Russian official social portrait
The question of power is key in any society. In Russia, where a large share of management is concentrated in the hands of the bureaucracy, this issue is most acute. The public administration reform, which has been sweeping across Russia for the sixth year, puts forward new demands for civil servants. The images of classical officials - Chekhov's Chervyakov and Gogol's Gorodnichy - are becoming a thing of the past. The “portrait” of a person serving the state should become more vibrant, modern and attractive.
The study of issues related to the evolution of bureaucracy involves analyzing the content of various documents: current documentation of organizations, statements of citizens, etc. But the analysis of the content of the media (press, radio, television) is of greatest interest, because It is the media that are one of the most important factors influencing the population’s attitude towards government officials. The purpose of media content analysis is to obtain information about extra-textual reality, which is reflected and interpreted. Based on this, an attempt was made to reconstruct the image of bureaucracy in the official (state) and unofficial (non-state) press. Using the expert assessment method, two of the most authoritative and colorful publications were selected that most consistently reflect this topic - “Vesti” and “Vyatka Observer”. In this case, the content of a certain image of an official is interpreted as a reflection of the position of the corresponding publication. The sample set of observation units was formed by messages on a given research topic, in which the actor is the subject defined in the analysis scheme under the letter “B” - an official, a group of officials, or an organization. In this case, the principle of continuous sampling was used: viewing all issues of publications for the last six months. The semantic unit of content analysis in a particular case was the term “official”, expressed in different aspects such as civil servant, public figure, object and subject of influence.
After analyzing the data obtained during the study of this block, the researchers compiled a socio-psychological portrait of a modern official. The only problem that arises is that the portraits drawn up on the basis of the official and unofficial press differ significantly. The modern manager is defined as something between the two images portrayed in the press. Thus, it turned out that he is not deprived of initiative, but cannot always complete what he starts. He is hardworking, but at the same time he is in search of his own gain and has a tendency to cheat. In many ways, he is driven by the thirst for profit, but the problem in this case is not only in the personal characteristics of an individual, but also in the very system of motivation for the work of civil servants, in better personnel selection of specialists.
The situation in which the population on a daily basis is faced with the complication of certain problems, long queues at receptions, rudeness and incompetence of individual government officials, corruption, etc., indeed continues to worsen and contribute to the formation of a negative generalized image of Russian officials .
It should be noted that parties and politicians opposed to the current government are more interested in maintaining an unflattering image of civil servants in the mass consciousness. Officials are a convenient object for attributing to them the causes of all the people's troubles and misfortunes. Speculation on this topic has become commonplace. “Revelatory” or critical media materials also play an important role, satisfying the needs of the reader and television audience regarding scandalous facts. The study confirmed this. Publications on topics dedicated to Kirov officials and authorities in the opposition weekly “Vyatka Observer” were published mainly in the headings “Crime”, “Politics”, “The Most Important”, as well as the heading “Advertising”. At the same time, the percentage of coverage of the achievements of government bodies in certain areas, primarily at the local level, is negligible. Positive aspects in the activities of the authorities are generally taken for granted and therefore do not require much attention. For this reason, Kirov newspapers are reluctant to cover positive information, often of a socially significant nature, while negative information, sometimes completely unfounded, is presented with obvious pleasure.
It is important to note that in the non-governmental publication “Vyatka Observer”, among the means of impact on the environment attributed to officials, mainly illegal actions, actions to exercise and exceed official powers, which were negative in nature and had either negative or zero impact results, were highlighted. Among the targets of influence, the topic of corruption and bribery of the bureaucracy and the inability of the authorities to combat this problem were especially often used. While the official newspaper of the Government of the Kirov Region used such means of influence as dialogue with the public, the use of the law, appearances in the media explaining the same laws, regulations, and comments on the work. From the point of view of the impact, all this, naturally, was ultimately assessed positively by journalists.
Of course, the state should strive to destroy the existing stereotype about officials. Or rather, officials themselves must take care of their image in the public consciousness. The government of the Kirov region understands this very well, and therefore the Head of the Department of Information, Analytical Work and Public Relations of the government of the Kirov region proposed to reduce the size of bonuses to employees of eight regional departments, directorates and services on the basis of an insufficient “percentage of execution of information activities”, since these departments and services provided the citizens of the Kirov region with information about their activities to the smallest extent. The success of the activities of officials is now assessed not only by how much benefit they brought to the Vyatka economy and the Vyatka people, but also by how many information occasions they “provided,” held press conferences and how often they “showed initiative in covering this or that event ".
However, it is necessary to understand that creating a positive image of an official is a rather difficult task. The image of a typical official cannot in a short period of time become the personification of decency, honesty, responsibility, justice, competence, the image of a person for whom the working day ends not by the clock, but after receiving the last visitor and solving his specific problem. This situation can be changed by acting in two directions: by solving general socio-economic problems facing the country, region, city, town and aimed at improving the general standard of living of the population, as well as by overcoming the alienation and isolation of civil servants from the population, increasing the transparency of work authorities at all levels.
Based on the results of the content analysis, scientists made the following recommendations for overcoming the negative image of bureaucrats and their PR support.
Overcoming the alienation and marginality of civil servants and, as a consequence, improving attitudes towards them, increasing the prestige of the civil service through measures that increase the openness of the civil service. These types of events include: round tables, workshops, open meetings held with the participation of citizens. Their active information support from the media.
1. An increase in the salary of civil servants must correspond to the population’s desire for social justice. Citizens can be widely involved in open discussions about what might be the result of a public servant's work and how people's views will be taken into account.
2. The desire to control the activities of officials should be associated with the introduction of job regulations, which should expand the population’s understanding of officials, their responsibilities and the quality of work.
3. Active media coverage of competitions for filling civil service positions, creating transparency in this process, excluding the possibility of getting a job through personal connections.
4. Popularization and increasing the prestige of the civil service, especially among the younger generation, by creating a positive image of a modern official who acts primarily in the interests of society and ordinary citizens, is competent, responsible and energetic and has other equally important professional qualities.
Text: Elena Rudneva, photo: GettyOne
The State Duma returns to the second reading of the code of conduct for officials. The authors of this document are achieving the impossible: for officials to be honest. To accomplish this task, they suggested that Mikhail Kasyanov and other ministers publish “Declarations of Conflicts of Interest” in newspapers.
On April 24, the centrist majority of the State Duma failed the “Code of Official Conduct for Officials of State Bodies and Local Self-Government Bodies,” developed in the depths of the Union of Right Forces. This was already the second reading. The first one took place a year earlier. Then the Kremlin supported the proposals of the right, but this year the presidential law on the civil service was adopted (Gazeta.Ru spoke in detail about this document), so the code on honest behavior of officials turned out to be unnecessary. However, its author, Vladimir Yuzhakov, was given the opportunity to finalize the document, scheduling a second second reading for today.
On the eve of the consideration of the code, a round table was held within the framework of the Open Forum, the participants of which had to decide whether such a code was needed in Russia. Politicians, businessmen and political scientists were unanimous - it is necessary.
For the first time in the history of Russia, the code defines what anti-corruption and corruption behavior of civil servants is.
By dangerous corruption, the code understands not just bribes, but situations of so-called conflict of interest. For example, when any decision of an official affects his interests as an ordinary citizen. An official should not accept gifts, use his official position, information, state property, or a car, for example, for personal purposes.
