I suppose when asked why bribery is so widespread in Russia, most people would answer: “Because there are thieves everywhere!” Or something along those lines. So, it's all about us. About our national character. I don't know; I've never encountered any such studies of national character. And I doubt they'll ever happen… But it would be interesting!
But nothing happens without a reason. And bribery has quite specific historical roots.
We have to start with something we've discussed many times: Rus' has long had a cash shortage. And yet, the state had to be built. How were officials to be supported?
Future nobles received estates. But an estate is a long-term land grant. It is potentially hereditary, as is the landowner's service, which has its own specifics.
An official is a temporary position. Otherwise, he'll develop connections, and abuses will increase. Therefore, providing him with an estate or land at his place of service is unprofitable. And alongside the estate, there's a system of subsistence, whereby the local population supports its own administrator. This system is directly related to the history of bribery.
But, oddly enough, this isn't what's important. The fact is that the system of feeding as a method of organizing governance formally spans a period from approximately the 13th to the 16th centuries. Essentially, this is a time of unification and state formation.
It's important to remember that feeding was not the indiscriminate plunder of the population. For violating even unwritten rules of law, a governor could be expelled from the city. Princes were even expelled, on occasion! And the central government also fought against abuses.
The feeder's provisions consisted of the following feeds:
– entry – when the governor enters for feeding;
– scheduled, periodic – usually on Christmas, Easter, St. Peter's Day.
And duties:
– trading;
– judicial;
– marriage.
Typically, taxes were collected in kind: food and horse feed. This makes sense: if the population had cash, they would be able to collect taxes and pay officials' salaries!
It's important to note that feeding was perceived (at least during its heyday, in the 14th and 15th centuries) not so much as a paid position, but rather as a material reward for certain accomplishments, an opportunity to receive a salary. And this salary came with official duties.
This system worked for a certain period. A city needed a voivode, and there were no other ways to pay him. Moreover, the potential reward created an additional incentive for the prince's confidants to serve and expand their overlord's domains.
Naturally, this system had its downsides. Primarily, abuse of power. And negligence in the performance of duties. However, if a position is perceived as an “add-on” to the job, can one expect diligence in service? One can even “delegate” duties to assistants.
A hereditary ruler would likely be more concerned with “regional development” than a temporary administrator. But the grand dukes understood well that permanent governors were a direct path to separatism, which they were already fighting. Perhaps, over time, the princes also became dissatisfied with the quality of service of the governors. In any case, long before the abolition of the feedings, both administrative reforms and limitations on the power of the feedings were carried out.
Let's focus specifically on court fees (and other fees related to “case resolution”). The governor was paid for the beginning and end of a case, plus he was “thanked” for advancing the matter once it had been started. This was specifically for the resolution process itself, not its outcome. In other words, the official was paid, in a manner of speaking, which was consistent with the legal and social norms of the time.
But a “promise,” that is, a reward for a certain decision, was always perceived as a bribe, an abuse.
Surely, even with honest service, the income was decent. But were there many honest governors? In those days, both documents and accounting were known, but the accounting system was not particularly developed. And considerable opportunities opened up to the governor. Moreover, assuming the position was perceived as a reward for existing merits. This is indicated by the very name. As long as the grand ducal estate was limited to a small domain, this system was justified. Beginning in the 14th century, laws were passed limiting the powers of the governesses. Charters were issued defining the rights and responsibilities, limiting the powers of the governors. The amount of levies and the responsibilities of the governesses were established.
As the state developed, tensions mounted between the prince and the boyars (who else would be given the food and the governorship?), the governors, and the populace. Under Ivan III, the jurisdictions of the governor and the grand duke were separated: for example, the most important criminal cases were removed from the viceroys' jurisdiction. The concept of bribery as an illegal act emerged.
Like probably any folk custom, bribery is remarkably resilient. How could it be otherwise? And it's not just about officials taking bribes. That goes without saying. But beyond that, bribery has long been supported from below. So it turns out: in undertaking to eradicate corruption, the government was fighting not only thieving officials but also the people. And our people, as we know, are invincible!
