›

Victor Leonidovich Sheinis
Victor Sheinis March 15, 2011
Date of Birth:
Place of Birth:
Citizenship:	USSR USSR → Russia, Russia
Academic degree:	Doctor of Economic Sciences
Academic title:	Professor
The consignment:	During the years of Soviet power, he was a member of the CPSU. Currently a member of the Yabloko party
Occupation:	politician, economist, political scientist
Awards:

Viktor Leonidovich Sheinis(born February 16, 1931 in Kyiv) - Russian politician, economist, political scientist, member of the Political Committee of the Yabloko party.

Education

Graduated from the Faculty of History of the Leningrad State University. Since 1966 - Candidate of Economic Sciences (Department of Economics, Leningrad State University, dissertation topic: "Portuguese colonialism in Africa. Economic problems of the last colonial empire"). Since 1982 - Doctor of Economics (Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the USSR Academy of Sciences (IMEMO), thesis topic: "Economic growth, social processes and differentiation of developing countries, problems and contradictions"). Professor.

Work and political protest

In 1953-1956 he worked as a history teacher in several Leningrad schools. In 1957-1958 he was a post-graduate student at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

In 1957, Sheinis wrote the article "The Truth about Hungary" criticizing the Soviet invasion of Hungary. In 1958, for this act, he was expelled from the Komsomol and graduate school. In 1993 he was awarded the Hungarian Order.

In 1958-1964 he was a borer of the Kirov (formerly Putilov) plant in Leningrad.

Scientific activity

In 1964-1975 he was a graduate student, then an assistant, associate professor at the Department of Economics of Modern Capitalism at Leningrad University. He taught economics of foreign countries. He was forced to leave his teaching job at the university due to political "unreliability".

In 1975-1977 he was a senior researcher at the Institute of Social and Economic Problems of the USSR Academy of Sciences (Leningrad). Since 1977 - Senior Researcher, Leading Researcher, Chief Researcher at IMEMO Academy of Sciences of the USSR (before being elected to the State Duma). Since 2000 - again Chief Researcher at IMEMO RAS.

Professional interests: first - economic and social processes in developing countries, then - the Russian transition from totalitarianism to democracy: political and legal aspects (constitutional process, electoral legislation and electoral practice, parliament and parliamentarism, party-political system, foreign policy support).

Political activity

In 1990, he was elected people's deputy of the RSFSR in the Sevastopol constituency No. 47 of Moscow after his rival Igor Surikov (Surikov Igor Mikhailovich - no page) withdrew his candidacy under pressure from the election commission. In 1991, he was an active opponent of the State Emergency Committee. In 1991-1993 - Member of the Council of the Republic of the Supreme Council of Russia, Deputy Executive Secretary of the Constitutional Commission of the Supreme Council of Russia

On December 12, 1991, being a member of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, he voted for the ratification of the Belovezhskaya agreement on the termination of the existence of the USSR.

In 1993-1994 - Deputy Chairman of the Commission for Legislative Suggestions under the President of the Russian Federation.

In December 1993, he was elected to the State Duma on the federal list of the electoral association Yavlinsky-Boldyrev-Lukin Bloc, of which he was one of the founders. He became a member of the Yabloko faction, a member of the Committee on Legislation and Judicial-Legal Reform.

In December 1995, he was elected to the State Duma on the federal list of the Yabloko electoral association. He joined the Yabloko faction, a member of the State Duma Committee on Legislation and Judicial and Legal Reform.

During the years of Soviet power, he was a member of the CPSU. Currently a member of the Russian Democratic Party Yabloko. Theorist and practitioner of Russian parliamentarism.

On May 23, 2010, he participated as an observer in the parliamentary elections of the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, for which he was included by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan in the list of persona non grata for violating the "Law on the State Border" of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which considers the territories controlled by the NKR "occupied territories of Azerbaijan" ".

Victor Sheinis about his political experience

“The years spent in politics were the most interesting and probably the most controversial in my life. I do not regret almost anything that I did during these years. I am glad that we have paid off (albeit not completely and inconsistently) with one of the worst pages of Russian history - Stalinism and its continuation - a time that has been called "stagnation" with a ridiculous euphemism. I regret many things that I myself and my political friends failed to do. We lacked the wisdom (and sometimes just common sense) and the strength to direct domestic transit along a different path - like the one that, for example, went Poland or Brazil. As a result, the country has what it came to at the beginning of the new millennium. Much of us, probably, did not depend on us ”(Sheinis V.L. Rise and fall of parliament: turning points in Russian politics (1985-1993). T 1., p. 16).

Scientific works

Books:

• Portuguese imperialism in Africa. M., 1969.
• Actual problems of the political economy of modern capitalism (co-authored with S. I. Tyulpanov). L., 1973.
• Developing countries: economic growth and social progress. (responsible editor and head of the team of authors together with A. Ya. El'yanov). M., 1983.
• Developing Countries in the Modern World: Unity and Diversity (Executive editor; co-authored with I. V. Aleshina and I. D. Ivanov) M., 1983.
• Large Developing Countries in the Socio-Economic Structures of the Modern World (Executive editor and head of the team of authors, together with A. Ya. El'yanov). M., 1990.
• The economy of developing countries in numbers. Experience of reference and statistical research. 1950-1985 (co-authored with B. M. Bolotin). M., 1988.
• For fair elections. "Apple". M., 1999.
• The Rise and Fall of Parliament: Turning Years in Russian Politics (1985-1993). T. 1-2. M., 2005.
• Power and law: Politics and constitutions in Russia in the XX-XXI centuries. M.: Thought, 2014.

Some articles:

• Electoral law: testing by elections // Elections. Legislation and technology. 2000. No. 6.
• Elections and political development. Presidential elections: results and prospects // Russia in the electoral cycle of 1999-2000. M., 2000.
• The Russian Constitution of 1993 in a historical retrospective // ​​New Historical Bulletin. 2002. No. 3.
• Electoral legislation and electoral practice // Where is Russia going?.. Formal institutions and real practices. M., 2002.
• Overcome and unsurpassed past // Overcoming the past and new guidelines for its rethinking. The experience of Germany and Russia at the turn of the century. M., 2002.
• Russian foreign policy before the challenge of globalization // Socio-political forces of Russia and Western Europe and problems of globalization. M., 2002.
• National interests and foreign policy of Russia // Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. 2003. No. 4.
• Russian historical transit: preliminary results // Where did Russia come from?.. Results of societal transformation. M., 2003.
• National interests, foreign policy of Russia and mythologemes of public consciousness; Political modernization of Russia and "managed democracy" // Globalization and Russia. Problems of democratic development. M., 2004.
• Fourth election cycle. Political performance in two acts with an open epilogue // Ways of Russia: Existing Limitations and Possible Options. M., 2004.

Notes

1. Baburin S. N. On the death of the Soviet Union
2. V. Pribylovsky, Gr. Tochkin. Who i kak uprazdnil SSSR
3. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan. Arzuolunmaz Şəxslərin Siyahisi (Azerbaijan) (unavailable link - story) . Official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan (2013). Retrieved 9 August 2013. Archived from the original on 6 August 2013.
4. Namig Huseynov. Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry: Armenians lured most of the people to the occupied territories by deceit // aze.az. - August 6, 2013.

Partially used materials from the site http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Leonid Velekhov : Hello, Svoboda is on the air - a radio that is not only heard, but also seen. In the studio Leonid Velekhov, this is a new release of the program "Cult of Personality". It is not about tyrants, it is about real personalities, their destinies, deeds, their views on life.

Today, the guest of our program is a truly historical personality. Because it is nothing less than one of the authors of the Russian Constitution Victor Leonidovich Sheinis.

(Video about Viktor Sheinis. Voiceover:

Victor Leonidovich Sheinis is an intelligent and modest person. He does not talk about his merits to the motherland, but they are indeed truly historical. In 1957, as a 26-year-old graduate student, Viktor Sheinis spoke out against the Soviet armed invasion and the bloody suppression of the national liberation uprising in Hungary. He wrote the article "The Truth about Hungary", which, of course, was only printed in a few copies, on a typewriter. 1957 - there was no samizdat, no human rights movement then, there were only such honest, conscientious loners like Sheinis, who could not remain silent at the sight of injustice and arbitrariness. He was expelled from graduate school, from the Komsomol, and for the next six years, until 1964, he worked as a borer at the Kirov Plant in Leningrad. And only after that he returned to scientific and teaching activities.

He entered politics during the years of perestroika. With his energetic participation in 1989, Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov managed to become a people's deputy of the USSR and, for the first and last time in his life, receive a nationwide platform for expressing his views. When Viktor Sheinis himself became a deputy, he actively participated in the development and writing of the Russian Constitution and electoral legislation, later, of course, mangled without his participation. One of the founding fathers of the Yabloko party, to which he is faithful to this day.

People like Viktor Leonidovich Sheinis were forced out of official politics; you won’t see him on the State Duma rostrum for a long time. But you will see it at protest rallies, at the march in memory of Boris Nemtsov, where he walked for several hours in a common column, despite his 84 years).

Leonid Velekhov : Viktor Leonidovich, indeed, to take part in the drafting of the Constitution is a historical mission. We can say that you are our Russian Madison.

Victor Sheinis A: Well, that's an exaggeration.

Leonid Velekhov A: Still having a real basis.

Victor Sheinis A: Madison was a collective. I'm part of this Madison.

Leonid Velekhov : You are a part of our Russian Madison. Another thing is that in the United States, the Constitution is treated somewhat differently. As far as I remember, in more than 200 years, only 27 amendments have been made ...

Victor Sheinis : You know, I really like to draw such a parallel when it comes to our Constitution. The First Amendment to the American Constitution begins with the words: "Congress shall not make laws that detract from freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion," etc. It is in this form: not only is freedom of the press granted, but Congress is prohibited from making laws that detract from it. And the first substantive amendment to the Russian Constitution: the presidential term has been increased from 4 to 6 years.

Leonid Velekhov : As they say, comments are superfluous. Absolutely everything is eloquently said by this comparison of amendments.

But besides this, a lot of things in your life were wonderful and interesting. Life is really very eventful, although you are an intelligent, modest person, you do not flaunt yourself. But today we will touch on some absolutely amazing facts of your biography. And I would like to start from the very beginning. After all, you were born in Kyiv, Ukraine. It all resonates today, it sounds special. Is there something connected with Kiev, something deep and important for you?