Officials in state bodies and local self-government bodies are prohibited from “making decisions and taking actions (inactions) entailing legal consequences in relation to the interested person.” Moreover, it is prohibited to occupy a position that allows such decisions to be made. Following this prohibition, the minister, for example, does not have the right to make decisions regarding companies whose owner or co-owner is himself or his relatives.
The minister is obliged to either eliminate the conflict of interest within ten days (for example, force his wife to break up with the business), or vacate his position.
Aleksey Starovoitov, an analyst at the Foundation for the Development of Parliamentarism, told the round table participants that in the UK there is a code of ethics for civil servants, and in the USA there is a code of ethics for civil servants. In addition, the Americans have had a presidential advisory commission on ethics and conflict of interest since the time of President Kennedy. Therefore, according to the expert, if such a code as proposed by SPS deputy Yuzhakov comes into force, it will become “a classic design for the disciplined behavior of government officials and will increase public confidence in the authorities.”
SPS leader Boris Nemtsov spoke about how to increase the responsibility of the authorities.
Nemtsov demanded that all officials must publish their declarations of conflicts of interest in Rossiyskaya Gazeta.
“Every minister must say where he worked before, what shares he has,” Nemtsov protested. “There are no officials who are not connected by family ties. For example, I know many such heads of district administrations: if such a head the relative does not control the regional consumer union, something didn’t work out for such a head in his career. If all the ministers write such declarations, I’m sure the resignations will be satisfied the next day.”
Deputy Vladimir Lysenko from Regions of Russia, who took part in its writing, also praised the right-wing code.
Lysenko was not afraid to compare the Code of Conduct of Officials with the “Moral Code of the Builder of Communism,” and for some reason he compared Vladimir Putin with the Tsar.
“The adoption of the Code should be the culmination of the reign of Vladimir Vladimirovich himself. Knowing the history of our kings and general secretaries, it can be noted that it was they who broke their necks, trying to break the back of this hardened, stagnant bureaucratic machine,” said the deputy. As for the idea of publishing ministerial declarations of conflicts of interest in newspapers (a sample of such a document was shown to journalists), journalists will benefit from this. Such newspapers, according to Lysenko, will sell in great demand.
A member of the Bureau of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, Alexander Shokhin, who once served as an official, then sat in the State Duma, and is now involved in business, complained that it is difficult for business to compete with officials who are also involved in business. He also doesn’t like the fact that officials take bribes. Shokhin proposed to fight bribe takers in the following way: constantly change their places. “With the advent of a new president, about a thousand officials change in the states. In the new Clinton administration there were 962 new appointments. And how many ministers of Bush Sr. lost their posts due to a scandal involving the hiring of illegal immigrant workers?” asked Shokhin .
“But in this code that we are discussing, there are no mechanisms for holding such officials accountable. There should be more stringent punitive sanctions,” Alexander Oblonsky, chief researcher at the Institute of State and Law, tried to argue. “The code will be a non-working document. We have already introduced declarations alone. The government has filled out 900 thousand such papers, but what’s the point? Now all this has turned into an annoying necessity,” Igor Nikolaev, director of the strategic analysis department of the FBK company, supported him.
Most likely, today the State Duma will not have time to consider the “Code of Official Conduct of Officials” stated on the agenda, because most of the time had to be spent on the reform of Dmitry Kozak, the tax package of Alexei Kudrin and the report of Mikhail Kasyanov (Gazeta.Ru separately talked about the speech of these officials) . But deputies have two more meetings before the end of the spring session to determine their attitude to the moral code of Russian officials.
Bureaucracy blooms in a big bouquet.
This publication completes a series of analytical reports prepared based on panel surveys conducted by the FOM in 2000–2001. In anticipation of the published report, we note one characteristic feature of the materials of this study devoted to the topic of bureaucracy: the respondents’ statements were replete with direct and hidden quotes from the classics of Russian literature of the 19th century, which was not observed in other cases. This is symptomatic. It seems that, despite the fact that the external signs of an official (computer, cell phone, etc.) today are different than in previous times, the stereotypes of perception of this social character, and in many ways the ideas about his role in society, were able to survive the upheavals of the twentieth century and reached the present day, having changed little in essence.
The image of an official in the minds of Russians
An arrogant look, a huge belly, a cell phone.
From an interview with a research participant
Associations with the word “official” are people’s stereotypical ideas about the social role of an official. Stereotypes, as a rule, contain a very strict assessment - either purely positive or purely negative. This property of the stereotype allows us to see some social contradiction in polar images. In our case, this is a contradiction between the social purpose of an official and the real activities of people in given social positions at a given time.
The first associations are the status of an official, who is associated primarily with public service. The official is in charge of management, he is well dressed and sits in his office.
“Officials are civil servants in power, carrying out the orders of the government, ensuring that constitutional rules are carried out.”
“An official, in my understanding, is an executor of the laws of power. There are big officials and there are small ones.”
“The word “official” evokes associations with governing a country. This is governing the country, the city, in general, all our power. Officials working in Moscow resolve issues related to governing the entire country, not just Moscow. And officials in cities decide on issues of governance in their cities, locally.”
“A person in a high position is educated. Well dressed, sitting in a nice office.”
Descriptions of the image of an official containing positive assessments are rare. In such answers, the official appears as a person who cares about the interests of the state and the people, educated, polite and hard-working.
“When I hear “official”, I immediately imagine: this is a person who works as a representative of the people in public service.”
“An official is a person who strictly fulfills his duties and rarely compromises.”
“When I hear the word “official,” I get an image of a person busy with government affairs, very busy, with practically no free time, that is, completely devoting himself to work.”
“An official is a thinking, respectable, intelligently dressed person.”
“This is a literate, rich, well-educated person. First of all, educated.”
Most of the answers contain negative associations with the word “official”. Sometimes respondents do not give this group of people specific negative characteristics, but express a general negative attitude towards them.
“Oh, it’s a sin to even talk about them. I think that in the Duma and whoever is higher, except the president, everyone is an official.”
“I cringe when the word ‘official’ is mentioned.”
“The word ‘official’ makes me sick, the most unpleasant associations.”
“I want to say something harmful, something obscene is on my tongue.”
“I hate to even think about it, this word both saddens me and just upsets me.”
In the minds of many participants in the panel survey, the official looks like a “person from another world” - incomprehensible, inanimate and cruel.
“A soulless person who does not care about people languishing in line, since they interfere with his work, irritate him, and do not allow him to solve important state affairs.”
“A man with a stony face, wearing armlets. He has no feelings, no pity, everyone comes to him, asks for something, but he refuses everyone.”
“He seems to be a man, but he doesn’t understand human words, the words bounce off him like peas off a wall. Sometimes he’s very polite, but without a soul, as if lifeless.”
The image of a “cog” in the state machine, working for goals incomprehensible to the “common man,” is complemented by personal characteristics corresponding to this role of an official: arrogance, alienation from human concerns, indifference, and even rudeness.
"A long queue. An absolutely indifferent person, timidity, mental deafness, laziness - in general, all negative emotions.”
“Association with some kind of obstacle. That you have to go somewhere to bow, humiliate yourself and see cold, frozen eyes in front of you.”
“A minor official is an eternally dissatisfied woman with whom there is no desire to communicate. A major official is a smug, narcissistic gentleman; he can pardon, but you won’t get it.”