Nevertheless, elements of the old democracy still functioned at that time. The number of public complaints overwhelmed the central government, and the “tyrant” Ivan IV raised the issue of abolishing the rations. In addition to better control over income, service was transformed from a reward into work. Extortion was replaced by taxes paid to the treasury, from which the governor was paid.
But all this has dragged on. Rapid territorial growth requires urgent governance reforms. And despite the “well-known” traditionalism of Russian society, governance reforms are being implemented, and the system of feeding and local government is being formally abolished.
And here objective factors intervene.
How to support the bureaucracy? The country's leadership understood everything and turned a blind eye to much. At least, even after the official abolition of feedings under Ivan the Terrible, they continued to exist.
I don’t know how it was in the 16th century, but in the 18th (when, naturally, there was no longer any talk of any feeding) the government directly permitted extortion.
Incidentally, “official salaries” appeared, it seems, under Peter the Great. Before that, the service nobility received a monetary allowance in addition to their land allowance. But all this was hampered by the same lack of money. And even this allowance often took the form of a salary. That is, the sovereign bestowed some form of reward.
But all this isn't a fixed and regular “salary.” Salaries are determined not so much by law as by the sovereign's discretion. Often, a salary had to be not only earned but also begged for. And it wasn't necessarily received in cash, but in furs, tax breaks, or other privileges. Or… by being fed. Probably as early as the 17th century, the idea that an official “lived” from his position (that is, from fulfilling his duties), not from territory, was developing. He didn't live, he served.
The last “renaissance” of feeding probably occurred under Catherine the Great. Once again, there wasn't enough money, and officials were given direct permission to feed themselves from their work. But again, this wasn't a bribe. In Rus', both the authorities and the people always clearly distinguished between bribes and other “gifts.”
So, bribes were primarily considered promises—payment for a certain outcome. They also took things “beyond one's rank.” They took them at a time when taking was officially prohibited…
Although the last point is ambiguous. It was forbidden by the authorities, but the people were tolerant of the “dacha” if it was taken within the bounds of tradition. According to conscience, so to speak, and according to rank. And while “according to conscience” is my formulation and approximate, “according to rank” is a long-standing concept. In various forms and concepts, the very idea of “one's place” in the hierarchy is traditional in Rus'. Mestnichestvo was abolished just shortly before Peter the Great's system of ranks. But it is still an official system, albeit a long-standing one, reflecting an important part of the national way of thinking. And, importantly, it is written.
The people lovingly preserved the tradition of feeding officials. Moreover, officials who refused to accept offerings were viewed with suspicion. Such officials had been known both during the feeding period and later. But that wasn't enough. It seems that Nicholas I (one of the strictest rulers!) learned that two governors in the entire country were not being accepted. One because he was extremely wealthy, and the other because of his upbringing. Nicholas was apparently surprised that… two more were not accepting. He thought he was the only one who wasn't accepting offerings!
Let me repeat: the tradition of bribery in Rus' has long been supported from below. One of the motives: if you don't take a “dacha,” for example, from merchants, then you won't protect their interests. Incidentally, this isn't just a “dacha,” meaning the official's salary, but rather a promise. In other words, payment for a certain decision—an act that is illegal even during times of poverty.
Still, the authorities tried to combat bribery. With obvious results… Clearly, laws were being broken at one's own peril and peril, and they were being circumvented.
Perhaps the most striking example of direct abuse is the bribery of the fiscal officers themselves, appointed by Peter the Great to oversee abuses. This even led to the execution of the chief fiscal officer…
During the Industrial Revolution, officials were appointed to the board of the desired company. Was this banned? Now, officials' relatives ended up on boards…
“Dachas” and bribes have left numerous traces and reminders. For example, what is the infamous “long drawer”? Simply a drawer or other storage area where papers on a particular matter are deposited. Naturally, they are set aside until the offering is made.
The strange expression “to be left with nothing” may also be related to bribery. Opinions differ on the precise meaning. One possibility: if an official, for some reason, doesn't take the bribe, then the applicant is left with nothing (what they offer the official). And with an unresolved case.
And of course, “no bribes.” It's all straightforward and simple: there's no bribe for this particular person. No bribes. That is, either there's nothing to take; or, conversely, you're afraid to even ask such a person…
