитами эпохи считаются законопроекты о пчеловодстве, о северном оленеводстве и электромагнитной совместимости. На худой конец, если не хватало сил на закон, принимались хотя бы постановления в поддержку отдельных отраслей и предприятий. В это же время широкое развитие получил 1.«обратный» лоббизм. 2. Когда Думу использовали для торпедирования тех или иных законодательных инициатив или других начинаний, чаще правительственных или президентских, с которыми вторая Дума была в контрах. В частности, за все четыре года правительству так и не удалось утвердить программу приватизации, намертво зависли в Думе Налоговый и Земельный кодексы. Кроме того, Думу активно начали использовать в своих междоусобных разборках компании. Сначала в рамках комиссии по итогам приватизации (там, в частности, разбирались с ТНК, «Норильским никелем», «Связьинвестом»), затем в комиссии по коррупции. Именно Дума выступала главным обвинителем сначала бревновского, а затем чубайсовского РАО «ЕЭС» и защитницей вяхиревского «Газпрома», 4.поддерживала Филатова (в то время директора «Норникеля») против ОНЭКСИМбанка, а Палея (глава «Нижневартовскнефтегаза») против «Альфа-Групп».

2. Is this counter lobbying here?

3.The phrase другие начинения could mean almost anything couldn't it?
  Also legislative initiatives - don't they come from the governemnt and presidency?  Or it comes to the same thing - at least part of the cabinet ie the governemnt must be made up of the majority party so you can't sepaprate Duma initiatives from governemnt and presidential initiatives.  Unless your talking about orders and decrees which this isn't.  I can only assume it's saying that the initiatives were party based not cabinet beased.

4. Is подерживать the same as защитить in this context?

Deputies in the first Duma (1994-1995) however did not confine themselves to the budget; they had already begun to hone their skills in other areas of the law.  Laws affecting business were drafted in no small number: on the functions of the banking sector, on the framework of the tax code, on the Central Bank and on the production sector.  In the second Duma (1996-1999) the deputies became so skilful that to all appearances there was not a single law passed that did not reflect the lobbying interests of at least one person.  As well as the traditional jostling for a slice of the budgetary pie, concerted efforts were made during deliberations on the tax laws.  Meanwhile, another trend was developing: the passing of sectoral laws – regulating a particular commercial sector or developing a branch of industry – were the order of the day.  The bee-keeping, reindeer breeding and electromagnetic compatibility bills were considered triumphs of those years.  In the worst case scenario – if there was not sufficient support for a bill – decrees could be issued in support of individual sectors and enterprises.  It was at that time that ‘counter lobbying’ came into its own.  The Duma was used to accelerate legislative and other initiatives more often then the government or president, with which the second Duma was at loggerheads, as was shown by the fact that in four years the government did not manage to consolidate its privatisation programme and the executive and Duma had reached a stalemate over the Tax and Land Codes.  Furthermore, companies began to use the Duma to settle disputes between them, first during the investigations of the Commission on the Results of Privatization (in which TNK, Norilsk Nikel and Svyazinvest came under scrutiny) and later in the Commission on Corruption.  The Duma acted as chief prosecutor against the Unified Energy System when it was headed by Boris Brevnov and later when it was headed by Anatoly Chubais, defended Gazprom when it was headed by Rem Vyakhirev and supported Anatoly Filatov (then the director of Norilsk Nikel) against Oniksembank and Viktor Paly (head of Nuzhnevartovskneftegaz) against Alfa Group.

Thanks for your help in advance and I apologise for the duplication.

 

 

Comments

[konstkaras.livejournal.com]

Also legislative initiatives - don't they come from the governemnt and presidency?
Some do, some don't.
Or it comes to the same thing - at least part of the cabinet ie the governemnt must be made up of the majority party...
No. Duma never had so much power.
Unless your talking about orders and decrees which this isn't. I can only assume it's saying that the initiatives were party based not cabinet beased.
That phrase said: lobbists could use Duma against various initiatives, mostly government's and president's legislative ones (but not only against their and not only against legislative).
4. Is подерживать the same as защитить in this context?
I guess no, it means "to help them struggling", that is not only "to defend". What if Filatov and Paley were not defending but attacking?

[cle-fable.livejournal.com]

maybe I've misunderstood the word торпедирование. The dictionary defined it as torpedoing, shooting so I thought that meant to accelerate/ push through. But if it means to use the Duma against them, block them, that would make a lot more sense.

[khathi.livejournal.com]

You use torpedoes to sink the ship -- or the bill, like in this case.

[pigmeich.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't know where is all the community but there is my answer.

> 2. Is this counter lobbying here?
Perhaps, this phrase about pitching service of lobbying to industrialists.

> 3.The phrase другие начинения could mean almost anything couldn't it?
There's typo here -- "другие начинания" (other projects).

> 4. Is подерживать the same as защитить in this context?
If subject is attacked then yes, if engaged then поддерживать = покровительствовать.

[pinky-the-cow.livejournal.com]

4. Is подерживать the same as защитить in this context?
No, it's playing on someone's side, not just defending or protecting.

Re: 1. — I don't know, which kind of law it was, I was too young at the time.