“Basically, officials are people who do not think about the people, but think only about themselves. Although their positions are supposed to do the opposite.”
“I have an image of an arrogant, arrogant person. He feels superior and looks down on the visitor. He talks rudely, boorishly, you get the impression that he doesn’t care about anything.”
The official, in accordance with the stereotypical image, as a rule, does nothing. His work is an illusion of activity. But if an official does happen to “resolve the issue,” he will do it poorly, slowly and unqualifiedly, although he will take “additional remuneration” for performing his direct duties.
“Basically, they are red tape workers, they never immediately resolve issues, they put them under the rug. “The image of a red tape worker and extortionist arises.”
“Officials sit in the office, “working.” They don’t see reality - papers, just papers
“A fat, fat gentleman is sitting in some office. There are a lot of people around him. Everyone is talking, crowding around, doing something, but it’s not clear what.”
The most annoying and unacceptable, from the point of view of public morality, are embezzlement, bribery, and extortion of officials.
“The most disgusting embezzlers, bribe-takers, bribe-takers.”
“The association is that you need to prepare your wallet if you are called for some reason.”
“The image of a rude, indifferent person whose eyes light up only when you promise him something.”
“There is only one association - corruption, based on the dependence of a large number of people on officials. who need to obtain from them the necessary permits, certificates, approvals, visas, etc.”
Sometimes officials look in the eyes of respondents as simply “interventionists”, interested only in robbing the population under their control.
“It’s as if the officials have all agreed: they are oppressing the people, humiliating them, behaving provocatively and unfairly towards people.”
“What good can we expect from these officials, other than destruction, squandering our wealth, what belongs to people? They live at our expense, they receive 12 thousand a month.”
“An official means a bureaucrat who puts into his pocket everything that ordinary people earn.” The answers contain quite a lot of figurative descriptions of officials. They are often similar (which indicates the stability and prevalence of the stereotype) and resemble the images of the “bourgeois” from Bolshevik propaganda, with an adjustment for today: instead of a top hat - a cell phone.
“A fat, overeating man in an expensive suit, who doesn’t want to talk to anyone and doesn’t pay attention to anyone.” “The look is a felt hat, a gray raincoat or coat, a small belly and, of course, a briefcase.”
“These are arrogant people, with rings and crosses on their chests. Fat, well-fed, smug - something like that.” “With a pot belly, a fat wallet and a cell phone.”
A large number of literary associations show that the images of officials in the works of Saltykov-Shchedrin, Gogol, Chekhov largely predetermine the formation of stereotypes of perception of today's officials.
“The saying is always appropriate: “I would be glad to serve, but it is sickening to be served.” “I associate officials with Gogol’s characters: “Dead Souls” - Chichikov, “The Inspector General” - people groveling before the authorities, with loyal sentiments, currying favor with their superiors, swindlers.”
“Ogurtsov’s hero, “Carnival Night,” etc. He puffs himself up, pretends to be important, and others do the work!” It is difficult to say why the images of officials from the Russian classics are so enduring: either because they organically fit into today’s reality, or because they have become a kind of “matrix”, an example for comparison.
Functions of officials
These are the sovereign's people.
From an interview with a research participant
Although the word “official” evokes extremely negative associations among the majority of survey participants, at the same time only a few argued that officials are not needed at all and that this socio-professional group should be abolished.
“I don’t know why they are needed at all... I don’t see any benefit from them.”
“Any official never does anything. I treat them with contempt. They should not play a useless role; they should be replaced by machines.”
. But more often than not, those surveyed are inclined to think that officials are still needed by society. These answers can be divided into two large groups. Some respondents interpret the role of officials in an authoritarian-patriarchal way: in their opinion, they should, on the one hand, monitor people and lead them, and on the other, patronize “ordinary citizens” and take care of them. Others (this position can be conditionally called liberal-democratic) believe that the ordinary citizen is higher than the official; the latter must serve the people, protect state interests, and be a link between the law, the highest authority and the people.
This is how those respondents who see them in the role of “shepherds” imagine the function of officials.
First, officials must vigilantly monitor citizen behavior.
“They should be like the police, keeping an eye on us.”
“They should lead us all. In society, officials play the role of overseers.”
“Rule us. We won’t have life without officials, there will be chaos, chaos.”
“They command us - it’s impossible without them.”
“He must lead the masses, see if there is any benefit for the state.” Secondly, an official is a “guide through life.” He instructs, explains, teaches the “common man” how to act.
“Officials must guide the people. They should teach us."
And thirdly, an official must take care of the people.
“We choose them to make our lives easier, so that we have someone to turn to for help when we need something.”
“Officials must fulfill the functions of the state - to help poor people.”
“They must provide a normal life for ordinary people, pensioners, and the poor.”
“They should set up our lives so that we like it.”
The same complex also includes ideas about the role of officials in the economy.
“The official is appointed by the state to oversee the growth of production and provide the people with labor.”
“They must provide raw materials, work for enterprises and agriculture. Make sure there are no interruptions in work, provide labor.”
“Liberal democratic” views on the role of officials in society include, firstly, the idea that their function is to ensure universal order in society: a common understanding and implementation of laws and the will of the state.
“They are the link between the legislature and the people.”
“Through officials, people are brought into contact with the laws.”
“These are intermediaries between the state and the people. Officials must ensure that life in society proceeds according to the laws that are adopted in this society.”
“An official has great functions: all decisions and laws pass through them. They are like the implementers of all these documents.”
“An official is a mediator. Its task is to resolve problems between the individual and the state.”
Secondly, officials must protect state interests.
“They should not interfere in people’s personal lives, but at the same time, they should perform their state functions.”
“Each of the officials plays his own role, but overall it is a state machine.”
Thirdly, officials are servants not only of the state, but also of the people.
“I recently heard the phrase: “An official is not a gentleman, he must serve the people.” I think that says it all."
“Officials should be servants, but they have become a caste, a very powerful one.”
It is noteworthy that in the responses of representatives of both positions (both “authoritarian-patriarchal” and “liberal-democratic”) it is often mentioned that officials should explain laws and norms to people. These demands are determined not so much by the value attitudes of the respondents, but by their sad experience of interaction with the state machine, which works according to rules incomprehensible to the average citizen, and, most importantly, officials not only do not explain these rules, but keep them as a class secret and suppress any attempts to penetrate her.
“The main goal of their work should be to help people, so that going for all sorts of paperwork does not turn into walking through torment.” “They must explain where to go and what to do.”
“Doing what a simple person cannot do due to ignorance.” “Not to create difficulties for the client is their main role.”
The ideal official
He doesn’t steal, he works for his homeland.
From an interview with a research participant
Many participants in the panel survey, in answer to the question about the functions of officials, emphasized that good officials are needed, and not the ones they have now. In order to find out which official the respondents are ready to consider good, the question was asked what, in their opinion, he should be. The responses received can be divided into two large groups: some respondents focus on the functions of officials, saying what they should do, while others pay more attention to the qualities of officials and describe what they should be. However, there are quite a few answers that mention both functions and qualities.
Sometimes our interlocutors listed tasks that, in their opinion, are the responsibility of officials - emphasizing that these tasks are not being carried out, and sometimes they noted that officials themselves must find and solve problems.
