Control and supervision in the Russian Federation : history, modernity and suggestion for improvement

Vinokurov Vladimir Anatol'evich ORCID: 0000-0003-0002-3010 Doctor of Law Professor of the Department of Theory and History of State and Law of Saint Petersburg University of the State Fire Service of the Ministry of Civil Defense, Emergencies and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters named after Hero of the Russian Federation Army General E.N. Zinichev 196105, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Saint Petersburg, Moskovsky ave., 149 V.Vinokurov.JD@gmail.com Other publications by this author

IntroductionThe Constitution of the Russian Federation proclaims that a person, his rights and freedoms are the highest value, and also defines the duties of the State, which include not only recognition, but also observance and protection of human and civil rights and freedoms (Article 2).

To address the aforementioned obligation to respect and protect human and civil rights and freedoms, the State forms state authorities, as well as other state bodies, which, together with local self-government bodies, currently constitute a unified system of public authorities in the Russian Federation ^{[1, Article 2, Part 3 of Article 132]}.

Considering that the control over compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal laws is under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation ^{[1, paragraph "a" of Article 71]}, a special place in the system of public authorities is occupied (should be occupied) by federal bodies designed to monitor the implementation of decisions aimed at fulfilling one of the main state duties – ensuring a decent life and free human development [Part 1 of Article 7].

The Constitution of the Russian Federation provides for several types of state control, supported by relevant laws:

1) parliamentary, which may be carried out by the Federation Council and the State Duma (Article 1031) ^[2];

2) control over the execution of the federal budget performed by the Accounts Chamber (part 5 of Article 101) ^[3];

3) constitutional control, which is implemented by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (Article 125) ^[4].

At the federal level, state control is also carried out by the head of state, who, in order to ensure the exercise of his powers, including for the solution of control functions, forms the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation (paragraph "i" of Article 83), where a special unit is provided in the structure – the Control Department of the President of the Russian Federation ^{[5; 6]}.

The control powers of the Government of the Russian Federation are not directly indicated in the Basic Law of the country. At the same time, the Federal Constitutional Law "On the Government of the Russian Federation" assigns to the specified executive authority of the Russian Federation, which carries out its activities under the general direction of the President of the Russian Federation, the function of monitoring the activities of executive authorities ^{[7, Part 1 of Article 1; paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Article 13]}.

It is necessary to pay attention to the supervisory powers established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation:

a) the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation exercising judicial supervision over the activities of courts of general jurisdiction and arbitration courts in the forms established by procedural legislation (Article 126) ^[8];

b) the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, which, as a unified federal centralized system of bodies, oversees compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the execution of laws, and the observance of human and civil rights and freedoms (part 1 of Article 129) ^[9].

The mention of the bodies exercising supervision is necessary due to the fact that modern Russian legislation has ceased to distinguish between the terms "control" and "supervision", although in the recent past the meaning put into these concepts was different. Thus, during the existence of the USSR, state control was understood as one of the forms of exercising state power, ensuring compliance with laws and other legal acts issued by state bodies, and supervision was presented in three types: judicial, prosecutorial and administrative ^{[10, pp. 68, 179-180]}, which coincided with the understanding of the meaning of the words "control" and "supervision" in Russian: control is a periodic check of compliance with laws, rules, instructions, etc., supervision is a constant, continuous activity to monitor compliance by bodies, organizations, citizens with certain requirements ^{[11, p. 389]}.

1. Soviet state control bodies: a brief historical overviewThe search for forms of state control in the young Soviet state was based on the ideas of V.I. Lenin, who wrote that "Accounting and control are the main thing that is required for the "adjustment", for the proper functioning of the first phase of communist society" ^{[12, p. 101]}, that "Accounting and control are the main economic task each Council of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' deputies ..." ^{[13, p. 199]}.

As a result, in the RSFSR, in order to carry out this most important function in the state, a state control body was formed, which had different names in different years (the State Control Commission, the Central Control Commission, the People's Commissariat of State Control, the People's Commissariat of Workers' and Peasants' Inspection), which, in particular, was tasked with "... attracting the broad masses of workers to their implementation control over all bodies of state administration, economy and public organizations; the fight against bureaucracy and red tape in Soviet institutions, strengthening actual control by means of flying audits and surveys of all bodies of Soviet power as in the field of administrative management ...; monitoring the organization in all institutions of receiving all kinds of complaints and applications and their correct movement ...; representation for consideration by the central and local authorities of specific proposals developed on the basis of observations and surveys on simplifying the apparatus of Soviet power, abolishing parallelism in work, mismanagement, clerical red tape, as well as on the transformation of the entire management system in certain areas of state construction" ^{[14, paragraph 3]}.