Victor Sheinis : Friends I made there. Actually, I left Kyiv for evacuation on July 9 or 10, 1941. After that, I was in Kyiv only on short visits.

Leonid Velekhov : But you were already a big boy in 1941 - you were almost ten years old.

Victor Sheinis : Yes. There were no relatives left.

Leonid Velekhov : Why not left?

Victor Sheinis A: Unfortunately, I'm already an old man. Relatives were older than me. They were leaving.

Leonid Velekhov : That is, the terrible fate of many Kievans passed them? I mean Babi Yar and everything else.

Victor Sheinis : In any case, people I know, people I knew, yes, fortunately, passed. Although I had every chance to be in Babi Yar, since my mother's father was very seriously ill on the eve of the war, oncology. And he died on June 15, 1941. If he hadn’t gone to another world, I don’t know, in the cars in which we left, whether it was possible to take him away ...

Leonid Velekhov : Everything would, of course, be complicated. We remember these terrible stories of Babi Yar: how many sick, infirm people were there, who were carried, carried on a stretcher. Many families were probably unable to leave on time because of this.

Victor Sheinis : Kyiv, of course, is a very beautiful city, but my heart is attached to Leningrad.

Leonid Velekhov : Still to Leningrad?

Victor Sheinis : Yes.

Leonid Velekhov : Not even to Moscow?

Victor Sheinis : Not. To Leningrad. Now for several years now I have been living in Moscow more than in Leningrad. But still, probably the best years of my life were spent there.

Leonid Velekhov : The best years of our lives, as you know, are youth. And why, in fact, did the family leave for Leningrad from the evacuation, and did not return to Kyiv?

Victor Sheinis : But because in the evacuation we were reunited with my mother's sister. And she came from Leningrad to the Urals, and we came to the Urals from Tashkent. We moved around the country. And, when she left, we left with her, and we were already hooked on Leningrad, which was also not easy for various bureaucratic reasons. But, in general, they got hooked and stayed there. And I must say that I fell in love with Leningrad literally from the very first day when I ended up there.

Leonid Velekhov : I asked why they didn’t return to Kyiv from the evacuation, but moved to Leningrad, suggesting that, perhaps, the terrible shadow of Babi Yar hung over Kiev for you, and you didn’t want to return there ... And developing the theme of your Kiev “origin” a little more : the topic of Ukrainian anti-Semitism has been discussed a lot in our media lately. In particular, it helped persuade the Russian-speaking population of Israel to support Russia in the conflict with Ukraine. Did you have to deal with anti-Semitism in your Ukrainian childhood?

Victor Sheinis : Firstly, before the evacuation, I did not know at all that I was a Jew, and did not know national differences. I was a boy, I went to school. Probably, there were different boys and girls there - both Russians, and Ukrainians, Jews, and someone else, but no one cared before that.

Leonid Velekhov : In any case, have you ever been a victim of anti-Semitic attacks?

Victor Sheinis : As a child, I did not feel it. Then, of course, I read a lot about it. But I have not personally experienced this. And when I come to Kyiv, when I communicate with my friends, and they are different, Russians, Ukrainians, this problem does not exist between us.

Leonid Velekhov : And now Leningrad. History Department of the Leningrad University.

Victor Sheinis : If I may, I would like to add one more thing. I was evacuated relatively safely, Kyiv, as you probably remember, fell on September 21, 1941, and we left in July. We were given a supply of food for the road, which we were still eating when we arrived at the place. But I am still amazed at the happy fate of my wife, who at that time lived in Bialystok, where the Germans entered on June 23. Her father was a factory manager. And on the evening of June 22, he sent his wife, a relative and a girl, my wife, from Bialystok. She saw burning Minsk on the way. I am very grateful to fate that she did not stay there.

Leonid Velekhov : The fate of her for you and saved, as it turned out later. How precious that it is still all remembered. Do you remember your childhood well?

Victor Sheinis : Yes.

Leonid Velekhov : From what age do you remember yourself like that, do you realize?

Victor Sheinis : Probably from the age of five. Around the time I started reading.

Leonid Velekhov Q: Did you start reading early? They must have been a smart boy.

Leonid Velekhov : And who were the parents, Viktor Leonidovich?

Victor Sheinis : My father was a soldier. In 1938, we parted with him against his will.

Leonid Velekhov : And never met again?

Victor Sheinis : Of course not.

Leonid Velekhov : Well, there were different miracles. Someone returned.

Victor Sheinis A: No, he didn't come back. He received 15 years for participating in a Trotskyist counter-revolutionary organization. Then he was transported from Vladivostok to Magadan on the famous ship "Dzhurma". Lived there for two years. In 1941 he died. In all likelihood, he was killed. When the law on rehabilitation came out, I was in the Chief Military Prosecutor's Office. I got his file, and I had the opportunity to familiarize myself with it. Then I went to Magadan, drove through these places. This is no longer Magadan, this is five hundred kilometers along the Kolyma Highway. The file indicated the cemetery where he was buried, but this cemetery has not been preserved.

Leonid Velekhov : Now your beloved Leningrad and Leningrad University. Did you enter the history department as a fully convinced Marxist-Leninist?

Victor Sheinis : Oh sure!

Leonid Velekhov : And it turned out that you acted during Stalin's lifetime, and finished the history department in the year of his death. Was this a milestone in your worldview - 1953?

Victor Sheinis : It happened gradually. In general, I probably did not quite correspond to the appearance of that graduate of the ideological faculty, who was trained at the history department. And so at the university I went through two personal cases.

Leonid Velekhov : Still at university?

Victor Sheinis A: Yes, still at the university. During my freshman year, I received a severe reprimand with a record for an anti-patriotic speech at a debate. And the harmfulness of this speech was that I cited Pushkin's poem "To the Slanderers of Russia" as an example of false patriotism. He raised his hand to our classic. Then they kicked me out of the Komsomol bureau and reprimanded me. And then, in my fourth year, I was reprimanded for something else - for opposing myself to the Komsomol organization.

Leonid Velekhov : Wow!

Victor Sheinis : And even then I was expelled from the Komsomol. And during the year I filed all sorts of appeals. And at first the city committee of the Komsomol rejected the appeal, and in the regional committee the votes split equally. The person who led the meeting, the secretary of the regional committee, said: "Well, I don't know what to do." And then one of the members of the regional committee said: "Okay, I pass the vote in his favor - let him stay in the Komsomol." ( Laughter in the studio).

Leonid Velekhov : Wow! Big gesture!

Victor Sheinis : And he looked into the water. Because I "had been" in the Komsomol.

Leonid Velekhov : You didn't stay long, not long. And this, of course, is a grandiose fact of your biography: 1957, you are 26 years old, and you wrote the article "The Truth about Hungary", which criticizes the defeat of the Hungarian anti-Soviet popular uprising. This is an absolutely amazing fact: in the Soviet Union there is still no dissident movement, no human rights movement, no samizdat. All this will begin, as is believed, in the second half of the 60s. Where, as they say, what came from? Who made you think? How did you come up with this idea?

Victor Sheinis : I once spoke at the Gorbachev Foundation, where the 1960s were discussed. And my report was called, it was later published, "60s began in the 50s." Therefore, generally speaking, this is, of course, a somewhat biased view that there was nothing in the 50s.

Leonid Velekhov A: Something was, as we see.

Victor Sheinis : Something already happened.

Leonid Velekhov : But the first swallow, as you know, does not make spring.

Victor Sheinis : There was a company, there was a group of my friends who studied the history of the party ...

Leonid Velekhov : Under such a critical microscope, I take it?

Victor Sheinis : Certainly. Although, I must say that we then, probably, were all Leninists. And this work of mine, for which I was expelled from the Komsomol, had, in particular, such a leitmotif: Lenin would not have acted like that. Now I know: that's exactly what I would have done!

Leonid Velekhov : Well, perestroika began under the slogans of a return to Leninist norms. It was all completely natural.

Victor Sheinis : But, in general, by 1956 I had already completely moved to some critical positions. And the 20th Congress was not a revelation for me.

Leonid Velekhov : Even so?!

Victor Sheinis : I remember that we then learned about Khrushchev's report, then we used a phrase from a not very decent anecdote to characterize our attitude towards the report. The anecdote, I won't retell it, ends with the words: "Is that, boy, all you can do?" ( Laughter in the studio).

Leonid Velekhov : Viktor Leonidovich, you got the full reward for this. You were expelled from the Komsomol ...

Victor Sheinis : Kicked out of graduate school.

Leonid Velekhov : Kicked out of graduate school. Did you expect such consequences, or maybe you thought that you did not commit any "crime"?

Victor Sheinis : No, of course, I imagined that I was not acting the way Soviet citizens were supposed to act. But at that time I believed that a wave of rejection of Stalinism was rising. And further events will develop in this vein ... The only copy of my opus has been preserved in the archives of the State Security.

Leonid Velekhov Q: How many copies were there?

Victor Sheinis A: Five or seven, I don't remember.

Leonid Velekhov : One typewritten "bookmark", apparently.

Victor Sheinis A: I printed on very thin paper. Already when I was a deputy, I saw him. According to some provision, I don’t know what, it’s not in the law, I had to return what they took from me. And the worker of the archive of the State Security embroidered the file, bound, took out these pages and asked: "Would you mind if we make a copy?" I didn't mind, of course. And I received this copy, which I had the opportunity to show you.

Leonid Velekhov : Viktor Leonidovich, and now the years are closer to the present. You look like a man of an absolutely classical intelligent appearance, calm, reasonable. I am struck by the contrast between form and content. Because in the essence of your actions, prudence was far from always inherent in you. I asked you about this completely unprecedented, in my opinion, prank of your political - opposition to the Soviet invasion of Hungary. And already in times closer to us, you, apparently without settling down at all, became one of the initiators of the uproar that was started at the Academy of Sciences in 1989 regarding the election of people's deputies. Then you overturned the plan of "elections without choice" of people's deputies from the Academy of Sciences, handed down from above. And thanks to this coup, which you carried out, Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov also became a deputy, for the first and last time, unfortunately, he received a public platform in his life, and many other good people ...

Victor Sheinis : The extended presidium of the Academy of Sciences was dominated by conservative people. And they voted Sakharov and other prominent people. And this caused outrage in the institutes of the Academy of Sciences. At my institute, I spoke at meetings and so on.

Leonid Velekhov : You played a very active role in the result! Turning to your participation in politics, to the period when you became a people's deputy, and so on: don't you think it's a mistake that the Democrats staked not on Gorbachev, but on Yeltsin?