“The improvement of the city, social security, hospitals, clinics should be put in order, transport should run smoothly. The snow needs to be removed, otherwise it’s always a natural disaster for us. Set up the beaches - summer is coming. There is no end to the work, but the work of officials is not visible.”
“Searches, finds problems and solves them. He cares, first of all, not about himself, but about state affairs, and strives to help people in any way he can.”
Quite often, respondents talk about the need to better organize the work of officials. And here many emphasize that officials talk to people, explain to them how to resolve their issue.
“Organize your work so that there are no queues.”
“To come during working hours and get to him. Issues can be resolved quickly."
“An ideal official knows how to navigate the sea of laws and choose the right one to fulfill people’s requests. Bring these laws clearly to the people; he must answer any question from the people who come to him.”
“It has to be easily accessible for people to get to.”
Naturally, in order to perform his job at the proper level, an official must be a professional, educated person.
“The ideal official is a competent, erudite citizen who perfectly knows the assigned area of work.”
“He knows his job very well. He is educated, has good erudition, knows foreign languages.”
“He is a sociable, intelligent, smart person.”
But professionalism is not enough. In order to be an advisor, a consultant, and not to be irritated by the abundance of “stupid questions,” an official, according to the panel survey participants, must be a friendly, kind person, ready to help.
“The ideal official will listen carefully. Whatever he can, he will help or tell you where to go, he will give you a phone number...”
“Neatly dressed, with a friendly, kind smile, friendly attitude, competent in his field, not in a hurry, not sparing his time.”
“This is the kind of person you come to, and he will calmly listen and help without red tape and fraying nerves.” “He should not be rude, even if the visitor annoys him.”
Respondents also say that the advice and recommendations of an official should be responsible. This means that the advice received from an official after standing in line for many hours should not be refuted in the next office, that the received papers should not be lost, that the official should work “by the rules.”
“Responsible for the decisions he makes.”
“Knows how to listen, understand and quickly take the necessary actions, and not
do unsubscribes."
But most often, respondents, of course, talk about honesty and law-abidingness as an indispensable quality of an “ideal” official.
“An ideal official does not take bribes, honestly fulfills his direct duties, and thinks not only about his own interests, but also about the state’s.”
“The ideal official is a crystalline person who does not succumb to various temptations (bribes and violations). They stand firmly on the positions of the law and the Russian Constitution. He is not afraid of compromising evidence, as he is impeccable and honest and stands above this.”
“Honest, decent, not very fat.”
Sometimes respondents said that there could be no “honest official” - because such a person, in their opinion, would be “outside the system.”
“No one will keep an honest official – a “black sheep” – in their midst. At least in Russia now.”
Therefore, what is needed is not an “ideal official,” but an “ideal system.”
“There are no ideal people. But it is possible to make the system of organizing their work close to the ideal, when within the framework of this system people will involuntarily act close to the ideal.”
Officials of today's Russia
Cobblestones on the path of progress.
From an interview with a research participant
The question about the qualities of current Russian officials sounded like this:
“What are officials like in today's Russia? Please describe a modern Russian official. What is most characteristic of him? How does he differ from the “ideal” official?”
Many participants in the panel survey emphasized in their responses that the current official “no different from the ideal - he is the complete opposite of it».
“The modern Russian official differs from the ideal in almost everything except appearance.”
“The exact opposite of ideal. The current official is characterized by irresponsibility, unwillingness to comply with basic standards of behavior, and disrespect for people.”
The characteristics given by respondents of the “ideal” and “real” official are indeed almost mirror images. If the “ideal” official, in the minds of the respondents, is a competent, knowledgeable specialist who helps people solve their problems, then the “real” one is an incompetent, ignorant, ineffective worker.
“Our officials do not always know the laws and instructions themselves, which is why they send people from one office to another.”
“Many simply do not have the education necessary for their business, and therefore are completely clueless.”“Ideal” is active and proactive, “real” is lazy, inert, not interested in the success of the task entrusted to him.
“A modern official does not need changes, they are unprofitable for him, he loves it when there are people dependent on him.”
“The modern official is distinguished from the ideal by his amazing indifference to his work and to the work of the people who turn to him.”
“Ideal” is friendly and sympathetic, “real” is arrogant, indifferent, and rude.
“Arrogant, ill-mannered, so boorish and inattentive to people’s concerns. Those whom I know and have encountered are completely ill-mannered, rude, arrogant people.”
“Even women, and there are a lot of them in different government bodies, walk around well-groomed and dressed up, but they are rude, inattentive and arrogant.”
“Considers himself superior to others. And if you turn to him, he shows that his business is more important, and he doesn’t care about you.”
A “real” official, unlike an “ideal” one, as respondents believe, is not responsible for his advice and promises. There is also a widespread belief that officials are hiding useful information from ordinary people. Citizens are also disappointed by unfulfilled promises.
“The necessary benefits and subsidies are hidden from people.”
“In my opinion, a characteristic feature of modern officials is a trail of unfulfilled promises.”
“They promise a lot, but do nothing. We have to walk a lot in vain.”
But most of all the complaints, of course, are about the bribery of “real” officials.
“Eyes running, hands raking; legs pointing to the West." “The work is done by a clumsy bastard, he looks down on everyone, and is just waiting for someone to butter him up.”
“The tax inspector walks through the bazaar with bags.”
“Today they build houses, security guards, nannies, housekeepers, foreign cars. From what income? Yes, this is from our bribes. Ordinary people pay for any piece of paper that you are tormented to knock out, and out of desperation you give away the last ones.”
It is no secret to many that current officials successfully combine the performance of their functions with entrepreneurial activities.
“They have businesses that are registered to relatives and receive government contracts.”
“They are prohibited from engaging in commercial activities, but they do it through front men.”
Despite all the abuses, officials remain unpunished.
“A criminal case is initiated against any official, but he immediately declares that he is for politics. The presumption of innocence has been turned into a master key, a thief’s tool!”
There are, however, answers that claim that officials, like all people, are different. There are bad ones, there are good ones.
“There are different officials - those who only think about lining their own pockets, and those who care about state interests.”
“Take Putin - he is a top official. He wants Russia to be at a good level.”
“The good ones know their job and work with passion. And the bad ones only take up this space.”
“Officials are like all people: some are very arrogant and unfriendly, the majority are like that. But there are normal, conscientious workers - I’ve met them.”
Close to these are the answers that claim that the point is not in specific people occupying certain positions, but in the system itself, which reproduces a certain type of official - a bureaucrat and a bribe-taker - and destroys the “black sheep.”
“It’s rare that anyone has good intentions. If someone likes this, they will immediately eat him up, because he doesn’t fit into this structure.”
“Officials will not keep a “white crow” in their midst. Or they will kick you out with a “wolf ticket”, or, even worse, they will imprison you, and sometimes they will physically destroy you.”
The party dominated there, and now the ruble dominates.
From an interview with a research participant
We asked respondents whether current officials are different from those who were under Soviet rule.
The dominant opinion among those surveyed is that the morals of officials have not changed since Soviet times. Many of them even remained in their places. They are also arrogant, incompetent, and corrupt.
“Tsarist officials smoothly transitioned into Soviet ones, and they just as smoothly transitioned into today’s democratic ones. The style is the same: red tape, arrogance, bribes, and no one has any responsibility.”
“The only difference is that Soviet officials were more afraid to show their true colors, and the rest is the same. Contempt for one’s own people, unwillingness to work for the people.”