After the formation of the USSR, control bodies were created, operating either in the system of union executive authorities, or under the joint jurisdiction of the Soviet People's Commissar (Council of Ministers) of the USSR and the Central Committee of the CPSU (b)–CPSU ^{[15, pp. 11-13; 16, pp. 12-16]}, the names of which also changed regularly: People's Commissariat of Workers' and Peasants' Inspection of the USSR; The Commission of Soviet Control under the SNK of the USSR; the People's Commissariat, and then the Ministry of State Control of the USSR; the Commission of Secular Control of the Council of Ministers of the USSR; the Commission of State Control of the Council of Ministers of the USSR; the Committee of Party and State Control of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR; the Committee of People's Control of the USSR; the Control Chamber of the USSR ^{[17, pp. 51-58]}.

In order to involve workers in the control of the USSR Law "On the Organs of People's Control in the USSR" in 1965, the organs of party-state control were transformed into organs of people's control ^[18]. On the basis of this Law of the USSR, Resolution No. 1020 of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR of December 19, 1968 approved the Regulation on the organs of People's Control in the USSR, which declared that "in the organs of people's control, state control is combined with public control of workers", the system of these bodies, headed by the Committee of People's Control, was determined The USSR as a union-republican body working under the direct supervision of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR (preamble; paragraph 8). Thus, on the one hand, it was a party (public) body, and on the other – an executive authority. This duality was also confirmed by the formation of the named body: the chairman of the USSR People's Control Committee was appointed by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, and the composition of the Committee was approved by the Council of Ministers of the USSR ^{[19, preamble, p. 8, p. 17]}.

In the future, this status of people's control bodies was fixed in the USSR Law "On People's Control in the USSR" adopted in 1979 ^[20], that is, V.I. Lenin's idea of the participation of the broad masses of workers in the work of control bodies prevailed, since the Decree of the Central Executive Committee of April 12, 1919 "On State Control" recognized It is necessary to "involve workers' and peasants' organizations in constant participation in State control in the center and on the ground" and "moreover, systematically involve those understood from the widest strata of the working population to participate in individual operations of State Control" ^{[21, paragraph 5]}.

One can get an idea about the vicissitudes of the formation of special bodies of the Soviet state on issues of state control from relevant scientific studies ^{[22; 23]}.

In May 1991, the people's control bodies were replaced by the Control Chamber of the USSR, which was entrusted with the functions of the highest financial and economic control body in the country, acting under the leadership of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and accountable to it ^[24]. As a result, people's control, as control over the activities of all state bodies, was reduced to the control of the financial and economic activities of the governing bodies of the USSR and state organizations. The work of the Control Chamber of the USSR was virtually terminated with the collapse of the USSR in December 1991, and in February 1992, by the decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation, this body was legally liquidated with the proposed transfer of powers to the Control and Budget Chamber of the Russian Federation ^[25].

It should be noted that in the future, the search for forms of organization and activity of both control and supervisory activities and the bodies carrying it out continued ^{[26; 27]}.

2. Modern state control (supervision) carried out by federal state bodies and proposals for its improvementBased on the existing modern system of public authorities, there is no control over the activities of state bodies themselves, control over the activities of individuals (citizens of the country, foreigners and stateless persons) and organizations is established.

Let's consider some types of this state control (supervision) and formulate some proposals for its improvement.

As already noted, parliamentary control is carried out in the Russian Federation in accordance with the Basic Law of the State. Such control exists in two forms: 1) direct, when it is carried out by deputies of the State Duma and senators of the Russian Federation, including as part of the Chamber as a whole or as members of commissions and committees, – in accordance with the norms of the Federal Law "On Parliamentary Control"; 2) indirect – through the Accounting Chamber, which, as written in the said Federal Law ^{[2, Part 2 of Article 4]}, participates in the exercise of parliamentary control in the cases, procedures and forms provided for by the said Federal Law and the Federal Law "On the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation".

In this regard, there is doubt about the need to have a separate state body – the Accounting Chamber, if parliamentarians are quite capable of performing its functions independently. To do this, it is enough to form a control and accounting body (committee, commission) of the State Duma, entrusting it with responsibilities for external state control on all issues related to the formation and execution of the federal budget and related issues. For the direct preparation of materials on this type of control in the State Duma Apparatus, it is necessary to form an appropriate structural unit, whose civil servants will be endowed with the powers currently provided for employees of the Accounting Chamber of the Russian Federation.