Victor Sheinis : I think that if a bet had been made on Gorbachev, then, perhaps, the course of events would have taken a different course.

Leonid Velekhov : More correct?

Victor Sheinis : More correct. But, unfortunately, it was not possible. Yeltsin was a people's hero, and our election to people's deputies was largely due to the fact that we declared ourselves Yeltsin's supporters.

Leonid Velekhov : Yeltsin, of course, went like an icebreaker.

Victor Sheinis : He walked like an icebreaker. That is, it was, firstly, a national mood. Secondly, the position of Mikhail Sergeevich himself. Mikhail Sergeevich changed. And just at that time there was such a conservative shift. Therefore, what happened, unfortunately, probably had no other development option. But I think that if a bloc of democrats and Gorbachev had formed, it is very likely that we would have been defeated. But it would not be a catastrophe like the one that happened to us at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Leonid Velekhov : I also want to ask you about one of your steps. You voted for the ratification of the Belovezhskaya agreements. How do you see it today?

Victor Sheinis A: I don't think it's a mistake. Although I then said and wrote that the collapse of the USSR was both my personal and political tragedy. Now I don't think so. I think it should have happened. And it's good that it happened in relatively calm forms, not bloody, not in the way that Yugoslavia was disintegrating. Of course, not as gentlemanly as Slovakia and the Czech Republic, but still relatively peaceful. And when I look at our current Asian republics, when I imagine ... You see, the Baltic states would have left anyway. It is clear.

Leonid Velekhov : It's true. It was a cut piece.

Victor Sheinis : Yes. Ukraine was, of course, hard. But when I look at the Asian republics and imagine that in today's state all these Bai regimes would be present, I think that it would be even harder. Because it would burden Russian democracy. Now it is difficult for me to imagine something worse than our current executive, legislative and judicial authorities. But I think that if there were representatives in the Duma from Karimov, from Aliyev, from Nazarbayev, whom I then had a good relationship with ...

Leonid Velekhov : Many treated him well then. I remember his brilliant performance...

Victor Sheinis : Even at the XXVII Congress.

Leonid Velekhov : Certainly! He made a very good impression back then.

Victor Sheinis : So, if these people were in the Duma today, then, I think, the situation would be even more difficult.

Leonid Velekhov A: If only it could be heavier.

Now let's talk about the current situation. How do you feel about what is happening in the country today? Where do you think she is headed?

Victor Sheinis : It seems to me that the person Yeltsin chose was not absolutely programmed for what he is doing now. I very carefully analyzed his speeches in the first presidential election campaign. He said what should have pleased Westerners, Slavophiles, marketers, dirigists, nationalists, and unitarians. My friends say it was disguise, camouflage. I can't pretend that I got into his brain and know everything for sure. But the farther, the more his line acquired an increasingly unambiguous direction. And I did not agree on all issues with Grigory Alekseevich Yavlinsky, with other leaders of Yabloko, but on the issue of attitude to power, I fully shared what Yabloko said. And today's Yabloko documents rightly characterize the regime as authoritarian, as moving towards a fascist state. I think so. I think that about a year and a half or two years ago there was a qualitative leap in this more or less smooth movement. It was connected with Ukraine. Because after the Crimea, after the Donbass, after the attempts to create Novorossiya, to split Ukraine, I see no opportunity for those people who are at the head of the state to turn sharply in the other direction. I'm afraid they've already passed the point of no return. It is very dangerous.

Leonid Velekhov : In our conversation, there was a mention of the party to which you belong, one of the major bright figures of which you are, this is Yabloko. "Yabloko" is often reproached for being naive, unwilling to unite with other democratic forces, and pursuing its own separatist line in the democratic movement. Do you tend to agree to some extent with such reproaches?

Victor Sheinis : You put the question very well - to one degree or another. Yes, to one degree or another, I tend to agree with this, although I see the consistency and logic of my comrades. I respect their position. I believe that not only Yabloko, but also the other side is to blame for this separation of the democratic forces. But especially now that the situation has taken a turn for the worse, I believe it is time to turn the page and start from scratch. Today, the most important thing is to stop the slide into disaster. And therefore, I think that sorting out who was right and who was wrong in 1993, in 1996, in the early 2000s - this can be done later. This is not today's task. The task of today is to stop the slide into disaster.

Leonid Velekhov : But then one more question for you as a democrat to the marrow of your bones, a person who has never changed his democratic principles and ideals for the sake of any conjuncture, for the sake of any career. In this sense, you are a crystal clear and consistent person. This is not a compliment, but a simple statement of fact. So, in general, does Russia need democracy? Will it ever take root in Russia? Doesn't it turn out, according to the very famous idea of ​​Montesquieu, paraphrased later, that each people receives the power that it deserves?

Victor Sheinis : I can't say that these kinds of statements have no grounds. Have. But I was brought up on Russian literature. For me, Russia is, first of all, Russian thinkers. For me, the face of Russia is, if you like, Pushkin, whom I denounced and I believe that I criticized correctly. (Studio laughter). Even then I did not know that some of Pushkin's friends criticized him for these poems, the same Vyazemsky, for example. For me, Russia is Belinsky, Herzen, Chekhov, Soviet writers - Bulgakov, Pasternak. I believe that the country that gave birth to such geniuses deserves a better fate.

Leonid Velekhov : I agree with you.

Victor Sheinis : I would like ... I don’t know if I can see, but I always tried to put some kind of pebble on this scale.

Leonid Velekhov : Finally, two or three personal questions. What hour, moment, period of your life do you consider stellar?

Victor Sheinis : Two finest hours. If chronologically, then at first it was the turn of the 60s - 70s, when I completed my postgraduate studies, defended my Ph.D. thesis and got the opportunity to communicate with students at Leningrad University. It was very important for me - the relationship with the students and the opportunity to say a lot. I think that it is no coincidence that Romanov, then a member of the Politburo, said at the ideological plenum that, as long as such people teach at the university, we will not be able to establish a communist education of students. For me it ended rather well. People who treated me well dragged me to Moscow.

Second. Of course, this is the turn of the 80s and 90s. This is perestroika and post-perestroika. Until about 1993, when I still did not understand that everything was developing in the other direction. This is the second finest hour.

Leonid Velekhov : Are you a happy person?

Victor Sheinis A: It's hard for me to say. I think that fate in general was favorable to me. In addition, I had and still have a happy personal life. I love my wife very much. It's a sin for me to complain about my fate. But dissatisfaction with myself was almost always present in me.

Leonid Velekhov : I understood you.

Victor Sheinis : I was recently invited by my Armenian friends to a meeting with a delegation from Nagorno-Karabakh, where I have the honor and pleasure to travel quite often as an election observer. There was a meeting at the Regnum agency. I knew almost nothing about him. There were all sorts of books there. In one of them I read an article in which the author talked about how the Russian Constitution was made. It was interesting for me to read about myself. This author writes that Sheinis, in general, looks like a Menshevik from Soviet films ... ( Laughter in the studio). He was an active democratic figure. But then he went to Yabloko and left the stage, in particular, because he came up with an electoral law that was benevolent towards parties, while there are no parties in Russia and never will be. This is what this author wrote. Well, well ... He is probably right about something.

Leonid Velekhov : Did it hurt you?

Victor Sheinis : Well no. It would hurt if I were an active politician. Right now I'm a little off the mark. Rather amused.

Leonid Velekhov : Great, Viktor Leonidovich! Thank you for this extremely sincere, lively and meaningful conversation!

Victor Sheinis : Thank you for the opportunity to talk about this and somehow appeal to my fellow citizens, at least to those who watch and listen to Freedom.

Leonid Velekhov : Thanks!

Another, I would say criminal, example of such a false slanderous cliché is the slogan “execution of the parliament” in October 1993. In fact, it was the suppression of a revanchist reactionary rebellion, the striking force of which was the bandit tails of the Riga OMON, Transnistrian armed formations, etc. .

Interview with Viktor Leonidovich Sheinis

Dear friends! Today I want to introduce to you my long-term collaborator at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and now - RAS, Doctor of Economics. Professor Viktor Leonidovich Sheinis. Sheinis is a recognized expert in international and Russian politics and economics. We started our careers with him once in the Department of Developing Countries (now the Center ...) In my opinion, it is also very important to note that Viktor Leonidovich is a wonderful person. Recently, at a lecture by Lev Utevsky, I learned a wonderful maxim of Judaism: “There are only 3 crowns: the crown of the Torah, the crown of the priesthood and the crown of the kingdom. But the crown of a good name is above all others." (“Pirkei Avot” - “Teachings of the Fathers”, 4:17) So I testify: Victor Leonidovich carries the crown of a good name through life deservedly and with dignity. However, I believe that in addition to the above positives, the attention of the reader of Vesti will be especially attracted by the fact that V.L. Sheinis is a co-author of the current Constitution of the Russian Federation.

LB. Viktor Leonidovich, please tell us “how did you come to such a life”!

VS. If strictly on the facts, then everything developed more or less normally. Born in 1931 in Kyiv, in 1953 he graduated from the Faculty of History of Leningrad University and taught history at school. In 1957 he entered the graduate school of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. But then 1958 came, "and ... cracked the world in half": for a critical position on the Hungarian events, he was expelled from graduate school. Well, so ... he joined the ranks of the proletariat, worked for 6 years at the machine tool at the Kirov Plant. In 1964, he was reinstated as a postgraduate student at the Leningrad State University and two years later he defended his thesis for a candidate of economic sciences. And in 1975 you and I, dear Elena Alekseevna, met within the walls of the glorious IMEMO, in “your” department, where I was accepted as a senior researcher and where in 1982 I defended my doctoral dissertation on the topic “Social - economic processes in developing countries”.

LB. And you know, Viktor Leonidovich, it is curious that now, after 37 and 30 years, respectively, I remember both of these dates well. I remember how we first met by chance on the way to the Institute, and then I took your first, impromptu interview. For some reason, I was especially struck by the fact that your not-so-frequent first name and patronymic completely coincided with the first name and patronymic of our then department head VL Tyagunenko. He was a colorful figure, by the way: a former KGB officer, he "protected" the "composition entrusted to him" as best he could. There were such "abnormal" plots in the history of Soviet science...