“Just nothing. Most of them remained in their places, nothing has changed. Nothing has become better or worse about them.”
“They are no different. Now officials have computers, before
they filled out the paperwork manually, that’s all.”
Sometimes respondents note that it’s all about the moral qualities of the person holding a particular position. The officials who were honest before remained honest now, and the dishonest ones felt more at ease.
“Honest people still work for society. And the dishonest surrounded themselves with a higher and impenetrable wall, flaunting their wealth - prestigious cars, huge mansions, etc.”
Some survey participants believe that officials used to be better, but now they have become worse. Almost all statements of this kind contain the idea that in Soviet times, officials were afraid of punishment for poor work and abuses; they could be complained about to the party authorities. Now there are no structures that accept and consider complaints about unlawful actions of officials. This is why, according to our informants, ordinary citizens feel defenseless against the arbitrariness of officials.
“In Soviet times it was better, there was strict control.”
“Modern officials are more arrogant. Previously, a district committee or a regional party committee could correct an official’s mistake without even looking at the violation of instructions, but now even going to court does not provide any guarantee of a fair resolution of the issue.”
“You could find government officials against Soviet-era officials, complain to the party committee, or district committee. And the current ones, in my opinion, are not subject to anyone.”
“Soviet officials did not care about their positions, they earned little, but few took bribes - they were severely punished for this. They were diligent, attentive, and cultured. Now officials are like enemies of the people; you can’t approach them. They behave arrogantly and rudely."
“They may have stolen, but they were afraid of being judged. If something came out, they didn’t get away with it. They were punished and removed from their posts. Now no one is being filmed. Everything is allowed. Nothing got better. Thieves steal even more, and everything is according to the law.”
Lack of control and impunity, according to these respondents, have led to the fact that current officials have become more selfish, lazy, and cynical. They are not afraid of losing their place, because during their tenure “in office” they managed to accumulate capital and create their own companies registered under dummies.
“Today’s officials feel permissive. And if something goes wrong, he will pay himself off or go into business, which, just in case, he has already created in his name or in the name of one or another relative.”
“They consider themselves an untouchable caste due to the money they stole from the people, from the state. Nothing got better. They have become worse, more impudent.”
“The current ones are much more brazen and shameless. A person in modern Russia is much more defenseless than in Soviet Russia, no matter how much they trumpet about democracy. It has gotten much worse because local authorities are interpreting the laws however they want.”
Among the panel survey participants there are also those who are convinced that Soviet officials were worse than today’s ones. Arguments to substantiate this position: previous officials were arrogant and rude, uneducated. The current ones are educated, active, they are easier to criticize in the press, they are freer from the dictates of the “general line of the party.” But even this part of the respondents admits that the current scale of bribes to Soviet officials "and never dreamed of».
“Soviet-era officials were completely dependent on themselves; they could not, and did not know how, to make any decisions themselves without instructions from the party and government. Well, modern officials are much more educated and more independent in decision-making. But Soviet-era officials never dreamed of the privileges and bribes of today.”
“Perhaps things are now being done faster. There is no such bureaucracy. Previously, until you sign thousands of pieces of paper, you won’t do anything.”
“Even then they took bribes, but less than now. This is worse. What’s better is that officials have become more democratic and more open to the press and taxpayers.”
“Now there are more decent officials. Previously, the official was more arrogant and had more power over people.”
Officials in the center and locally
Links of one chain around the neck of the people.
From an interview with a research participant
According to some respondents, officials in the center and locally are no different. Other survey participants see differences between them. The first say that officials at all levels have a common social role, and that the life of the country depends on both higher and lower officials.
“What they have in common is that the fate of the people is in their hands. How our Russia will develop and live depends on their professionalism, honesty and decency.”
But officials at all levels, according to many participants in the panel survey, perform this social role very poorly. And this also does not depend on what level of the power hierarchy they are at. Many respondents claim that theft and bribery are common to officials at all levels.
“The common thing is that everyone steals and takes advantage of their position. They steal in different ways: one builds in Greece, another in Crimea, and someone in Switzerland.”
“Nothing. That this one is a robber, that this one is a robber. There may be more protection in the center than in the region.”
“They are no different. Some take less, others take more.”
There is a widespread belief that both officials are equally ruining the country and the people, trying to loot as much as possible and flee abroad.
“What are those that others want to bankrupt our factories and buy them on the cheap. They don’t think about what will happen to Russia, to the next generations. They should snatch it now, loot it, ruin it, and, having grabbed it, move abroad with all their relatives. It will be impossible to live in Russia.”
“Common features: 1 – greed; 2 – undisguised hatred of its citizens; 3 – the inhumane laws they make.”
Both in the center and in the localities, respondents believe that officials work only for themselves, living a beautiful life at public expense.
“Both local officials and officials in the central government work for themselves, for their own pockets. They differ only in the scale of the cases they handle.”
“What they have in common is that they all use a lot at public expense. We need to hire a car (bring it, take it away) at our own expense, and the officials will be brought. Holidays are celebrated in a big way. Where does the money come from? If we add up, then the table turns out to be poor. And there it breaks. Eyewitnesses note this."
“The common thing is the desire for power. The suffering and needs of the people are alien to them. They make decisions only thinking about their own benefit. Their psychology is this: the main thing is peace, satiety, money and not to be responsible for anything.”
Since officials think only about their own benefit, they are naturally equally indifferent to people and to business.
“The common thing is that all issues at their levels are mostly resolved without thinking, without pain in the heart, callously.”
“I think there is no difference. They are just as soulless and unscrupulous both there and there.”
“They differ in the height of the position. The rest is general. The higher they rise, the more indifferent they become.”
At all levels of power, officials are equally deceitful and do not keep their promises.
“Both of them lie equally.”
“They are similar in that they only promise and do nothing. They pile one on top of the other.”
“They deceive the people, promise mountains of gold, and as soon as they gain power, they immediately forget about their promises.”
Those respondents who notice differences between central and local officials most often talk about different scales of abuse. Here, however, opinions differ: some say that officials of the central government steal more, while others say that the local government steals more.
“In the central government, officials decide state affairs and take bribes on a large scale, while local officials, of course, take bribes on a smaller scale.”
“Local officials are trying to make their way to the center, to Moscow. But it’s easier to steal locally. Those in Moscow are more public, more transparent.”
Less often, the differences between central and local government officials are described in a neutral way - as differences in the scale of activity, functions, etc.
“Officials in local and central government differ in their decision-making powers. If the former, naturally, make decisions at the regional level, then the latter decide the fate of the country.”
“Local officials only deal with everyday, local issues. And at the top they decide state issues.”
Only a small proportion of responses contain positive assessments of officials of lower or higher rank.
Those respondents who believe that local officials are better than central ones most often say that the former pay attention to the needs of ordinary people and are directly involved in solving their problems, while the latter are alienated from the people.
“The local government has at least some connection with the people, but you can’t get to the central government at all.”
“Local officials are closer to the people, they are familiar with our needs. Officials at the top don’t know our problems, and some don’t even want to know.”
Less common is the opposite point of view, according to which representatives of the central authorities, on the contrary, are more concerned about the needs of the population, the problems of ordinary people.
“Central officials are a younger contingent, usually people 35–40 years old, they show flexibility of thinking. These are truly politicians who work for the needs of the people, who pay more attention to the people.”