In our opinion, it is permissible to transfer the control functions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to the President of the Russian Federation, who exercises state power in the country, being the head of state ^{[1, Article 11, Article 80]}. The following can serve as a justification for the proposed innovation:

Firstly, draft laws considered by the State Duma must a priori comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation ^{[1, part 1 of Article 15]}. However, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation regularly adopts resolutions recognizing certain norms of federal laws as inconsistent with the Basic Law of the state. To solve this problem, in addition to strengthening the legal division of the State Duma Apparatus, it is necessary to establish a ban on the adoption of federal laws, according to which, for example, the legal division has given a conclusion on non-compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. If the parliament of the state adopts a law, the norms of which contradict the Basic Law of the country, the President of the Russian Federation rejects such a law and, say, in case of repeated violation of the established prohibition, dissolves the State Duma;

Secondly, when using the right of legislative initiative, a state body or official must ensure that the draft law complies with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. In case of detection of contradictions in the submitted draft to the Basic Law of the country, either the head of the body that initiated the defective project, or the person holding a public position, resigns;

Thirdly, the head of state has the right to reject a federal law, while he can apply to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation with a request to verify the constitutionality of the federal law ^{[1, Part 3 of Article 107, Part 3 of Article 108]}. It must be assumed that doubts that the law complies with the Constitution of the Russian Federation can be stated by the State Legal Department of the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation ^[28] and presented to the President of Russia. The decision of the head of state, justified by a legal opinion, possibly additionally confirmed by scientists and specialists in the field of the relevant branch of law, in our opinion, is quite enough.

In order for the legislative norms to be applied in practice in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Basic Law of the country, not to be turned out to please individual officials, the function assigned to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is sufficient, according to which the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation "examines the materials of analysis and generalization of judicial practice and gives explanations to the courts on issues of judicial practice in order to ensure uniform application of the legislation of the Russian Federation" ^{[8, paragraph 1 of Part 3 of Article 5]}.

The exercise of supervision functions, which are currently handled by the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation (with the exception indicated below), can also be transferred to the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation, formed, inter alia, for the purpose of monitoring the implementation of federal laws and decisions of the President of the Russian Federation ^{[29, paragraph 4, paragraph 5]}. The main structural subdivision in this case should be considered the Control Department of the President of the Russian Federation, taking into account also that other divisions have control functions in the relevant areas of the head of state's activities.

To organize the activities of prosecutorial staff to participate in the consideration of cases by the courts in cases provided for by procedural legislation, including acting as a public prosecutor ^{[9, Article 35]}, appropriate units are created at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in the offices of courts of general jurisdiction and arbitration courts, possibly following the example of the Prosecutor's Office of the Supreme Court that operated in 1929-1959 USSR ^{[30; 31]}.

As a result of the proposed changes, on the one hand, the main constitutional function of the President of the Russian Federation as the main control and supervisory authority in the state is legislated, which gives meaning to the exercise of state power provided for by him ^{[1, Article 11]}; on the other hand, the number of state bodies actually performing duplicate functions and the number of civil servants is reduced, which is always important for budget savings.

The control exercised by the executive branch is very important. The executive power of the Russian Federation is exercised by the Government of the Russian Federation and other federal executive authorities in accordance with the structure approved by the President of the Russian Federation ^{[7, Part 1, Part 5 of Article 1]}.

When forming a new approach to the structure of federal executive bodies in 2004, the head of state approved the system of these bodies, which are named as different in the Federal Constitutional Law "On the Government of the Russian Federation". Since in regulatory legal acts the term "other" is used in various phrases and denotes different types of bodies, the author proposed to fix the following formulations in the legislation: "federal executive authorities" – to determine the entire composition of federal executive authorities; "the highest executive authority of the state" – the Government of the Russian Federation; "federal ministries" or "ministries of the Russian Federation" – federal executive authorities whose heads are part of the Government of Russia; "federal ministries and other federal executive authorities" – federal executive authorities subordinate to the Government of Russia and federal ministries; "other federal executive authorities" – federal services and federal agencies ^{[32, p. 38]}.

