There is nothing as unrewarding as a job of a political observer in mid-July. All troubles, as is widely- known, dawn on us in August. In July, submarines don’t sink, the TV towers don’t get burnt, and the governments don’t get overthrown. The evil is taking a vacation.

However, we are lucky to avoid this forced staying in the news vacuum. Probably, in their strife to replace despair of our summer life with excitement, the Russian MPs decided to pass a Law with a bizarre title “About AU”. The law-makers are pressed for time. It was a common assumption that the second reading of this outstanding Bill will take place in fall, but instead, it was scheduled for July 8! Even the State Duma session was extended for that purpose.

The haste is probably related to the content of the Law. The mysterious “AU” (Avtonomnoe Uchrezhdenie) in Russian means “autonomous institution”. And it has to do with the metamorphosis that the Russian education system is about to undergo. As all of the planned reforms in this area have constantly been encountering resistance by experts in this field, the wise Russian MPs decided to close this deal in summer, when both professors and students are away. When they come back, refreshed and full of energy for a new school year, they will discover: there is no public school (or University) on the place where it used to be. Where is it?

No, of course, the process will not unfold that fast. Firstly, the Law will come into force, then the bureaucrats at all levels will figure out the situation. Then they will get to the full taste of it. And only after that would come, “In a two year period after this Federal Law has been passed the decision of the public (municipal) institution’s changing its status is made upon the consent of the public (municipal) institution” (unit 1, clause 21). Russian stylistics, employed by our law-makers, has always been astonishing to me. How can an institution make decisions? Normally, people are responsible for that, i.e. head masters, rectors, other authorities. It is also worth mentioning that the Avtonomnoe Uchrezhdenie category may also include all institutions related to the cultural activity or belonging to the social sector. The very last moment medical institutions have been crossed out from their list. It was done in fear, I guess.

But what’s left is good enough to make the bureaucrats happy. For instance, if a director of a museum suddenly has a desire to turn his museum into a restaurant, then in a two- or three-step procedure he will make his dream come true. Or maybe, a rector of a university decides to stop admitting students on a free of charge basis and will actually do it. He will no longer be subsidized by the state, but will get other reliable sources to get money from. The practice of leasing extra space in the building has recently acquired certain popularity in Russia, but now it will spread even wider. To lease the estate is easier than to teach, after all. To sell the goods to the rich is normally more profitable than helping the poor.

Actually, in course of this process the prices will surely soar, and some of the rich ones, after paying for their children’s education, will join the crowds of the poor. But these are just the operating costs.

Not only did the authors of this Law take care of the heads of the former public and municipal institutions. The concerns of the higher officials were also taken into consideration. The autonomous institution, as we learn further, is not allowed, without the owner’s permission, to dispose the fixed and movable assets of a particular value, which are attached to it by the owner or are acquired by him/her on the funds, taken from the budget” (unit 2, clause 3). In other words, I decided to lease a big part of the museum building, and a representative of the government agency approaches me and says to me politely, “I want my scoop, too! We gotta share everything, buddy!”

There are no criteria of making such decisions, established by the bill, no restrictions either. You can do anything you want! But with prior consultation.

If the consultation went well, then the bureaucrats will decide themselves which of the assets should be considered of a particular value. As the saucy comment of the MP from the opposition Oleg Smolin has it, it all depends on the administration’s tastes and preferences. For instance, a unique painting of the French master of the XVIII century we’ll consider an asset “of a particular value”, and the Russian XIX century painters – Peredvizhniki – will stay as they are – we’ve got a whole bunch of them!

Having divided the assets into categories, the higher officials determine whether they should give the right to the educational institution to dispose these assets. That’s where true euphoria begins. But business will remain business, and not any trade will return desirable incomes. Besides, no one abolished thievery in our country. Anyway, in a couple months of self-indulging the whole venture may go bankrupt. But this is also in the law’s provisions.

“The autonomous institution is responsible for all of its assets, save for the real assets and assets of the particular value, attached to it by the owner or acquired by the institution on the funds issued by the owner.

The owner of the institution’s assets is not responsible for the institution’s liabilities” (unit 3, clause 2).

“The claims of the creditors of the eliminating autonomous institution are satisfied through the assets which can be liable to the penalties in compliance with the Federal Law” (unit 2, clause 20).

On getting their money and commission, the directors of the now former autonomous institutions together with the higher officials are going on vacation or moving to some warmer place. The creditors commence demolition and remodeling of the building. The paintings and statues are lost in the mess. The students are, too. The curtain falls.

Time to applaud and scream, “We want the author!”

Here they come, ready to bow in front of us: Martin Shakkum, Andrey Isayev, Alexander Tyagunov, Farida Gaynullina, Vladimir Gorunov, Nikolay Bulayev. It is particularly pleasing to see Shakkum and Isayev among these MPs. The former, if my memory serves me right, was referring to himself as a Socialist and was even running for the Presidential post under these slogans. The latter has been renowned as the ideologist of anarchism.

Well, tempora are changing.

Mores, too.

Boris Kagarlitsky is a Director of The Institute for Globalization Studies.

July7, 2006