And 1982 is very memorable for me, first of all, as very sad. This year my mother died. This year L.I. Brezhnev died, this year the long-term director of our Institute N.N. Inozemtsev died. And in socio-political terms, it was precisely this year that the “Andrei Fadin case” broke out, when a group of young scientists (primarily from our Department) were accused (!) of distributing (with the help of samizdat) the works of European Communist Party leaders (sic!). (I mentioned this in my interview with G.I. Mirsky - see "Vesti - Okna" 04.08.11.)

VS. And for me, active involvement in social and political life - on a new turn of the spiral - was marked by 1988, when I became a member of the Moscow Tribune group.

LB. Is this really a milestone?

VS. Certainly. After all, this club of democratic intelligentsia, created in October 1988, played a very noticeable, if not key, role in consolidating the intellectual asset of Perestroika. The club absorbed many of the sixties. Today it is necessary to emphasize and remind that it was these people who sowed the seeds of free thought and so on. made a decisive contribution to the moral enlightenment of a large part of Soviet society in the 2nd half of the 20th century. This was actually the socio-mental soil of Perestroika. Yes, the sixties did not become a force rooted in society, they did not create the political party of Perestroika. But they left a wonderful, bright mark in the history of the country. It is on their occasion that I most often recall the lines of Naum Korzhavin: “After all, the truth does not fade and conscience does not sleep ...”.

LB. By the way, I remember this period very well: I didn’t even realize right away that you were no longer working for us.

VS. Well, yes. In 1990, I was already elected a People's Deputy of Russia. My active work in parliament began.

LB. Viktor Leonidovich, what exactly did your work in parliament give you, what advantages did you feel in comparison with, say, scientific work?

VS. In those years, parliamentary activity made it possible to really influence the situation. At the V Congress of People's Deputies (November 1991) I was elected a member of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation, i.e. the country's highest legislative body. Since 1992, he has been a member of the Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Foreign Economic Relations.

LB. Those. The name of the Committee was practically a copy of the name of our Institute.

VS. Yes. Moreover, the next 1993 became the most intense and most effective for me in this regard. I am indeed one of the authors of the Russian Constitution of 1993, and also led the group for the preparation of the new Electoral Law, which was adopted in the same 1993. In the autumn of 1993 joined the initiative group for the creation of the liberal-democratic party "Yabloko", becoming at the same time a permanent member of its Politburo.

In 1993 and 95 On the list of this party, he was elected to the State Duma of the Russian Federation. In this legislature, he served as a member of the Legal Reform Committee.

LB. That. Summing up, we can say that the main areas of your Duma activity were the Constitution, the new Electoral Law and other legal reforms.

VS. This is true. But we must also add participation in solving acute national problems of both the Union and Russia.

LB. Do you mean Karabakh?

VS. Yes. But not only. After all, I was also a member of that parliamentary commission on Chechnya, which actively promoted a peaceful solution to the conflict in 1995.

LB. It is impossible to even imagine the density of those problems and the responsibility of the decisions taken by the people's representatives of those convocations. You know, not so long ago I happened to hear one of the last speeches of E.T. Gaidar. He bitterly joked: “I never thought that in the memory of the people I would forever remain the author of “shock therapy”, the culprit of a sharp rise in prices and other economic difficulties of the first years of perestroika.” But it's like that popular movie song:

“If you don’t have an aunt, you won’t lose her… Think for yourself, decide for yourself…” Gaidar made up his mind… So, I think, today you are getting a lot of criticism about the Russian Constitution of 1993.

VS. Unfortunately, you are absolutely right, Elena Alekseevna. Our Constitution really did not become an obstacle to authoritarianism. And here is my whole garden in stones. But stone-throwers - consciously, some not - forget that the Constitution was not created in the offices of an ivory tower. It was created in the thick of the political struggle. And at that stage, Boris N. Yeltsin, full of reformist aspirations, was opposed by a very conservative parliament. That is why it was so necessary to legally support the executive branch. In addition, it should be clearly stated: the Constitution-93 is a very controversial document. Chapters 1 and 2 (the foundations of the constitutional system; human and civil rights and freedoms) meet the most modern democratic standards. The most problematic are the last chapters, where the organization of state power is spelled out. In these formulations, the balance of powers of the various branches of power is indeed violated. (For example, Article 80, which guarantees “the full power of the president.”) However, to argue that today it is the Constitution that, in the first place, blocks the way out of the impasse to the rule of law, means nothing more than real legal fetishism. For in fact, the situation in the country, ultimately, is determined not so much by the text of the Law as such, but by the real balance of political forces. It was this ratio that predetermined the subsequent offensives of the power vertical: on the electoral system, the independence of the judiciary, the freedom of the media.

As a result, the parliament turned into just a department under the presidential administration. All these distortions and violations of rights and freedoms are in fact not conformity, but, on the contrary, a violation of both the letter (restrictions on presidential power are still spelled out in the Law) and the spirit (Ch. 1 and 2) of the Constitution.

LB. Viktor Leonidovich, I think that your words should be listened to very carefully, because. it is you who know the text, context and subtext of the Constitution like no one else.

VS. Yes. And I dare to insist that the statement about the “inferiority of the Yeltsin Constitution” is nothing but one of those false slanderous clichés that today are intensively developed by reactionary propaganda, and then thrown, introduced into the mass consciousness in the struggle against democratic forces.

Another, I would say criminal, example of such a false slanderous cliché is the slogan “execution of the parliament” in October 1993. In fact, it was the suppression of a revanchist reactionary rebellion, the striking force of which was the bandit tails of the Riga OMON, Transnistrian armed formations, etc. It is these adventurers, who disrupted the negotiations in the St. Danilov Monastery, that are the main culprits in the death of people. The then victory of Boris N. Yeltsin at the White House was the least of the evils at that time.

And perhaps the most serious of these false slanderouscliche - the thesis of the "collapse of the Union": they say, 3 people met in Belovezhskaya Pushcha (Yeltsin, Kravchuk and Shushkevich) and decided to destroy the Union over a bottle of beer. This is such a funny story. At the same time, the real story is strongly erased from the memory of people. But in fact, the collapse of the Soviet Union was sanctioned by all the highest authorities that existed then in the USSR. These decisions were almost unanimously sanctioned by the Supreme Soviets of all the republics, except for those that had already left the Soviet Union (the Baltics) even before that. And all these documents are published.

All these are examples of the tough, I would say unequal, ideological struggle that is going on in modern Russia.

LB. Viktor Leonidovich, returning to the Constitution-93: do you completely reject the possibility of reforming it today?

VS. No, I do not approve of this at all. But I want to make a reservation right away: reforming the Constitution is not just a complex and responsible matter, I would say it is a life-changing one and involves a number of serious prerequisites. 1. Many sociologists note such a thing as indifference to law, especially written law, which is pervasive in society and is one of the main characteristics of the Russian socio-genetic code.

LB. How, how, we know, we heard: “The law, that the drawbar ...”, “As long as the court and the case ...”, “Paper will endure everything ...”, etc.

VS. So I am not a supporter of a fatalistic view and I know many countries that have managed to break out of their historical rut. So this is the first circumstance. 2. So-called. "gentleman's opposition set": fair competitive elections; an independent court; free media; gubernatorial elections; eradication of corruption. But this is by no means the agenda of today: the system still has a resource of self-preservation. However, even a gradual, partial implementation of the components of the "gentleman's set" will mean first the limitation, and then the transformation of the political monopoly. 3. These are new social forces capable of and interested in democratic transformations. Only in this way, in my opinion, as a result of a gradualist, gradualist approach (one of the developers of it, by the way, M. Khodorkovsky) can real conditions for constitutional reform be formed in society. And by the way, do you know that sometimes an amendment to the Constitution can become a symbolic phenomenon?

LB. What do you mean?

VS. The Museum of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution recently opened in Washington DC. Schoolchildren are taken to it, where from a young age they comprehend the essence of the constitutional system and constitutional thinking. The American First Amendment, passed in 1791, reads: "Congress shall make no laws ... to restrict the freedom of speech or the press, or the right of the people to assemble peacefully ..." and so on. Those. the bridle is imposed on the government, on the Congress. Our first amendment, adopted in 2009, extends the presidential term from four to six years. But our president is the only significant elective post in which the maximum state power is concentrated. But now the period of time through which citizens can theoretically make their verdict is stretched one and a half times. That. the ability of voters to influence the top of the vertical is weakened altogether.

LB. That. Do you state a complete "rollback" of democracy?

VS. No, I formulate the situation differently. Perhaps, since the 60s, since the Thaw, a certain, peculiar algorithm of development has developed in our society, which in general can be expressed in three phases: "go, stop, back."

LB. So now we just have to wait for the next phase...

VS. In no case. The not-too-quoted classic once argued that the Bolsheviks should use every opportunity, every platform for their work and agitation. We at Yabloko are of the same opinion. It is necessary to participate in any institutions, organizations created by the authorities or locally. The era of "small deeds" has come, the struggle for the vital interests of people with the maximum publicity of its positive results. That is why the popular "apple" program today sounds "Earth, houses, roads." But it is also necessary to participate in elections, and to any representative bodies, even with an all-penetrating administrative resource, if only because there is no other legitimate way to change power. And following the results of the last elections, G. Yavlinsky proposed the “Count It Yourself!” program, during which those who wish, using copies of films from video cameras, can independently check the vote count at some of the most representative or, conversely, problematic polling stations. At the same time, I insist: there is no need to fetishize interest. Let us not forget that all the most beneficial social shifts are created not by the majority of the population, but by its critical mass.

LB. Viktor Leonidovich, in one of your articles about B.N. Yeltsin (in my opinion, this is the Kiev speech in March 2011), you write that after the re-election of the BNE (1996) and the almost free privatization of state property, a merger took place quite quickly economic and political elites, a symbiosis of property and power. Moreover, at the 1st stage, in the 90s. in this anti-democratic "oligarch-official" tandem, the dominant figure was the oligarch. But pretty soon the situation changed, and today, as a result of a certain castling, the official clearly dominates. In this situation, do you consider Pushkin's characteristic, given by him in a virtual conversation with Pestel (see D. Samoilov, Pushkin's Meeting with Pestel), to be relevant: "Ah, Russian tyranny - amateurishness ..."?

VS. Elena Alekseevna, in conclusion, I want to say that with all our hopes, comparisons and original quotations, in my opinion, our program line as social scientists should remain unchanged: to remain on the basis of realism, even if “systemic”.

LB. I agree with this creed, but I reserve the final word, or rather the question. Viktor Leonidovich, and as for scientific activity - when did you return to it and what are the successes? Obviously, for your 80th anniversary (2011), you volens-nolens, summed up some results ...

