Logic query lobbying again

[cle-fable.livejournal.com]

Hi guys,

I wonder if you could help me understand the sense of one paragraph - it requires knowledge of the interaction between state and Duma and some quite complex linguistic knowledge, neither of which I have I don't think.

Here is the paragraph and my translation with quieries highlighted in bold:

Парадоксально, но факт: самая смирная и зависимая в политическом отношении Дума на поприще лоббизма куда более прытка и эффективна, чем две предыдущие. На первый взгляд, учитывая, что решения в Думе определяются позицией пропрезидентских фракций (после образования «союза четырех» из «Единства», «Народного депутата», ОВР и «Регионов России» исход голосования стал еще больше зависеть от установки Кремля), непонятно, как можно провести какие-либо решения, если они не согласованы в администрации президента или правительстве. И тем не менее опыт двух последних лет показывает, что это возможно. Самые проворные лоббисты бессильны, если по закону есть четкая позиция генерального заказчика. Даже если решение будет проведено, оно будет отыграно назад. Так, например, пока Кремль не распорядился поддержать 17-ю главу Гражданского кодекса о свободной купле-продаже земли, она из раза в раз проваливалась. Или совсем свежий пример: принятый в первом чтении закон «О национализации» Адриана Пузановского был отвергнут после того, как проправительственные фракции, получившие нагоняй сверху, настояли на возврате к голосованию. Причем представитель Белого дома Андрей Логинов заранее рассказал, как нежелательное для правительства решение будет аннулировано.

It is a paradoxical truth that, for lobbying purposes, the most politically submissive and subservient Duma has been a far more effective and responsive body than the two previous Dumas.  At first glance, given that decisions in the Duma are determined by the pro-presidential factions (after the formation of the ‘union of four’ comprising Unity, Fatherland All-Russia (OVR), People’s Deputy and Regions of Russia factions the outcome of voting came to reflect more and more the directives from the Kremlin), it would seem impossible that any decision could be passed without its first having been approved by the Presidential Administration or the government.  Yet the experience of the last two years has shown that it is possible.  The most adroit lobbyists are rendered powerless if a law bears the unmistakable stamp of having been ordered from inside the Kremlin.  Even if a decision is upheld, it will be voted out at a later date.  Thus, for instance, until the Kremlin ordered that  Chapter 17 of the Civil Code pertaining to the free purchase and sale of land be upheld it was defeated time and again.  Or to take a completely different example: deputies approved the law on nationalisation submitted by Adrian Puzanovsky on the fourth reading but it was thrown out after the pro-government factions, having received a scolding from above, insisted on a revote.  White House representative Andrei Loginov had said earlier that a decision unfavourable to the government would be annulled.  

I'm not so much checking that I've expressed it perfectly, more that I've understood the sense.
It's saying that a lobbyist won't get anywhere with the Duma if he clearly lobbies for a state body or official (the previous paragraph had talked about the rift between Duma and presidency in the second Duma under Yeltsin).  So that's why I translated генеральный заказчик the way I have.

The next sentence даже если пешение будет проведено, оно будег отыграно назад.  Отыграть назад literally means to win back.  But I can't express it like that in English.  I assume it means the prerson in question will get their way in the end, bring the decision back undertheir control.  But I can't work out who is who.  Who will pass the decsion and then who will win it back.  It's either saying 1. the Duma will pass it or make a certain decision and then the State will find a way of doing the opposite of what the Duma has done, or 2.it means that Duma will take the decision the state wants it to take but later find a way of cancelling that decision, find a way of going against the state in the end.
1. would fit in better with the following examples but 2. would follow on better from the sentence 'the lobbyist is powerless if a decision he is advocating bears the unmistakable stamp of a state client.

Also is решение another word for законопроект or does it mean a decision more generally?

Thank you

Comments

[zauberer.livejournal.com]

The paragraph itself is somewhat contradictory. It states: «На первый взгляд, учитывая, что решения в Думе определяются позицией пропрезидентских фракций… непонятно, как можно провести какие-либо решения, если они не согласованы в администрации президента или правительстве» implying that the real situation differs from what can be seen at first glance, but later giving examples supporting the stated point: «Самые проворные лоббисты бессильны…» and «принятый в первом чтении закон… был отвергнут после того, как проправительственные фракции, получившие нагоняй сверху, настояли на возврате к голосованию». I cannot deduce the author's point of view from this paragraph. May be in broader context the meaning would be easier to grasp.

«Генеральный заказчик» is used in somewhat ironic way to express the meaning that the Kremlin has the most powerful lobby in the Duma and that the main reason of Duma's existence is to satisfy Kremlin.

As for «отыграть назад», in this text it means that the Duma will pass the decision and than (probably as a result of having received a scolding from above) the Duma itself will change it back. This is possible because Duma is not a sole person, but many people who not only vote differently, but also change their votes over time.

«Решение» generally means «decision», and is not a synonym for «законопроект».