The modern system of federal executive bodies, defined by Presidential Decree No. 314 of March 9, 2004, includes federal ministries, federal services and federal agencies. If the main function of the federal ministry is the management of the relevant industry, the federal agency is the provision of public services and the management of state property ^{[33, p. 3, p. 5]}, then the main task of the created federal services was determined by the function of "control and supervision in the established field of activity", that is, "implementation of actions for control and supervision of execution state authorities, local self-government bodies, their officials, legal entities and citizens established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal constitutional laws, federal laws and other normative legal acts of generally binding rules of conduct" ^{[33, paragraph 4, paragraph 2]}.

The current structure of federal executive bodies, approved by Presidential Decree No. 21 of January 21, 2020, has 24 federal services (not counting those performing special functions and subordinated to the head of state), while five of them are managed directly by the Government of the Russian Federation ^[34].

The issues of control and supervision have always been and are today under the close attention of persons governing the state, persons exercising control (supervision), as well as persons controlled (supervised). Creating a control (supervision) system that allows, on the one hand, to move forward in the direction set by legislation, and on the other hand, does not allow it to be turned into a system that works for the sake of abstract control (supervision), in order to constantly search for perpetrators, bring to justice and punish, is a very difficult task.

In 2008 and 2020, the legislator made attempts to limit control (supervision) in the form of the Federal Law "On the Protection of the Rights of Legal Entities and Individual Entrepreneurs in the Exercise of State Control (Supervision) and Municipal Control" ^[35] and the Federal Law "On State Control (Supervision) and Municipal Control in the Russian Federation" ^[36]. The first of these federal laws, which proclaimed, in fact, a ban on scheduled inspections for three years, almost immediately began to be amended, the number of which already totals more than 90. The second of the designated federal laws, which has received only 6 amendments so far in three years of existence, has transferred many control (supervision) issues to the Government of the Russian Federation for decision ^{[35, Part 1 of Article 3, Part 3 of Article 26]}, which undoubtedly affected the activities of control (supervision). Thus, in accordance with the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 336 dated March 10, 2022 "On the specifics of the organization and implementation of state control (supervision), municipal control" ^[37], scheduled inspections were not carried out during 2022 (with some exceptions); in 2022-2023, it is almost impossible to conduct unscheduled inspections, since coordination is required with the prosecutor's office, and subject to conditions that are not often found in the ordinary life of Russians. For example, such coordination is possible "with an immediate threat of harm to life and serious harm to the health of citizens" or "with an immediate threat of natural and (or) man-made emergencies", as well as "on the facts of harm to life and serious harm to the health of citizens" or "on the facts of occurrence of natural and (or) man-made emergencies) of a technogenic nature." In practice, this means that in order to obtain approval for an unscheduled inspection, first the person concerned (and this is not a representative of the federal service!) it is required to prove that there is an immediate threat, or that there is a necessary fact, and only then the official will send the documents for approval to the prosecutor's office, which has every right to refuse to conduct an unscheduled inspection, without incurring any punishment in case of any emergency. Examples can be the actions of prosecutors when they refused to conduct unscheduled inspections in the Perm club "Lame Horse" in 2009 and in the Kemerovo shopping center "Winter Cherry" in 2018 ^{[38; 39]}.

It should be noted that the establishment of various restrictions during inspections continues, now until 2030 ^[40].

Taking into account the strategic direction expressed by the President of the Russian Federation at the plenary session of the XXV St. Petersburg International Economic Forum on June 17, 2022, where it was stated that "... after the introduction of moratoriums on inspections, the number of violations by entrepreneurs – this is the result – did not increase, but decreased, the number of violations decreased. This indicates the maturity and responsibility of Russian business. He needs to be motivated, and, of course, not forced to comply with norms and requirements," and also that "... there is every reason to take another, cardinal step forward: to permanently, permanently abandon the majority of inspections of all Russian businesses whose activities are not associated with high risks of harm. It has long been clear to everyone: there is no need to go and check everyone..." ^[41], it is possible to begin work on the liquidation of all federal services, transferring only very few control functions, which cannot be dispensed with, to the structural unit of the relevant federal ministry.

At the same time, it is necessary to expand the vector of implementation of control (supervision) functions: from the accusatory direction to the opposite – providing assistance to the audited. This means that the primary task of the control of executive authorities should be to help an organization or an individual to solve the problem correctly, and only then apply coercive measures, including punishment. Surprisingly, even such a necessary body for the state as the Federal Tax Service, according to the current law, is not obliged to provide assistance to taxpayers ^{[42, p. 144]}.