VS. Yes. I returned to scientific activity as my main occupation at the beginning of 2000 after the end of my parliamentary cadences. I returned to our alma mater, to IMEMO, but to the department of GG Diligensky, which is now called the Center for Socio-Economic and Political Research. My “not summed up results” (as E.A. Ryazanov called his book) is b. 300 scientific publications on issues of 1) modern socio-economic development of the countries of the "3rd world" and 2) political development in the USSR under M.S. Gorbachev and in post-Soviet Russia. Excerpts from my, perhaps, the main analytical work - a 2-volume book “The Rise and Fall of Parliament. Critical Years in Russian Politics (1985-1993)” (M., 2005) have been published in many scientific and political publications.

LB. Viktor Leonidovich, at this point I will allow myself to interrupt you and make a few comments. So, we have 3 heroes of our story: 1 Siberian, 1 from South Russia, 1 Kyiv Jew (where would we be without him ?!) And what is curious - all three are the same age, the same age, born in 1931. (each in the past 2011 turned 80 years old), the children of the Soviet country, the interwar period, the reformers, in their mature years, are overwhelmed by the thought “you can’t continue to live like this.” What is the distribution of roles? - 2 historical figures (M.S. Gorbachev and B.N. Yeltsin) and 1 historian (V.L. Sheinis). But not an armchair scientist, but an active participant, a developer of the most important documents. It was he who analyzed the situation, as if he had taken apart a game of chess, and brought it to us. Moreover, the situation is unique in history, both in the global process and in science.

VS. Elena Alekseevna, thank you for your kind words, thank you for this comment. I just have to add a couple of details. In 2006, for services to the Hungarian democracy on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the "Hungarian events" he was awarded the Order of the "Officer's Cross" in Budapest. Periodically I participate in various scientific and political Russian and international conferences. My official regalia today: Principal Researcher at the IMEMO RAS and Professor at the Russian State Humanitarian University (Russian State University for the Humanities).

LB. And now for a snack. I would like to ask you: “Viktor Leonidovich, have you ever experienced national sentiment in your life?” (After all, in the photo you are a real “Yiddish understand”, as my mother used to say, and you resemble either a classic Russian social democrat or some famous Zionist. But this is for you personally.)

VS. (If you do not want, you can not answer, and we will remove the question.)

LB. Viktor Leonidovich, thank you very much for the creative and interested cooperation.

From the book by Nina Shustrova "On the past: distant and near"

TROUBLESHOOTER: Victor Leonidovich Sheinis

(published for the first time)

... As I noted above, by the time I entered the Faculty of Philosophy, there were almost no openly opposing teachers. With the possible exception, to some extent, of Boris Mikhailovich Paramonov from the Department of Russian Philosophy (he will have a story to come). However, there was still one who clearly stood out with his ideologically independent behavior at lectures. And this spoiled the overall good picture. True, he came to us from another, neighboring Faculty of Economics, to teach a course on the political economy of capitalism, and later a special course on "Actual Problems of Modern Capitalism."

36-year-old assistant at the Department of Economics of Modern Capitalism, headed by Professor S.I. Tyulpanov, Viktor Leonidovich Sheinis, taught philosophers a seemingly non-core subject, but he lectured so much that he soon became very popular and loved by students. If some kind of crowd formed in the long faculty corridor during the break between classes, then one could be sure that it was he who was surrounded and not let go by the student flock. Only a call to the next lesson could free the prisoner. And when he left the university, he was almost always followed by a trail of one or more guys. And I - in fact, not a fan of walking - also often overcame a serious distance with him to the corner of Vosstaniya Street and Nevsky Prospekt, where his mother lived at that time. For a lively and exciting conversation without even noticing it.

Literally in everything: in the manner of holding, speaking, listening to the interlocutor, and in the style of lecturing, one felt the image of a pre-revolutionary professor, privatdozent - an intellectual and an intellectual to the marrow of bones, familiar to us from literature, cinema and the memories of people from a past era. Such a seemingly dry subject as political economy, in his presentation, was filled with living life. The inert dogmas of the orthodoxies completely disappeared in it, and it appeared before the listeners as an entertaining and fascinating science.

He presented ideologically verified textbook schemes with humor and undisguised irony, thereby discrediting the dogmas presented, which are mandatory under the program, without their straightforward refutation. And as an additional textbook for the course, on his recommendation, we studied Economics by an American professor, P. Samuelson, later a Nobel laureate (1970), only recently translated into Russian by that time (in 1964).

And, of course, quite deservedly, at the end of the series of lectures, the students saw him off (and more than once) with thunderous applause. Both first-year students and third-year students, for whom he also taught at one time. Somehow, the faculty conducted a sociological survey to find out which lectures and teachers are most popular with the student audience. It turned out that it was Viktor Leonidovich Sheinis. This result came as a surprise to the university authorities. Can't say it's pleasant. And, it is possible that it was he who served as the trigger for setting in motion the party mechanism of repression against the teacher who allowed himself too much.

Of course, the "wakeful ear" and the "watchful eye" have long and intently looked at him. It was only necessary to find a convenient excuse, because from a formal point of view, there was nothing to complain about. But whoever seeks will always find. And in the end, an offer was found. In 1972, Viktor Leonidovich edited a collection of abstracts based on the materials of a conference devoted to the political and economic problems of developing countries. One of its authors made such a harmless, in general, statement about the African states of a socialist orientation that a layer of the so-called “Soviet bourgeoisie” is being formed with the money that the USSR provides them in the form of financial assistance. It was clear that he meant only that the incoming funds are not always spent for their intended purpose, but stick to the hands of officials close to the state purse. (1) But high party bosses made their conclusion, accusing - no, not the author, but the editor of a conscious, almost ideological sabotage. (2)

Organizational measures were taken immediately. By decision of the faculty party bureau, they did not yet subject him to the “ultimate measure of punishment” - the removal of his party card, but they slapped him with a severe reprimand with entry into the registration card. And three years later, in the report of the then party owner of Leningrad, G.V. Romanov, he was mentioned as an alien element in the education system of ideologically savvy Soviet youth .. Which called into question belonging to the caste of the elite, proven, reliable and admitted. As well as work at the University in general. But V.L. Sheinis himself resigned from the faculty after the abolition of the decision on reprimand. To the delight of his main persecutor - the secretary of the party bureau Moiseenko.

But, as they say, “there would be no happiness, but misfortune helped”: it was from this that the rise of the scientific, and then the socio-political career of the St. Petersburg exile began. He was hired by the most prestigious research institution in the country - IMEMO, where he defended his doctoral dissertation after 5 years and quickly passed all the steps to the chief researcher. (But even before moving to Moscow for some time, his workplace was ISEP - the Institute of Social and Economic Problems - to which the rate was transferred specifically for this purpose by agreement between two academic institutions).

With the beginning of Gorbachev's perestroika, on its wave, Viktor Leonidovich actively engaged in practical social activities within the framework of organizations (and later parties) that loudly declared themselves, striving to transform the life of the country on a democratic basis.

In 1990, as an independent candidate, he was elected to the Republican Congress of People's Deputies, and then to the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR. Later he was twice elected on the list of Yabloko - to the State Duma. Before the elections, he took an active part in the work of the Interregional Deputy Group. He was a very prominent figure in the political horizon among the Democratic deputies. He prepared one of the drafts of the new Constitution, spoke a lot, wrote articles and texts of various political documents. All this can be read in his fundamental works: “The Rise and Fall of the Parliament: Turning Years in Russian Politics (1985-1993)” and “Power and Law. Politics and constitutions in Russia in the XX-XX I centuries. (3)

Well, at the department at the University, many teachers regretted his departure, moralized and supported him, and first of all - Sergey Ivanovich Tyulpanov, a prominent scientist, a retired general, a strong man who enjoyed great prestige not only at the university, but also among high-ranking authorities. After the war, he was head of the Propaganda (Information) Directorate of the Soviet military administration in Germany. It was he who actually formed the party system in the zone of Soviet occupation and had many state awards - orders and medals. But his life path and career were not so smooth. The wave of Stalinist repressions affected both him and his family. However, he managed to overcome all the blows of fate, thanks to his vitality and front-line hardening. And not at all the ability to adapt, as one might think. (4)

It was he who was not afraid to take the disgraced Sheinis to the chair after he was expelled from graduate school and expelled from the Komsomol for writing an article against the entry of Soviet troops into Hungary in 1956. He accepted it - directly from the machine tool of the Kirov Plant, where my future boss worked for more than 6 years. Supervised during the defense of a Ph.D. thesis. And he tried to disperse the thunderclouds that appeared over his head every now and then. In general, he was a wonderful leader, although sometimes quite tough and authoritarian. However, for all that, the pulpit breathed freely, the atmosphere was free, and no one's opinion was suppressed.

I speak about this with complete confidence, and not from someone else's words, since I often began to come here at the invitation of Viktor Leonidovich. Especially when he took over the scientific supervision of my term papers and diploma papers. With his assistance, I was allowed to follow an individual training program that we had developed, with the aim of preparing me as a specialist in developing countries. At that time, we, i.e. The USSR fought for influence on the "third world" with the capitalists. And they were close friends with those states that took the path of socialist development, as our ideologists and the ruling elite wanted to believe.

It was then a fashionable and promising line of research. And, perhaps, that is why they approved an individual study plan for me - as an advanced scholarship holder. There were two of us on the course. Besides me, Valya Paliy. Simultaneously with the philosophical, she also studied mathematics. Well, I listened to some courses of lectures at the economics and oriental faculties with the subsequent passing of exams and tests there. And, of course, we were not exempted from them in all compulsory subjects, also in our native - philosophical. Although we were allowed free access to classes.

His students, whom Sheinis took under guardianship as a supervisor, he immediately began to attach to science. He taught independence, a conscientious and scrupulous attitude to primary sources, elementary rules for writing term papers and theses, abstracts for reports and articles. Trained to participate in symposiums and conferences in the chosen specialty. And to not be afraid to speak on them. Such a school for us was the student scientific circle on topical problems of the economy and politics of developed capitalist countries, which was organized and led by Viktor Leonidovich (and I was the headman).

An idea about its work, about the breadth of topics covered in reports and discussions, is given by the plan of activities of the circle approved by the participants themselves in the 1971-72 academic year. Here it is:

The ruling stratum and elite of modern capitalist society. The boundaries and mechanisms of the functioning of power in it. Problems of bureaucratization of economic and social life.