Experience communicating with officials
Right - pay, and wrong - pay.
From an interview with a research participant
In order to check to what extent their personal experience influences the formation of respondents’ ideas on this topic, we asked whether they had to deal with officials, and if so, what impressions remained.
Those who have not had experience communicating with officials regard this as great luck, a happy evasion of misfortune.
“Yes, it seems that God was merciful. I haven’t had to deal with them yet.”
“Fortunately, no, I try to avoid communicating with them, and so far I personally have succeeded.”
“I try to get around them. There will be no point anyway, and there is no hope for them.” But there are few such lucky ones. The majority, in one way or another, have to deal with officials in connection with numerous everyday problems: registration and discharge, appeals to social security, housing office, police, court, etc.
Most respondents talk about negative impressions from their meetings with officials. Participants in the panel survey willingly share stories about contacts with employees of government agencies, confirming with specific examples their statements about the vices of domestic bureaucracy. These negative impressions are usually caused by a typical set of circumstances.
Instead of help, visitors received unsubscribes and promises that remained unfulfilled.
“In 1998 we were flooded and a report was drawn up. So this act is still there and remains useless.”
“At first they don’t know, then they promise, then they leave. That's all."
“I contact the housing department every year about the roof. But as it happened, so
and it leaks."
“Two years ago we were robbed, the police came, took fingerprints and calmed down, they told us: “Look for it yourself,” and they left.” “I went to the social welfare department. Children's children do not pay because there is no personal account in the State Bank. They opened a personal account, but they still don’t pay any money.”
For many respondents, the distribution of responsibilities in the public administration system is incomprehensible and scary in its irrationality. There are a lot of complaints about the fact that you have to walk from office to office in a vicious circle and at the same time there is no person who would sensibly and slowly explain how to act correctly.
“I want to resolve the issue competently, but there is no such well-thought-out consultation anywhere, so you go after every comma
“I got housing, but I can’t get a warrant. No one will really explain what needs to be done. Some officials send them to others and do not explain why this or that certificate is needed, so the impressions from communicating with them were terrible.”
“I went to get child benefits from social security. There was a queue - more than two hours. It turned out that one certificate was missing. They don’t explain anything properly anywhere.”
“The social service did not explain what to write in the certificate, because of some word I went again, then another word was missing. As a result, I went to the enterprise twice to get a certificate, and to social security three times.”
This walking in a closed bureaucratic circle is accompanied by rudeness and rudeness of officials.
“I’m standing in the housing department under the door, no one is paying attention, but my legs hurt. They didn’t even apologize that it was their fault that I didn’t have benefits as a veteran. Sheer indifference and impudence.”
“I had to when exchanging passports. It later turned out that all this could be done in one day. And we spent more than a month. They spoke to us in an extremely dismissive manner and in an insulting tone, and they shouted at us. They say, walk here and interfere. From the first minutes they perceive us as personal enemies.”
“You never get reliable, clear information from the pension department. Everyone speaks quickly, quickly, with irritation. Without really understanding anything, you leave, and when you come back again, you again encounter irritation.”
Grueling queues, according to respondents, are a characteristic feature of “public places”.
“The lines are crazy. It was possible to do everything in one place, since the information is on the computer. And all this could be done by one person.” “I stood in lines and saw how they hated me because I demanded what I came for, and what she was obliged to give me...”
And of course, panel survey participants talk about inevitable bureaucratic extortions, about bribes, which are often extorted not even by hints, but openly.
“I had to. They told me how much it would cost. Otherwise it will be a more expensive price. Impressions are standard. What I expected is what I got.”
“In the certification department, the official can’t speak normal language at all, he doesn’t answer questions, only after the bribe he became more attentive to me. The impressions are the worst, the desire to quit private entrepreneurship.”
“Yes, I had to contact the inventory bureau for a certificate. Nothing has changed there over the past 20 years. The same evil bribe takers, the same queues.”
“I was well prepared, I took a bribe to this official. He listened to me carefully and did what I needed. I also applied before, but since I didn’t pay, the issue wasn’t resolved.” But the strongest feelings among those surveyed are caused by police officers.
“I don’t know whether a policeman or a traffic police officer can be called an official or not. Well, everyone has the same impression of the cops: arrogant, evil, cunning people in uniform.”
“The trade permit expired on May 20, one day was overdue. The local police officer took me away. He made various hints to ask me to pay, but I did not pay from my meager salary. A day later (I already had permission) he came up, checked, took me back to the police station and started beating me right there. Okay, onlookers gathered and that stopped him.”
The most generous respondents tend to excuse officials, complaining about bad, ill-conceived rules that were invented by legislators or officials of a higher rank.
“Those with lower positions sympathized and helped as much as they could. I applied for a pension. 20 years ago there were the same labor regulations and laws, but now they require different pieces of paper. How can you get them if they didn’t exist before?! Therefore, it is difficult to achieve something and prove something to an official. But if there were special explanations for the law on labor and pensions, then there would be no need to humiliate ourselves.”
But here's a look from the other side.
“I myself worked as a secretary for some time. Sometimes they got me like that
that then I couldn’t talk calmly all day.”
However, there are also positive reviews about visits to “public places” - this is approximately a tenth of all responses. The positive result of coming to officials sometimes surprises respondents and is perceived by them rather as an exception to the rule.
“Yes, I had to deal with a federal judge recently. My impression was positive – everything was explained to me in detail.”
“I had been sick for a long time and needed medicine. I am a war invalid, and it was necessary to go to the City Health Department. My wife went to Mikhail Vasilyevich Ivanov, and he personally called pharmacies, found one that had it, and they gave it to us for free, although it was expensive. God bless him, I would really like all officials to be like him.”
“As for me personally, no matter where I go, no matter what officials I deal with, I always find mutual understanding. That’s why I had the best impressions.”
“I just went to social security. It left a surprisingly pleasant impression. The officials there are courteous, polite, and patient.” “I recently attended a reception at the Chertanovo Severnoe district administration - without an appointment, they accepted me right away. I talked about my needs and asked for financial assistance (rent arrears). They listened very carefully and promised to help. Two weeks later I received help. I was left with a very good impression.”
How to improve the work of officials
For their piecework: I didn’t do it for the people - suck my paw.
From an interview with a research participant
What needs to be done to make officials in Russia work better and bring more benefits? Some respondents, answering this question, reproduce the stereotypes of the Soviet era: punish, control, organize “purges”, hire officials from the working environment.
It is noteworthy that recommendations for tightening control are often addressed to the state, that is, to the same officials. In fact, the country's bureaucratic system is being asked to “pull itself out by the hair.” Sometimes, however, this circumstance confuses respondents, and they propose the creation of non-state “commissions” similar to the party structures of the past.
“The government needs to monitor the activities of officials more closely, punish them, and stop bribery.”
“There must be control over them. There must be a special structure. As before, you could complain to the district committee.”
“You have to look: if someone doesn’t do his job, then he needs to be warned, and if he doesn’t improve, then he needs to be fired, then the other person will be afraid and will start helping people, not himself.”
Close to this group of responses are proposals to tighten penalties for bribes.
“An official who takes a bribe should be punished twice as severely.”
“Tighten penalties, especially for bribes. Once a classic country of bribe-takers, China is now slowly emerging from this because of the severity of punishments for bribes. Well, maybe not shoot, but confiscate everything down to zero and put it on the “black list” - not allow them to do business.”