One can talk a lot about the need to comply with regulatory legal acts, about why the constitutional norm providing that all state institutions and residents of the country "are obliged to comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and laws" ^{[1, part 2 of Article 15]} is not implemented as we would like, but with many flaws, while forgetting, that it is impossible not only to fulfill, but also to comprehend the colossal number of laws adopted recently. Is it possible to talk about the competent and widespread implementation of the established rules, if the number of federal laws adopted only annually is more than 500 ^[43]. And these laws are the basis for the publication of a considerable number of by-laws. It should be noted that the trend detrimental to rulemaking continues in 2021-2022: during this period, according to the ConsultantPlus legal reference system, 505 and 645 federal laws were registered, respectively; over five thousand government resolutions were issued in two years alone.

It is possible to cancel or reduce the state's control over the residents of the country, their associations, bodies and organizations, but how to encourage the conscientious performance of their duties so that their exercise of their rights and freedoms does not violate the rights and freedoms of others (from part 3 of Article 17 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation)? Or else: what should law-abiding be based on in modern realities?

Since we have moved away from the fear of Stalinist repressions, we have begun to forget about the total ideological control of the party apparatus, the educational process based on principles alien to Russian society has led to a decrease in moral standards and permissiveness, then the only incentive, in our opinion, (at least in the near future) will be the fear of inevitable punishment. Moreover, the punishment is so severe that even the very idea of circumventing or violating the law will be immediately expelled from mental activity.

As an example of the proposed reform to abolish most of the state control (supervision) and replace it with punitive measures, one can cite judgments concerning the observance by owners of non-state property of its maintenance obligations, including compliance with fire protection measures. Thus, it is proposed to abolish mandatory and introduce voluntary state fire supervision at private production facilities (in the sense established for this concept by federal law ^{[36, paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Article 16]}), providing for in cases of violation of fire safety requirements that resulted in the death of people (by negligence), such sanctions as life imprisonment or the death penalty, and in case of causing light or moderate harm to human health – lifelong deprivation of the right to engage in economic activity.

As a result of the analysis, it was found out that there is no control of the people over state bodies. The arguments that the people participate in the control of state bodies when they are elected as deputies or enter public service in any body do not stand up to criticism: an official will not be able, and will not control himself and the same officials. Therefore, we will consider below the proposals for the restoration of people's control.

3. Proposals for the restoration of people's control over the activities of state bodiesLet's return to the ideas of building a democratic and legal state.

In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people, who exercise their power directly ... ^{[1, Article 3]}.

This means that from the point of view of democracy (the power of the people) and the legal arrangement of the state, there should be popular control over the activities of all state institutions in the Russian Federation.

Explaining the existing norms of the Basic Law of the country, Professor S.A. Avakian emphasizes the existence of the power of the people, however, only in three main forms: 1) state power; 2) public power and 3) the power of local self-government as a mixed public-state power. At the same time, he formulates the definition of the power of the people, in which he points out that "the power of the people is the self–organization of the people in order to manage their affairs through the adoption of binding decisions and the use of organizational mechanisms and procedures involving participation in the exercise of power functions of the people themselves and the bodies formed by them" ^{[44, p. 373]}.

As we can see, there is no such form of people's power as the power to control the activities of state bodies, as well as to control the activities of local self-government bodies. But from the above definition, in fact, tied to the forms mentioned above, and also taking into account the general characteristics of the power of the people highlighted by Professor S.A. Avakian, including an indication that the power of the people is public power, that it is addressed to the whole society and to each person individually, accessible to everyone and It is carried out openly ^{[44, pp. 373-374]}, it is possible to single out the very function that was "lost" during the construction of the modern system of power in the Russian Federation, covering precisely the control function.

In order for the number of state bodies not to increase, an incredible number of unnecessary forms, mainly paper control, have been reduced, which are completed with numerous reports created to confirm their "irreplaceable activities", it is necessary to revive people's control (in its essence). The need for state bodies to be controlled by the people, that is, by those who gave them power, is dictated not only by the theoretical views outlined above, but also by the practice of the development of the state and society.