On productive and unproductive labor under capitalism.

Economic and social consequences of demographic processes (shifts) in developed and developing societies at the present stage.

The law of the correspondence of production relations to the level and nature of the productive forces: forms and mechanisms of manifestation in modern conditions.

Problems of state-monopoly regulation of the economy in capitalist countries.

Scientific and technological revolution and the problems of "consumer society".

Scientific and technological revolution and the changes it brings to the social structure and position of the working class in the developed capitalist countries. Problems of the modern labor movement and the class struggle in them.

On the relationship between economics and politics in the conditions of modern capitalism.

Problems of youth movements in the West: causes and consequences.

On the possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism in the present conditions of the capitalist countries.

Intelligentsia: its role, interests and position in modern society.

J. M. Keynes is a Western classic of political economy of the 20th century.

The IMF and monetary and financial problems of modern capitalism.

- "Third World" in world politics and economics.

The functioning of art in the sphere of spiritual production under capitalism.

Methodology of political economy of capitalism

The tax policy of the bourgeois state and the class struggle.

Although not on all, but for the most part of the declared topics, reports were presented at the circle and discussions were held. Children from different courses of the economic and philosophical faculties came to its meetings. They were attracted by the atmosphere of free creative discussion without ideological restrictions and taboo topics. I will never forget the brilliant performance of the third-year philosopher Sasha Abramov, who consistently, step by step, revealed the logic of the construction of K. Marx's Capital. There were other notable reports as well. The final note, summing up the discussion, was almost always made by the head of the circle himself, only occasionally entrusting it to me.

Then we did not really understand how much time he spent in the circle on reading and critical analysis of our student work. If, say, you take mine, then sometimes there were so many curatorial notes there that they did not fit in the margins, and I got scolded for leaving too little free space for them. What the fuss with us cost him, what expenditure of nervous energy and time, we understood only when we ourselves found ourselves in the role of teachers. A wise teacher, he never wrote anything for us, as some supervisors sometimes do for their students. But his own example worked better than all the instructions and lessons: scientific honesty, adherence to principles and conscientiousness.

We were very lucky that we had the opportunity to make our introduction to science and the first steps in it under the guidance of such a person. I understand that this sounds almost like a panegyric and it would be necessary to slightly lower the tone, but what can you do: everything is true. And so it was. I am looking for and not finding at least a tiny negative, even a tiny wormhole, to get away from the resulting almost iconic face.

And on the other hand, why can't you say this directly and honestly, looking into your eyes: “Your Majesty, you are a genius”? What's wrong with that? The idol of my youth, Bulat Okudzhava, sings in one of his wonderful songs: “Let's exclaim! Admire each other, grandiloquent words should not be feared. Let's give each other compliments, because these are all happy moments of love. I'm just following his advice. And I am sure that any former student or colleague of Sheinis who at least once happened to cooperate with him will sign my lines. The charm of this person was so great that, having left the university far behind, walking independently through life and building a scientific career, we not only never forgot our teacher, but still looked up to him and tried to maintain constant contact.

I will hardly be mistaken if I say that he continues to be a high scientific and human authority for such former students from earlier generations living in different countries as Tolya Kandel, or Dima Shalin, or Ira Konovalova. All of them have long been recognized and famous in their professional fields, but for them he is still the Teacher with whom they correspond, call back, meet.

What can we say about us, students from the later generation, who have become close friends with each other - precisely thanks to Sheinis, who voluntarily or involuntarily tied us together with an invisible thread? Ira T., for example, is sure that if it were not for him, not for his support, she would not have been able to graduate from the Faculty of Economics and receive a diploma with honors, when, unexpectedly, before the last year, by the will of fate, the villain was left alone in her arms with her newborn daughter in complete confusion. Yura O. also believes that he owes the successful defense of his Ph.D. thesis to him, and not to his formal supervisor.

As for me, it is simply impossible to overestimate his contribution to my formation, to my personality . Almost immediately, as soon as I began to listen to his lectures and, along with other students, besiege in the corridor with a bunch of questions, a trusting nature of relations was established between us. What he said, and to no lesser extent what was read between the lines, was completely in tune with my mentality and worldview. Formed in rough outline independently at school age, as a result of observations and reflections on the deceitful and demagogic soviet reality. And later systematized under the influence of smart and highly educated people, in conversations with whom my protest moods were born and strengthened. And I am grateful to fate, which every now and then brought me to them, sometimes even as a result of a purely casual acquaintance.

In this regard, Viktor Leonidovich played in my life not only a huge, but a turning point. Having got acquainted with him, I “forgot to think” about my initial (at admission) intention to try to transfer to the Faculty of Psychology at the first opportunity. Much to the chagrin of my first mentor (in the science of GND physiology) - Yuri Yakovlevich Zakher, who once wrote, as I already mentioned, on the abstract of his Ph.D. thesis, presented to me: "To the future successor Nina." It became clear that this was never destined to come true. Like a character from a well-known fairy tale, I rolled off into a completely different “steppe”.

Looking ahead, I will say that over time I also “rolled away” from Viktor Leonidovich. Although it is more due to circumstances than by choice. One way or another, he forgave me the "treason", which did not shake our friendly relations in the least. Moreover, the question of who "rolled away" from whom is rather controversial and does not have an unequivocal answer: it was not I who left for Moscow, but he. So the laurels of the clever Kolobok I should probably pass on to him. I'm kidding, of course.

Very quickly, on the fertile intellectual bread of the capital, he grew into a prominent scientist, politician and public figure. What, it seems to me, is the great merit of his wife, Alla Konstantinovna Nazimova. A sociologist, economist, candidate of sciences and, moreover, an excellent housewife who managed to protect her husband from the problems and difficulties of everyday life. I simply admire her ability to equip it so skillfully, so rationally and thoughtfully, that living in a house is pleasant, comfortable and moderately costly - in terms of time and money. In everything one can feel the practical grasp of life and a great mind.

I try to be like, but, alas, it doesn’t even work halfway - I probably have to come to terms with this. I believe that thanks to her organizational talent, their small modest apartment is so warm and comfortable that when you get into it, you don’t want to leave. Reminds me of Aladdin's cave, only bookish. An intellectual dwelling (lair) of two bookworms, one of whom, however, is also a writer. Do not think that I am hinting at a famous character - the Chukchi from a joke. Not even a comparison. Viktor Leonidovich is not only littered with books to the very “I can’t” (piles of them are everywhere), but somehow manages to read them, or at least look through each one.

Alla Konstantinovna herself, far from twenty-five, is energetic, slender and fit. It's not like I'm disabled and wrecked, even though I'm 15 years younger. Her attempts to influence Shanis to pay more attention to health tend to fail. Until recently, he fiercely resisted attempts to tear him away from his desk, but, having understood with age that taking breaks is simply necessary, he himself began to go for walks and even do gymnastics. Well, he always performed manual or heavy work for elderly ladies at the dacha or at home at the first call. More than once I was at his side when sawing and chopping firewood or cutting grass with a heavy lawn mower or, as in my student youth, when building bookshelves.
By the way - about the cottage. This is the only benefit that Viktor Leonidovich received as a deputy of the Congress of the Russian Federation, in the form of an almost wild area of ​​\u200b\u200bthe former forest with tree roots not uprooted in some places, with grass almost as tall as a man. To bring it into a civilized form, it was necessary to work hard and invest a lot of money in construction and improvement. But they were not afraid and set to work with the enthusiasm of country neophytes, who had long dreamed of their own corner of nature and tea on the veranda. And they succeeded. At what cost is another matter. Now it is a modest, small, but as cozy as a Moscow dwelling, a dacha, where they spend quite a lot of time during the summer months.

Both of them, despite their solid years, lead an active lifestyle. Theaters, museums, exhibitions, evenings of memory and meetings with interesting people and colleagues. They recently returned from a trip to Germany, where they rode along the Rhine on a ship, and shortly before that, Viktor Leonidovich visited Nagorno-Karabakh, where he is greatly honored for his support in the conflict with Azerbaijan. From the government of Armenia, he then received a medal or an order. He also has a state award from Hungary. As a token of gratitude and recognition of merit, when he was not afraid to speak out against the Soviet authorities, who suppressed the popular anti-communist uprising in Budapest in 1956 with tanks.

Despite his almost 85, he still continues to give lectures (and not only in Moscow), participate in the work of the Political Committee of the Yabloko party, prepare draft documents, and respond vividly to current events. At the same time, it is significant that the wife does not allow everyday problems to distract the master from intellectual pursuits too much. They make all vital decisions, of course, jointly. And not only in everyday life. She is a personal secretary, and a friend, and an adviser, and a critic, and a censor. Sheinis takes her opinion very seriously. He listens to him, even if he does not agree with him. And this happens often. Disputes between them on various issues sometimes strike sparks, but they are always mutually respectful. Considering that Alla Konstantinovna can be caustic and caustic, then this does honor to both opponents, their tolerance.

Viktor Leonidovich is a very tolerant person. Attentive to the interlocutor. Even if you don't agree with him. Will express his opinion. With foam at the mouth, he will not insist on his own rightness, but he will not deviate from it, if he is sure. In polemic enthusiasm, he can be too harsh and not objective enough. And then Alla Konstantinovna with ironic remarks brings him back to reality. But most often it happens like this: someone with objections bursts into his speech in the middle of a sentence, he listens silently, and then continues his speech exactly from the point at which he was interrupted. It is not easy to persuade him to compromise, but it is possible. Except for those cases when inveterate Stalinists or anti-Semites express their cannibalistic ideas: here he stands firm.

One of the days of the year has a special meaning for him - March 5th. With it, he congratulates his friends and acquaintances. Of course, understanding at the same time that the dragon (from the fairy tale by E. Schwartz) has many faces, and in the place of a fallen head, a new one will surely grow over time. But you really want to forget for a moment about such a pattern and hope that the Lancelots and the gunsmiths of Prospero will finally prevail this time. Blessed are those who believe.

It is said that it is better to see once than to hear many times. So in conclusion, I want to offer a few funny sketch sketches from life for the portrait of Sheinis.