Advice to organize “purges” and recruit officials from the working class refers to the past experience of Russia.
“Fulfill the decree of Peter the Great: appoint new officials every year, so that they are afraid, so that they have responsibility. “Purge” is necessary: they must serve the people, not their own interests.”
“For vegetables, for potatoes, they need to do more physical labor. Otherwise, we’ve been sitting too long - one place probably already hurts. Let them work at the factory as apprentices first. Then they will treat their work with respect and people too.”
“Officials must be taken from the working environment, they must be elected as officials by the collective. It is necessary for the official to be an honest person, with a work history that has no blemishes.”
Another group of respondents (with some degree of convention it can be called “liberal-democratic”) are aware of the complexity of the problem and sometimes propose entire programs for optimizing the work of officials:
"1. Institutes for training qualified officials. 2. Competitive (test) selection of applicants for subsequent admission to similar universities. 3. Strict declaration of income of existing officials. 4. Competitive selection of candidates - for any official position (public). 5. Financial incentives. 6. Laws that clearly regulate this type of activity. 7. Strict control of government agencies. 8. Strict control of all kinds of public organizations.”
The respondents mentioned throughout the interview that the qualifications of current officials leave much to be desired. It is proposed not only to improve the professional level of civil servants, but also to teach them manners and communication culture.
“So that they clearly know the laws with which they work, so that they can clearly explain this or that law to a person.”
“So that there are educational institutions where future officials are taught to behave and speak, and not swear.”
“Increase their intellectual and moral level by introducing mandatory courses to acquire certain knowledge, behavior patterns, and human psychology.”
“We need to educate young people who will later become these officials. A cadre of officials must be trained, raised, selected from among the most prepared and honest.”
“Select people for these positions who have the human qualities to work with people. Maybe we should conduct some kind of test or special training.”
“Train officials: they must not only be able to perform their duties, but also work psychologically with people.”
The advisability of competitive selection of officials is also mentioned.
“There should be competition for these positions (especially high ones). After all, there are so many honest, talented people in the country, but for some reason they are in the shadows.”
But no matter how ideal the people prepared to work in the management apparatus may be, our interlocutors again noted, this impersonal and cruel machine grinds them down, throwing out those unsuitable.
“If honest people do join their ranks, they don’t take their places for long.”
“Even if they were honest, they are dragged in - they don’t want to, but change for the worse.”
Therefore, in the opinion of respondents, systemic changes are necessary. Firstly, we need clear, agreed upon laws, rules by which officials in the center and locally work, and these rules must be accessible and known to people.
“There must be a principle: everything that is not prohibited by law is allowed. Local authorities should be prohibited from making additions or changes (restrictions) to orders and acts from the center.”
“Revise many laws, simplify many things, so that officials do not collect unnecessary papers.”
“We need to make the actions of this apparatus transparent and understandable.”
Some of the survey participants even suspect that there is a “total conspiracy” of officials at all levels to hide rights, laws and rules from ordinary citizens.
“People need to know the laws and rights. Theology is broadcast on TV, but the study of law does not have such information. Isn’t it true that they don’t specifically explain them to people, don’t teach them the laws?”
Sometimes it was said about the need to create, either “from above” or “from below,” independent structures that would control the activities of officials, which would replace the previous party committees, and also that people should have the opportunity to appeal the actions of officials at any level in court.
“There should be independent oversight bodies above them.” “Create influential public organizations where anyone could turn for help. Create some kind of counterbalance." “Previously there were “people's controls.” Maybe it makes sense to resume them?”
“So that any actions of the authorities can be appealed in court.”
“So that judges do not depend on high-ranking officials. And the investigative authorities, and the prosecutor too.”
Some respondents believe that the root of evil is the low social activity of citizens, and it is necessary, first of all, to “educate society.” The officials disbanded because people themselves allow them to do so: they give bribes, do not complain, do not go to court, etc.
“We need to educate our society correctly so that we ourselves are not the first to offer bribes.” “To some extent, it depends on those who contact officials on business. Violations must be reported immediately.”
As for such a measure of influence on officials as wages, there is no consensus. Some respondents believe that civil servants will not take bribes if their salaries are increased.
“They should have a decent salary so that the official does not look the visitor in the eye and does not expect bribes.”
Others are convinced that the appetites of officials are such that everything will not be enough for them, and, on the contrary, it is necessary to reduce salaries, remove benefits, so that they live “like everyone else.”
“We need to take away all the benefits and privileges from them, so that they would be the same citizens as everyone else, so that they would understand in their own skin how people live.”
“They need to be maintained in such a way that they live like ordinary people. Then they will understand us.”
An intermediate option is a proposal to transfer officials “to piecework”: it is necessary to regulate the work of civil servants and pay them depending on how successfully promises are fulfilled and the problems of visitors are solved. It is proposed to create something like a “book of complaints.”
“If they get a lot of money without doing anything, they will continue to act like fools. They need to be paid money for their work.” “They should be paid their salaries based on their good deeds for the people, then they will have an incentive to work not for themselves.”
So, judging by the survey data, the word “official” sounds like a dirty word to many of our fellow citizens. The “real” official of today seems to them to be a soulless, greedy, lack of initiative, corrupt, semi-literate subject. This is the complete opposite of the “ideal” official, who, in the eyes of respondents, should be not indifferent to citizens, honest, active, and educated.
Literary images of officials, of course, influenced the formation of the image of a modern civil servant, but its negativity is the result, first of all, of the everyday experience of our fellow citizens. Based on our data, these experiences are more often negative than positive. It is noteworthy that respondents who have successfully resolved their problems in social security, housing management or in the city administration are surprised by this circumstance, considering it the exception and not the rule.
For the majority of respondents, officials are a real (and not nominal) group. This group has its own corporate interests that conflict with the people; your lifestyle (idleness at work, numerous benefits, luxurious holidays at public expense, etc.); it is closed and replenished only at the expense of “our own”.
A person perceives the official to whom he came with his question as a member of the clan - strong and hostile against him. This means that fighting this particular official means fighting the entire clan. That is why complaints are so frequent that there is nowhere to complain about the arbitrariness of officials. Submission to the arbitrariness of a specific, even petty official stems from the same ideas: “they are all together”; “Strength breaks straw.”
Another consequence follows from such ideas. By adapting to social practices that are considered unfair and illegal, people make these practices, firstly, systemic (i.e., extendable to
relations between social groups), and secondly, opaque. Opacity and systematicity mean stability and immunity of the emerging unwritten rules to attempts at reform.
The forced participation of citizens in unjust and illegal social practices leads, in addition, to alienation and refusal to cooperate with the authorities in cases where such cooperation is in demand. The lack of rights of the “little man” in the face of the obvious injustice of officials revives dreams of a “strong government” capable of “restoring order.” It is significant that a myth has formed about “strict and fair” people from party bodies to whom one could complain in Soviet times.
A particularly hated group of officials are police officers. They just look like infernal villains. You can often read that it is better to deal with criminals and racketeers than with the police. And it’s clear why. The “unrighteousness” of a bandit is the unrighteousness of a private person, for whom justice can ultimately be found in the same police force. You won't find a police officer anywhere - he is a representative of the Hostile System. In addition, the social role of the bandit is unambiguous; there are no hidden, latent functions in this role. Not so with officials. Their declared functions are the same (protection of order, law), and their latent functions are different (self-preservation and expansion of privileges).
