The current legislation regulating cultural issues (Main Legislation of the Russian Federation on Culture), which even predates the Russian constitutions, long ago ceased to be relevant, according to experts. At the same time, there are a substantial number of problems in the cultural sphere. And they concern not only financing but also poorly written terminology. State funds for culture continue to be allocated as a last priority while major cultural institutions, academics and politicians are calling for more attention to be paid to culture, which is critical to the future of the country.
Opening parliamentary hearings on this subject, Deputy Speaker of the State Duma Svetlana Zhurova poised a question, the answer to which will be critical to future legislation on culture: “Should culture become completely financially self-supporting or be supported by the state?”
Both models have been tried in a number of societies around the world. Privately sponsored culture is actively developing in the United States. The system of complete state support was something that we tried during the Soviet era. Right now, the majority of experts and participants of the process are convinced that the functioning and development of culture in Russia is only possible through support of both the state and business, as well as society as a whole. But it remains unclear how this should be prescribed in legislation.
“We are faced with an impossible task: to bring together into one law legal and practical knowledge of culture,” says one of the developers of the legislative concept Kirill Razglogov, director of the Russian Institute of Cultural Studies. “The first problem is how to understand the term culture? In the mid-1980s its was decided to include not only art and literature but also traditions and ethics. Now we understand that the term culture includes much more. The concept of the new legislation is based on the idea that culture should incorporate not only the cultural sphere but also all social-economic programs that we have in our country.”
Last year the legislature added just such a norm in amendments adopted to the existing legislation. The amendments state that it is necessary to consider “cultural aspects of all state programs and projects concerning economic, ecological, social and national development as well as in municipal programs and plans for social-economic development.” Unfortunately, no real effect from this new norm is evident. Furthermore, one of the few programs that took into consideration cultural aspects – town development – was financed in full except for the cultural component.
The issue of find the correct formulation for the subject matter of the legislation was addressed by Deputy Minister of Culture Ekaterina Chukovskaya: “We need to understand what is considered culture. Determine the correlation between aims, the subject matter and legislative instruments. Should the law be written with the sole aim of making it easier to receive money from the budget? I think not. In my opinion, there are several areas in need of immediate attention: the status of creative workers, the condition of the disabled, and the development of cultural infrastructure. With the latter, I also include the creation of conditions for the legal use of authors’ works. After all, right now there are contradictions in legislation governing copyright, libraries and museums.” She also drew attention to the fact that filmmakers are forced to pay taxes on funds received from the state through the Film Support Foundation. These problems highlight the fact that cultural issues cannot be resolved by legislation focused only on the Ministry of Culture.
“The law ‘On Culture’ should become a cornerstone of the entire system of regulating the cultural sphere and serve as a map for a renewed state culture policy,” said the Chairman of the State Duma Committee for Culture Grigory Ivliev. “We should change the paradigm in which culture is in last place in line for budget funds or as a service sector intended for entertainment. The cultural environment, without any exaggeration, is of fundamental importance to the modernization of the country. The main idea of the law should be to create the necessary conditions for the harmonious development of each citizen, for the realization of their spiritual potential.”
Unfortunately, during the preparation of the draft concept of the new federal legislation on culture, the developers did not manage to avoid such perfunctory and economic phrases as “services in the cultural sphere” or “the market in the cultural sphere.” And of course this evoked a negative reaction from some. However, Kirill Razlogov responded: “I might be able to avoid the term “services” but the term “market” unfortunately not. This understanding is dictated by the times. The text of the concept presented today is a draft, a working document, the result of compromise decisions reflecting the contradictions between those who work in the cultural sphere, on the one hand, and lawyers and economists, on the other.
Grigory Ivliev noted: “We formulated the general principles of the concept for a new law on culture and we would like to invite all interested parties to participate in further discussions. We will send all of the materials to the regions, so that they can formulate their suggests and comments on this concept in order to compile the final version of the document through cooperative efforts.”
The recommendations coming out of this parliamentary hearing will be sent this week to the Ministry of Culture to move this legislative initiative forward and rech agreement with other ministries and departments. The State Duma Committee on Culture intends to introduce the legislation before the end of the spring session this year and in fall present it to the Cabinet for its commentary. Passage is expected in 2011.