Sketch 1.University. 1967 Department of Economics of Modern Capitalism. Here I have an appointment with Viktor Leonidovich. Getting in. He looks at me sternly. Yesterday I scolded you, - he says, - with penultimate words. I automatically ask: Why not the last ones? I don't know the last ones, - he answers, and looks slyly at me. Of course he knows them. But in fact, he does not tolerate strong expressions. They are simply not in his vocabulary.

sketch 2. A large communal apartment on Mokhovaya, where he and Alla Konstantinovna then, in 1968, lived and where I came for the first time. Preparations are underway for moving to new housing - a “one-room apartment” for Cosmonatov, exchanged for a room they are vacating. On the floor in the corner is a pile of things to be thrown away. Looking closely at her, Viktor Leonidovich suddenly rushes like a tiger and snatches out an old shabby hat. Alla Konstantinovna is trying to return her to her place. For about a couple of minutes there is a struggle for possession of a headdress, during which he indignantly proves that it is still quite possible to wear a hat. She disagrees, but eventually gives up. Hooray! The hat is saved.

Sketch 3.Somewhere in the year 75th. Apartment on Kosmonatov. Late evening. Summer. I stayed at a party. Viktor Leonidovich comes to see me off. Light rain drizzles. I'm not comfortable that he gets wet because of me. And I'm trying to convince him to come home. Unsuccessfully. What are you experiencing? - he says to me, - it's so nice here: warm and damp. I remembered this small remark with gratitude for the rest of my life, realizing that it was not a matter of pleasantness at all, but that he would never leave me alone at a deserted dark stop.

Sketch 4.Temporary housing in Moscow, on Novoslobodskaya. 1978 I am visiting my friends who have recently settled here. Alla Konstantinovna is away somewhere. Deep night. Suddenly I hear some movement. This is Viktor Leonidovich getting up, putting on a jacket, taking a flashlight. And he goes to take out "in the sand" his beloved cat - Jeanne-Polina, who was named in honor of Sartre by Jean-Paul, but then renamed on the advice of friends who considered that it was inappropriate to call a beautiful animal with such a dubious name. I follow them. We stand for 20 minutes, waiting for her to finish her business.

It would be appropriate to mention that my teacher is a great friend of animals. They now have a third cat. One-eyed Mashka, and before her Reitik lived for more than 20 years (or rather: she lived, because it also turned out to be a girl, initially mistaken for a boy), a very beloved and adored creature from the cat family. For the sake of her salvation, once (somewhere in the late 90s or early 2000s), this far from being young man dared to risk his life when it turned out that their pet had fallen onto the lower balcony and was moaning plaintively from the injury. And the owners of that apartment are away and the date of their return is unknown. There was nothing left but to try to get there through the neighboring balcony (to which he was kindly admitted), using a flower pot hanging over a 3-story abyss. Everything ended, thank God, safely: the loser was saved and cured.

Sketch 5.Mountain Altai. Hostel. 1979 At the invitation of the Sheinises and on the basis of a voucher bought by them (as a reward for completing a dissertation) I came here to go to the high-mountainous Karakol lakes on horseback. The group learns how to harness them before going on a hike. Viktor Leonidovich does everything thoroughly, unhurriedly, checking the reliability of fasteners and equipment. Alla Konstantinovna is nervous, hurries: after all, he still has to do all this with our horses, too, but time is short. Every now and then, from her lips breaks: let's hurry, hurry. To which in the end he angrily replies with annoyance: I hate the word "quickly." And really: it's not about him. Everything he undertakes, he always does slowly, fundamentally, reliably, for centuries.

Sketch 6.There. The day before the end of the route, the management of the camp site demands our return: the horses are needed for a new group. Everyone is outraged and decides not to obey, to give the horses at least a little rest. When we return to the base the next day, they rush without listening to the riders, feeling the approach of the stable. But they are not given rest and are immediately saddled again. Naturally, we are very sorry for them. Viktor Leonidovich draws up a protest statement to the leadership. In response, the head of the camp site writes his letter to IMEMO, accusing the animal defender of hooliganism and debauchery. When it reaches the institute, it cannot cause anything but laughter and jokes from anyone, it does not correspond to the reputation of Viktor Leonidovich so much.

Sketch 7. Early-mid 80s. A small room on Malaya Sadovaya, where Viktor Leonidovich's mother lives, whom he visits several times a year. Coming from Moscow. And here is his next visit. Liya Osipovna (that's her mother's name) wants her son to do it more often, complains about the lack of attention. He silently listens, and then says a phrase that stuck in his memory: “It is unlikely that you can demand something. You should only thank and bow, thank and bow.” With all the apparent rigidity, the maxim is soberingly necessary and correct. Because I know that mother is by no means deprived of filial care. There is an au pair, and friends do not forget.

Sketch 8.New, perestroika, times. A cozy kitchenette in their small-sized "kopeck piece" on Vavilov near Cheryomushkinsky market, in which I had the opportunity to spend the night on a folding bed for the first time. And regarding which Viktor Leonidovich, already being a deputy, categorically refused Alla Konstantinovna to ask the Administration of Affairs to exchange her for about I wish there was at least one more room for guests. So: early morning. Shortly after breakfast. After washing the dishes, the hostess goes shopping. I turn on the TV. Viktor Leonidovich is reading newspapers in his room. But after 5-10 minutes, he appears in the kitchen, rubbing his hands. Now we will fry zucchini, - he announces to me with enthusiasm. I'm a little embarrassed because we just had breakfast. But I'm starting to help. And suddenly the door opens unexpectedly and Alla Konstantinovna enters, having forgotten something. Silent scene. No reproaches, no questions. Then dryly gives a couple of tips and leaves, leaving us alone with the zucchini.

Sketch 9.Same kitchen. Viktor Leonidovich brings purchased delicacies from the institute. But the hostess is not only not happy, but almost crying. Again he brought products that are likely to suffer the fate of the previous batch - to slowly rot and be thrown into the trash. But what to do: he likes to have a lot of food, with a margin. Probably, the times when it was not enough make themselves felt.

Sketch 10. Rybatskoye. Late 90s. Viktor Leonidovich came to St. Petersburg to visit his mother's grave. We do it together, and then we go to my place to traditionally sit at the table and talk about this and that. On the way, he buys something for dinner. In the kitchen, he puts on an apron and prepares his signature vegetable soup, which is really delicious. It's kind of a ritual. We gladly eat a plate, and then I stretch the leftovers for a few more days, sometimes treating the guests with deputy soup.

Sketch 11.Hotel "October". The beginning of the 2 thousandth. Victor Leonidovich arrived on some business. On the way to the cafe, for some reason we stopped in the corridor and argued hotly about something. People scurrying past look back at us, some smile. I can't figure out what's wrong. Finally, I turn my attention to the machine at which we stopped. I read the inscriptions. And everything becomes clear. It turns out that we, two respectable gray-haired people, pulled up at the condom vending machine. I imagine how our heated argument looked from the outside. And my interlocutor, in my opinion, did not understand anything.

These small and seemingly insignificant episodes from the life of Viktor Leonidovich, which could be continued and continued, nevertheless give an idea of ​​him, perhaps even more than all sorts of characteristics. Simplicity and kindness, not sticking out and almost invisible to the uninterested eye. Selflessness, which is worth a lot in our time under the motto: take everything from life, you deserve it. Sincere and indifferent attitude to the environment: both people and processes.

A very remarkable illustration of what has been said is given by a conversation that took place between us somewhere at the dawn of perestroika. I do not remember how it started and what preceded it.

We talked about anti-Semitism. He always was, is and will be, - with the maximalist conviction, characteristic of me at that time, - I argued, - because he is involved in an innate feeling of envy, and will not disappear anywhere. Viktor Leonidovich did not argue, but did not agree either. Silently listened. He was understandable and funny my cock's enthusiasm.

But then the discussion turned to the participation of Jews in the unfolding events. I then expressed the idea that they, perhaps, should have been quieter, leaving Russia to its own fate. Let the indigenous peoples themselves pave the way to freedom and democracy. And then after all, they, that is, the Jews, will again be blamed for all the troubles of the country, as happened after the 17th year. Why should I keep quiet? - my interlocutor can not stand it. - This is my homeland. And I will do everything I can to make life here more comfortable.

Well? Such a life credo can only be respected. But if we judge the success of an activity by its results, some doubt remains. Now, after three decades from the beginning of the turbulent perestroika processes, it is already possible to draw some preliminary results. And what does it turn out? "Russia cannot be understood with the mind" - as before. And, as before, "our land is rich, but there is no order."

(1) Isn't it very similar to modern Russian reality?

(2) It would seem strange. But here is an amusing explanation about this from the lips of one figure: “everything is right,” he said, “the author could write as he wanted, because we have freedom of speech, and the editor is responsible for ideological control and must be vigilant.”

(3) V.L. Sheinis. The Rise and Fall of Parliament: Turning Years in Russian Politics (1985-1993). vol. 1 and vol. 2. M., 2005. and V. L. Sheinis. Power and Law: Politics and Constitutions in Russia in the 20th - 21st Centuries. M., Thought, 2014.

(4) For more information about the life path of this remarkable person, see: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%8E%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BF%D0%B0 %D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0 %D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87

2015

Dear and beloved Victor Leonidovich! Happy holiday! Accept this rhyme - maybe not quite perfect in form, but from the bottom of your heart. N. Sh.

WISHES TO VIKTOR LEONIDOVICH SHEINIS ON THE ANNIVERSARY 02/16/2016

After the era of post-mortem rehabilitation, the era of lifetime honors has come, especially for artists: they work in the fresh air and are well preserved.
There is something encouraging about the 70th anniversary.
The eightieth anniversary is celebrated as a guarantee of indestructible health -
not the hero of the day, but yours.
The ninetieth birthday causes irritation: they say, he takes it out of order.
But the century, whoever it comes,
will be celebrated by the whole team. (B. Slutsky. From unpublished).

WHAT DO YOU WISH FOR YOUR ANNIVERSARY?

ABOUT THE DAYS OF THE PAST DO NOT REGRET,

LOOK FORWARD FOR MANY YEARS,

KNOWING NO ALARMS, NO TROUBLES!

AND FROM ZELDINA TAKING AN EXAMPLE,

LIVE IN HEALTHY! FOR GOOD WORKS.

TO CREATE, WITHOUT DISTURBING TO LIFE,

BUT NOT TOO INVOLVED.

IN THE PERIPETIA OF BEING!

AND IN THE EVIL OF ALL DAYS!

I am writing with love,

Sincerely and admiringly.

Carrying feelings through the years,

I confess to them today - I.