The interviews highlighted an insufficiently articulated but serious problem of today's Russia - the problem of a monopoly on power. Life experience tells the “man on the street” that in practice there is no “separation of powers”. “Tame Duma”, “tame media”, “tame courts” - this is what he sees not only on the TV screen, but also in life.
And people who have a monopoly over power are even more likely than any other monopolists to receive rent from their monopoly position.
And the temporary nature of this rent does not alleviate, but aggravates the situation. It is not for nothing that a “popular superstition” has appeared: an old boss is better than a new one who has not yet “stealed.” Theoretically, a person can complain about the arbitrariness of an official to a judge, journalist, or deputy. But in everyday life, the lot of the unjustly offended remains powerless complaints.
The opacity of laws and rules by which government agencies operate is sometimes perceived as illiteracy of officials, inability to organize work, and sometimes as a deliberate withholding of useful information from the people. The arguments in favor of this point of view appear convincing. Information is capital. And if all the rules are written on stands, published in the form of booklets, they will be reported in the local press, there will be special consultation receptions, etc., then the “stupid” applicant will not “make gifts” for consultations or for assistance in preparing documents .
Completion of the publication cycle. See: Social reality. 2006. Nos. 7–12.
“At some point, our officials became more than just the caste that people usually talk about. “It has become a fashionable profession,” it’s hard to disagree with these words spoken by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
And, judging by the letters to the editors of AiF, we have to deal with not the best representatives of this caste almost every day. Even the word “official” itself is increasingly used in a negative context. Although if we consider the etymology of its synonym “civil servant”, it is clear that this is “a person who serves the state, and, accordingly, its citizens.” A lot has been said about what a modern official should be like. However, no practical application has been found for these conversations.
AiF-Petersburg proposes to change the situation. We are starting a large project “Portrait of a modern official”. On our pages, leading experts, political scientists, historians, but most importantly, you, our dear readers, will tell you what a mid-level civil servant should be like. Only your opinion is important in the end, because it is you who should be helped by the “servants of the people.”
Write, share your stories, express your opinions and be sure to participate in our polls. All collected data will be transferred to the North-Western Academy of Public Administration and will become the basis for a socio-psychological study of the pattern of formation of a new image of a modern civil servant.
Thus, it is you who will probably become participants in the formation of civil servants of a new format - honest, proactive, fair, who love their country and their people.
A question of trust... in the state
We are talking about how Russian residents want to see a modern official with Doctor of Philosophy, Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Professor of the North-Western Academy of State
services by Galina Mikhailovna Biryukova.
Managers and "engines"
The concept of “image” has been successfully used in electoral political technologies over the past decades. Why do officials need a positive image at all?
Let's start with the fact that officials are also managers. They are the “engines” of the power vertical, a kind of guide to the life of the decisions and innovations of the country’s government. Recently, society has been dissatisfied not only with individual decisions of the authorities, but also with the personal and business qualities of civil servants. The question arises of people’s trust in officials, and consequently, trust in the state. An entire army of civil servants is in direct contact with the country’s residents every day, and the assessment of the state’s activities in the public consciousness depends on their work. Forming a positive image of officials, in my opinion, is one of the decisive conditions for effective interaction between government agencies and citizens.
If you look into history, in Russia there have always been contradictions between the ideal and the real image of an official. Maybe it's just our national peculiarity?
Indeed, historically, in Russia the topic of state power is always acute and complex. In any country, including ours, the best minds study the peculiarities of the functioning of the state apparatus, its nature, mission... For example, what are the roots of the “invincible” Russian bureaucracy? Unfortunately, most Russian studies are quite narrowly focused. They do not keep up with changes in the political, social and cultural spheres. Life today is changing rapidly, therefore, the style of behavior of officials must change. This applies not only to top officials! No less important is the middle level, the local authorities. Remember the classic: “...they are too far from the people.”
They are not born
- But will changing the image of an official solve the problems of a huge country?
The word “official” is increasingly used in a negative context in the press and in society. These are dangerous trends. Image is an image, but not a panacea for all ills. However, the contradictions between the ideal and real image of a modern official provide fertile ground not only for popular anger. This is also material for developing new theoretical and methodological approaches in the professional training of civil servants. A new social order for scientists. Officials are not born - they are made. We constantly hear that a civil servant of the 21st century must be trained in computer literacy, know languages, and not take bribes. This is certainly true, but this is only part of the image, which cannot be formed without understanding the expectations of ordinary people. We must know what Russian citizens want from the servants of the people.
In other words, without the participation of the population it is impossible to form a positive image of an official of a new formation?
Exactly. And the media plays a significant role in this. Pointing out to civil servants their mistakes is necessary, but not enough. It is necessary to show the positive, to break the stereotype that a person in power cannot be honest, fair, humane, etc. It is necessary to understand what kind of official the people need. The opinion and view of readers, especially of such a popular newspaper as AiF, could become the starting point for a systematic study of the socio-psychological aspects and patterns of formation of a new image of a modern civil servant.
An official is a civil servant with a certain rank. In the category of officials in the Russian Federation there are people who serve for the benefit of their state. The characteristics of a civil servant are:
- position in government bodies and their apparatus;
- activities to perform state functions;
- receiving income for your work at the expense of government funds.
It should be noted that officials do not include persons who undergo internships in any government bodies, since they only apply for a particular position, but do not yet occupy it. There is no single normative act in the law of the Russian Federation that contains the general concept of an employee. Officials, as we have already said, are everyone who serves in government bodies.
Today in Russia all civil servants are divided into the following categories:
- Officials.
- Operational staff.
- Technical.
- Auxiliary and maintenance staff.
Officials include officials who have the rights to issue legal acts, sign important papers, perform registration actions, and much more.
This also includes those who are not involved in the above matters, but they manage the activities of the employees subordinate to them. Persons involved in administrative power are given a special legal status.
The operational staff includes civil servants who perform the duties of government functions. They cannot perform any legal acts in relation to citizens. This also includes lawyers and economists working on drafting various decisions. The third category includes civil servants who carry out certain official activities. For example, technical secretaries.
Types of government officials in Russia
Who are the officials in Russia? In accordance with the law of the Russian Federation, there are two types of civil servants:
- Federal government employee. This is an employee who performs his professional activities in a federal public service position and receives money for this from material resources from the federal budget.
- State civil servant of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation. This is an employee who performs his work activities in a position in the state civil service of a constituent entity of Russia.
Rights and restrictions of officials of the Russian Federation
A civil servant has the right:
- visit various organizations on an official basis;
- take part in a competition to fill a profitable position;
- advance through the ranks;
- make proposals for improving the civil service;
- unite in parties;
- make decisions in accordance with the position held;
- maintain discipline at work.
Russian officials may not do the following:
- engage in other activities and receive payment for this, with the exception of creative and scientific;
- conduct business activities;
- receive remuneration in the form of gifts or money for performing certain services;
- use work equipment outside of duty;
- use official data for your own purposes;
- make empty promises.
It should be noted that a civil servant is a very serious and responsible position, for which only people with an appropriate higher education and work experience in a particular field are hired. Such employees are hired (or elected) in a special order and fired in a specific order. The main type of responsibility for all government employees is political. For example, resignation, removal from office, or, if this applies to a politician, then impeachment proceedings.
Loading...