An attempt to create something similar to people's control was carried out with the adoption of the Federal Law "On the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation" ^[45]. As a result, a certain body was positioned as a public one, but formed according to the principle similar to the formation of the Federation Council: 40 citizens of the Russian Federation are approved as members of the Public Chamber by the President of the Russian Federation; 89 people are representatives of public chambers of the subjects of the Russian Federation; 43 are representatives of all–Russian public associations, other non–profit organizations ^{[45, part 1 of Article 6]}. The Federation Council, in addition to the President of Russia, who has terminated his powers, includes two representatives from each subject of the Russian Federation and no more than 30 representatives appointed by the President of the Russian Federation ^{[1, part 2 of Article 95]}. In addition, the most important form of work of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation – plenary sessions ^{[45, part 2 of Article 16]} – resembles the plenums of the Central Committee of the CPSU, which were also held at least twice a year ^{[46, paragraph 37]}. The rights of the Public Chamber, on the one hand, do not allow for real control over the activities of state bodies (hearings, conclusions, inviting managers, participation in work ...), and on the other hand, are similar to the rights of existing state bodies and officials (for example, with the functions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which verifies the constitutionality of draft laws, or the rights of the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation, whose activities are aimed at observing the rights and freedoms of citizens, including in places of forced detention).

It is clear that since the purpose of the activities of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation is declared public control, and also taking into account the existing forms of its work, it is impossible to imagine that this formation can exercise popular control.

In order to solve the problem of restoring democracy in terms of control over the activities of state bodies and local self-government bodies, it is necessary, including by abolishing inefficient structures that exercise formal control today and transferring part of the control functions to deputies and the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation, to create a new system of control by the people, which can be called the system of people's control of public power. or a system of public-political control.

The first of the proposed names – "people's control of public power" – takes into account both the constitutional requirement (the people are the source of power), historical experience (people's control bodies of the previous period), and the emergence of the concept of a unified system of public power, uniting public authorities, state bodies both at the federal level and at the level of the subjects of the Russian Federation Federations, as well as local self-government bodies ^{[47, part 1 of Article 2]}.

The second name hides the word "people's" in order to avoid drawing an unnecessary analogy with the Soviet organs of people's control, but includes the word "political", despite the fact that this term does not fit well with the apolitical nature of the alleged control of public power. But taking into account the opinion of scientists that the power of the people is primarily public power and always political power ^{[44, p. 374]}, as well as the need not to identify the new control system with the previous control bodies, the phrase "public–political" can be used in the name of the created control bodies.

Below are some general considerations on the organization of these organs of democracy:

1. The system of public authorities' public control bodies (bodies of public-political control) should be centralized and include the all-Russian commission, district commissions (in each subject of the Russian Federation) and territorial commissions or groups (in each municipality).

2. The principle of the formation of these commissions is electability (it is better if this happens simultaneously with the election of deputies of the appropriate level), and on the basis of self–nomination, nomination of candidates by any organization, with the exception of organizations formed by public authorities, as well as by a public association, with the exception of parties.

3. Requirements for a candidate applying for membership in the Commission: he must have an impeccable reputation, have a higher education (preferably legal or economic), be at least 40-45 years old with at least 15-20 years of work (service) experience; not be a party member; other requirements are similar to the requirements for a deputy of the appropriate level.

4. The principle of work of the members of the commissions is on a non–permanent basis (without interrupting their main work), with the exception of the chairman of the commission, who organizes the activities of the relevant commission.

5. The chairman of the commission (except for the all-Russian one) is elected by the members of the commission from among themselves on the basis of the proposal of any member of the commission, including the possibility of self-nomination.

For the all-Russian commission, it would be correct to appoint its chairman from among the elected members of the commission by the head of state.

6. It is allowed to have assistants to the chairmen of the commissions to solve organizational issues; an apparatus with the rights of a legal entity is allowed only for the all-Russian commission for public control of public authority or public-political control, since it is this commission that should ensure the work of all subordinate commissions (primarily in the field of finance).

7. Remuneration of labor should be carried out through the All-Russian commission as for the performance of state duties in amounts not less than twice the salary (per month) of the head of the body that is controlled.

8. The main thing in the implementation of control: this control should be carried out, first of all, with field visits, that is, the practical activities of the public authority, real indicators, the actual resolution of problems should be checked, and only then – the compliance of reports with the real state of things.

The presented arguments of the author, proposals for the reorganization of the control and supervisory activities existing in the state, the formation of a system of public control of public power or a system of public and political control on new principles, are extremely necessary for a radical change in the activities of public authorities, the entire state apparatus in order to preserve the integrity of the state, the real observance of the rights and freedoms of residents of the country, for exceptions at all levels of government of nepotism, bribery, attribution and theft, which will allow, on the one hand, to continue building our state on a democratic basis with the primacy of laws, and on the other hand, to actually fulfill the duties of the state to recognize, respect and protect the rights and freedoms of man and citizen (from articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution Of the Russian Federation).