A. Alekseev

MY APPOLOGY OF SCHEINIS

(failed speech at the presentation of the book "Power and Law")

Here, they say: a person was lucky to catch and / or participate in such and such historical events. And why not say: such and such events are “lucky” to have such a participant. This, in my opinion, is the case of Viktor Sheinis. Of course, every era is “lucky” for such contemporaries / participants. That is, he, V. Sheinis, is not the only one. But still, the current era, and you and me, his younger contemporaries, are lucky, And those who can call themselves his student, colleague, friend, are doubly lucky.

Victor Leonidovich, already at the age of 84 (we all would like such not only spiritual, but physical energy!) today presents his opus magnum - a 1000-page volume “Power and Law”. It is translated into English (there is such a title page): “Power and Law”. And if you translate it back into Russian, then you can do it like this: "Strength and Law." Even so, even so - the name indicates the fundamental nature of the work. And points correctly.

Who does not know or has forgotten, the previous fundamental work of V.L. Sheinis (2-volume, published in 2005), was called: “The Rise and Fall of Parliament. Critical Years in Russian Politics (1985-1993)”. In general, more or less about the same, only for a relatively short historical period - less than ten years. Now - let's give the subtitle of "Power and Law": "Politics and constitutions in Russia in the XX-XXI centuries." As you can see, the scale of the historical retrospective has increased by an order of magnitude, and even more. The plots of the previous work are included in the current volume, and even - in the aspect of the history of constitutionalism - are the main ones. But they are growing both in the past and in the future of Russian politics, relative to the period 1985-1993. "To the future"? It means today.

Therefore, in the announcement of the current presentation, the formula seemed appropriate to us: "The Constitution of Russia: from Nicholas II to Yeltsin and beyond." Where - "next"? And in modern, "Putin's" Russia, which is devoted to a separate, final chapter. It is clear that by the beginning of the last century (1906) only the first held the Russian constitution (there were six in total in Russia: one pre-Soviet, 4 Soviet and one post-Soviet). The very first attempts at constitutional limitation of autocracy date back to the 18th century. But this is, as it were, a prehistory to which the author dedicates only the Prologue.

I will not cover all the wealth of political, sociological and historiosophical ideas of this book: after all, I am not writing a review, but apology . I will only point out the main idea (now generally accepted, but Sheinis has the honor of its comprehensive argumentation and deep development). A Russian proverb says: "The law is like a drawbar: where you turned, it went there." If, however, “in a scientific way”, then POWER and LAW in Russia, for centuries, are far from not only the rule of law (not to be confused with demagogy such as “dictatorship of the law”), but even from equality. "Strength" breaks "right", and not vice versa. And all Russian constitutions are (were), ultimately, a reflection, a cast from the current power structure. a mirror of the political situation, works "for the needs of the day." Not excluding the current one, which laid the foundation (more precisely, gave legal justifications) to the current “managed democracy”, “vertical of power”, “electoral authoritarianism” and other charms of the modern regime involution to totalitarianism.

But let's not be distracted by the "topics of the day." For now we are talking about the "eternal" - about such as the works of my colleague and (proud!) friend Viktor Sheinis. They will be addressed not only by contemporaries, but also by descendants. The word "encyclopedia" is not suitable here (although it is often used as a compliment). A comparison with V. Klyuchevsky or S. Solovyov is more appropriate here, well. in a certain way, with a limited scope and topic, although the great Russian historians also wrote political history, par excellence.

Now, perhaps, it is time to say who V.L. Shanis in this book. On the one hand - an EXPERT, on the other - a DOER, on the third - a HISTORIAN. This triad of hypostases is not often found. That is why the Epoch and the subject of the author's consideration were "lucky".

Viktor Leonidovich Sheinis is a contemporary of at least three of the six Russian constitutions: "Bukharin" or "Stalin" (1936), "Brezhnev" (1977) and one of the authors of which was my hero himself (1993). Well, here he himself, perhaps, was lucky to "survive" all three of these constitutions. The Stalinist constitution was adopted when Sheinis was five years old, Brezhnevskaya. the constitution found him "on his suitcases" when moving from Leningrad to Moscow (he was then already a candidate of economic sciences, associate professor, senior researcher). At the time of the creation and adoption of the current Russian constitution, Sheinis was not only a well-known scientist (chief researcher at IMEMO RAS), but also a politician, deputy of the State Duma (Yabloko faction), deputy executive secretary of the Constitutional Commission of the Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation.

The compiler of the current Constitution has always been an EXPERT - a man, mostly bookish (although in his biography there was also a period of 6 years of work at the plant as a borer - 1958-1964 - after he was expelled from the Komsomol and graduate school for writing the seditious article "The Truth about Hungary "). This is very clearly shown in its current "lead book". (Political science and theoretical-legal erudition is truly encyclopedic).

Remaining such a connoisseur, V. Sheinis became an ACTIVITY, on an all-Russian scale (see above). And what he wrote is partly a description of his own activities in this political and constitutional field (some call these moments of the book “memoirs”, but I would define it as active reflection).

And finally, the HISTORIAN. Historian of the present, and not only. By the way, the Faculty of History of the Leningrad University is the basic education of the economist and political scientist V. Sheinis. He always had a “taste” for historical research, and every connoisseur is also necessarily an connoisseur of history. But the figure is not necessarily a historian, at best he, then, is a memoirist. But the consciousness that making history a kind of historical view and approach to one's own activity - this is not given to every public figure. This is what you can call intellectual and political responsibility, a feature that, unfortunately, most of today's politicians lack.

In his work “The Rise and Fall of Parliament”, V. L. Sheinis wrote: “The years spent in politics were the most interesting and probably the most controversial in my life. I do not regret almost anything that I did during these years. I am glad that we have paid off (albeit not completely and inconsistently) with one of the worst pages of Russian history - Stalinism and its continuation - a time that has been called "stagnation" with a ridiculous euphemism. I regret many things that I myself and my political friends failed to do. We lacked the wisdom (and sometimes just common sense) and the strength to direct domestic transit along a different path - like the one that, for example, went Poland or Brazil. As a result, the country has what it came to at the beginning of the new millennium. A lot of things probably didn’t depend on us.”

Well, quite a self-critical reflection.

It's time to end our "apology". All three incarnations of V.L. Sheinis by now, have reached the highest maturity. Whence it does not follow at all that there will be no CONTINUE, no, not only in students and descendants, but also in his own life practice - a connoisseur, figure and historian.

4.06.2014.

Yuri Chernetsky (UKRAINE)

ANTITHESIS

With a grateful dedication to the esteemed mentor Viktor Leonidovich Sheinis, who has been separated from the author (but, fortunately, not “separated”!) for exactly thirty years

Manuscripts do not burn.

Woland - (M. A. Bulgakov?)

And the manuscripts were on fire...

Oh, how hot they burned!

And all around there were trills

prosperous nightingales.

Yes, the manuscripts burned -

on a fire lit by black,

in the incessant wild game

their irrepressible

creators.

And the manuscripts burned...

To ashes, burned without a trace.

And then in an epochal flurry

their ashes scattered in an instant.

Yes, manuscripts burned

not having time to get on the tablets.

God grant that we avoid

burned forever

shower-books!

Professional interests:
Russian transition from totalitarianism to democracy: political and legal aspects (constitutional process, electoral legislation and electoral practice, parliament and parliamentarism, political party system, foreign policy support).

Publications:
Monographs

• Portuguese imperialism in Africa. M., 1969.
• Actual problems of the political economy of modern capitalism (co-authored with S.I. Tyulpanov). L., 1973.
• Developing countries: economic growth and social progress. (responsible editor and head of the team of authors together with A.Ya. El'yanov). M., 1983.
• Developing countries in the modern world: unity and diversity (managing editor; co-authored with I.V. Aleshina and I.D. Ivanov) M., 1983.
• Large developing countries in the socio-economic structures of the modern world (Executive editor and head of the team of authors, together with A. Ya. El'yanov). M., 1990.
• The economy of developing countries in numbers. Experience of reference and statistical research. 1950-1985 (co-authored with B.M. Bolotin). M., 1988.
• For fair elections. "Apple". M., 1999.

Articles and chapters of monographs 2000 - 2004

• Third round. To the results of the parliamentary and presidential elections // World economy and international relations. 2000. No. 4.
• On the expediency of reforming the Constitution of the Russian Federation // Power and Law. 2000. №4
• Electoral law: testing by elections // Elections. Legislation and technology. 2000. No. 6.
• Elections and political development. Presidential elections: results and prospects // Russia in the electoral cycle of 1999-2000. M., 2000.
• Modern parliamentarism: stages of evolution // Politiya. 2000/2001, no. 4.
• National interests and foreign policy of Russia // "New Russia": national interests in the global aspect. M., 2001.
• Modern parliamentarism: stages of evolution // Politiya2002. No. 4.
• The Russian Constitution of 1993 in a historical retrospective // ​​New Historical Bulletin. 2002. No. 3.
• Electoral legislation and electoral practice // Where is Russia going?.. Formal institutions and real practices. M., 2002.
• Overcome and unsurpassed past // Overcoming the past and new guidelines for its rethinking. The experience of Germany and Russia at the turn of the century. M., 2002.
• Russian foreign policy before the challenge of globalization // Socio-political forces of Russia and Western Europe and problems of globalization. M., 2002.
• The Seventh Congress of Russian Deputies: a political drama in five acts // Politiya. 2003. No. 1.
• At the origins of the new parliamentarism in Russia // Social sciences and modernity. 2003. No. 3.
• National interests and foreign policy of Russia // World economy and international relations. 2003. No. 4.
• Competition of projects (On the history of the creation of the Russian Constitution) // Social sciences and modernity. 2003. No. 6.
• Russian historical transit: preliminary results // Where did Russia come from?.. Results of societal transformation. M., 2003.
• Politics and morality - "things incompatible"? // Sociological kaleidoscope (in memory of L.A. Gordon). M.2003.
• National interests, foreign policy of Russia and mythologemes of public consciousness; Political modernization of Russia and "managed democracy" // Globalization and Russia. Problems of democratic development. M., 2004.
• Spiral movement. Historical transformations of the Russian parliament // Social sciences and modernity. 2004. No. 5.
• Fourth election cycle. Political performance in two acts with an open epilogue // Ways of Russia: Existing Limitations and Possible Options. M., 2004.
• The Constitution //Between Dictatorship and Democracy. Russian Post-Communist Political Reform. Wash., 2004.

Publications on the portal:
Additional Information:
1990-1993 - People's Deputy of the RSFSR / RF (since 1991 - Member of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR).
1994-1999 - Deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation