Few phenomena have marked the postsoviet world as much as economic crime. With changes in power in the Kremlin, many hope that the abuses of the “ Dictatorship of the law Will be corrected. But the roots of the problem go up beyond perestroika and subsequent reforms ; Gilles Favarel-Garrigues shows that they come from a repressive system whose structures have still not been dismantled.
The economic life of theUSSR and post-Soviet Russia is often dealt with according to the criteria in force under other latitudes. The book by Gilles Favarel-Garrigues avoids this pitfall: through the analysis of the fight against economic crime, he chose to emphasize the logics specific to these companies, and on the intrinsic link between economic management and the repressive system, the first serving as a transmission belt to the second. In the same way, the choice of the period studied (1965-1995) contributes to blurring the usual boundaries between the before and the after perestroikaand underlines the continuities of the regime beyond the fall of theUSSR. The author thus wants to reveal a vast transition which would go from the mid -1970s to the mid -1990s, the perestroika constituting only a readjustment episode whose impulses will be stopped before the fall of the Soviet regime.
Based on first -hand data – administrative files, statistics relating to the fight against crime, letters from citizens, all collected in the archives of the city of Sverdlovsk (again Ekaterinburg in 1991), more accessible than those of Moscow – The police of economic mores highlights the lack of distinction between economic crime and other delinquent behaviors, and points this vicious circle of a regime which continues to link “ decrease in crime to reinforcement of repressive capacity ». Mixing economics, politics, sociology and a vision “ Foucaldian From power, the book will interest all those who study the political and economic development of contemporary Russia. Above all, it allows us to better understand how the two objectives of the perestroika -Political and economic-found themselves dissociated, society accepting a form of well-being in exchange for a democratic deficit.
An aborted transition
At the beginning were the definitions: morals, ideological, specific to the communist system. According to Marx and Engels, recalls Gilles Favarel-Garrigues, the “ economic crime “Was the manifestation of a revolt against the bourgeoisie, certainly” rude ” And “ unsuccessful But to which the dictatorship of the proletariat was to end. Consequently, the notion did not appear as such in the Soviet Criminal Code adopted in 1960. Ten years later and against all obviously, propaganda presented economic crime as a phenomenon foreign to socialism. Economic crime, however, ceased to spread, “ human ingenuity seeming to constitute their only limit “, According to the expression of the economist Gregory Grossman. It was quickly the subject of study with various titles, qualifying this economy as “ second “,” parallel “,” informal “,” underground “… Two visions clashed in studies: one, described as” totalitarian », Emphasized the role of disciplined repressive services, all walking at the same step and according to strict codification ; The other granted the regional elites the right to modulate sanctions in the field, according to their interpretation of crimes and their own interest.
In reality, economic crime responded to a vague legal category which authorized the sanction of the most diverse behavior. The distinction between attacks on property, violent crime or political crime was not always made, which still contributed to the arbitrariness. The usual definitions replaced the notion included “ illegality ». The fight against this “ illegality Was taken care of by three institutions between which the conflicts were not uncommon: the prosecuture, the Ministry of the Interior and the Kgb. She also lived to the rhythm of “ campaigns »Closely linked to political imperatives. Thus, recalls the author, Leonid Brejnev attacked hooliganism in 1966, Youri Andropov with indiscipline at work, while Mikhail Gorbachev, as soon as he took office, promised to end the “ unlawful income ». The arrival of a new secretary general was punctuated by a campaign giving rise to new rules, other arbitrariness and contributing to political legitimacy.
There perestroika However, comes to disturb this universe where the criminal act is only due to the behavior of individuals “ antisocial »: Parasites, recurrences or alcoholics. We are talking about “ spontaneous privatization To designate all the acquisition measures of the privileges which were followed by 1988 and 1991, which amounts to legalizing previous economic crime. In 1987, the Renaissance of the cooperative sector took place, promoting the emergence of the first entrepreneurs ; then, in 1989, the adoption of the law on “ small businesses »Allows to fragment assets within state companies.
Mass privatization takes place from 1991 to 1994 with the distribution of vouchers to the entire population. It is supposed to sign a double transition, both economic and political: privatization must make the link between the reform and the advent of a “ middle class “, Herself presented as” democracy And guarantor of the irreversibility of the exit of communism.
But the process turns around: new entrepreneurs, embraced by the opportunities of perestroikatry to organize to defend their interests ; The disproportionate tax subjugation pushes them to imagine illegal solutions to escape them … and those responsible for controlling them are quickly exceeded by their skills “ legal ». The revelations of the press, previously silent concerning these crimes, helps to fuel doubts about the transition. The mail of readers smashes, testifying to a growing concern that the police fail to dissipate. “” This grandfather who sells handmade baskets, we congratulate him for his individual work or we punish him for perception of illicit income ? “, Caricature the newspaper Krokodil. Films, sensation programs or polls soon nourish general hostility towards a group that would consist of corrupt politicians, criminal backgrounds and entrepreneurs with questionable practices. The link between characters from the world of business and dissent also contributes to confusion: thus the director of the stock market of raw materials and goods, Konstantin Borovoï, founds the Party of Economic Liberty by associating with the reforming deputy and renowned surgeon Sviatoslav Fiodorov, the human rights activist Elena Bonner, Widow Sakharov, as well as the business woman Irina Khakamada.
When the new penal code is voted in 1996, its most progressive aspects have been considerably reduced ; It is ultimately in the continuity of Soviet criminal law and defines economic offense as a “ Socially dangerous act ». Meanwhile, a decree was issued in 1991 which strengthens the means of repressive services and increases the prerogatives of the interior and state security services. It is in line with the reversal of Mikhail Gorbachev who is closer to the Conservatives, a prelude to the coup d’etat of August 1991.
Consequently, the Ministry of the Interior and the Kgb extend their fields of competence to combat economic crime. But they have at their disposal a poorly remunerated, little informed and frowned staff in the eyes of a population who prefers to massively use the bribes rather than go to court. Added to this is the falsification of statistics by civil servants: as evidenced by a manager of a small town in the Urals: “ Failing to have the real possibility of controlling crime (organizations in charge of the fight against crime) focus on what they can manage, that is to say the recording of crime ».
Anonymous, the vouchers – privatization titles supposed to distribute equitably state goods among all citizens – are easy to divert. The lists of beneficiaries are sometimes supplemented by people who have moved or deceased, “ dead souls »… These dysfunctions are grafted the growing tensions between Moscow and the regions: inspections sometimes justify their action by the restoration of the authority of the State in such or such region, then opportunely qualified as” Mafias subject “Or” business »Local elites. The field is ready, writes the author, for this “ Dictatorship of the law That President Putin will not stop developing.