Recently, there has been an increasing number of conversations about a seemingly banal, but nevertheless important and undeservedly forgotten for decades the topic of private property. And the talk about it is coming more and more not in the light of economic, but in the light of the political agenda.

And recently, in general, the rarest event happened - the so-called black realtors were convicted for their fraudulent actions, they were seizing the apartments of the lawful owners. But this is more likely an exception to the rules, since from a formal point of view it is very difficult to prove the fact of illegal actions: in our laws huge open holes are gaping, violating the unshakable property rights that ordinary people suffer from. And such losses can be larger than any corruption.

In the first place, such situations arise (and they arise often, only in Moscow over the past year, there were more than 300 such cases) because of the confusion with ownership. Now Rosreestr and the Ministry of Economic Development can very freely interpret the Civil Code, and sometimes simply ignore it, which leads to people being insecure.

So it turns out that the property right in Russia is in a certain sense fiction. And if in the whole civilized world the freedom of ownership is one of the components of the model of economic life, then, by and large, we have only a nominal definition. According to Article 35 of the Constitution, the right of private property can be terminated only by a court decision. However, in fact this right is retained only until someone appears who has put an eye on your property. The one who is just stronger. Whether it's a black realtor or a radical oppositionist.

With the right of private ownership in our country, long-standing problems with the endless circulation of the circle. Already a tradition became the principle of something like how to give people, then turn the whole thing upside down, just pulling the ground out from under your feet. First, the peasants were freed from serfdom and allowed to develop independently. But for a short time the music played: collectivization began with the approach of the authorities to take everything away, divide, and disagree - into the link. People are used to this. Adjusted to the new rules, at first they even believed in a bright future.

Then began the privatization. And everything that once belonged to the state literally went to the hands. That's just all this distribution of state property among the population with the help of vouchers remained a fiction. People from this did not receive anything, all property, only now, at last, being in the hands, instantly swam away in an unknown direction.

By the 2000s. People sighed again more or less freely, and now a new wave has arrived. "There has never been such a thing and here again. "Then without trial and investigation, without knowing who the swindler is, and who is the conscientious owner of the property, without compensation all the stalls and trading pavilions. That in a group of risk with the prospect of demolition hit the whole residential complex "Shuvalovsky" and Dominion area of ??800 thousand. Square. Meters. All these mood jumps have only rooted the government's attitude to property, as to some kind of handy tool, and people are growing and growing distrust of state institutions. The impression is one: under the flag of whatever idea the reforms were going on, everything is clearly not for the benefit of the people.

Today's attitude towards private property is more like the long forgotten foundations of the times of the Moscow Principality. Then there was the property of the Grand Duke, the appanage princes and boyars. All. Even the landlords were not the owners of their estates. Here and the Moscow power sees today to inhabitants of capital in a role of such specific prince. What kind of trust in this situation can there be?.

In tsarist Russia the nineteenth century. Protection of private property and it was better. The seizure of property with appropriate compensation (which took into account the loss of profits) was possible only with the justification of public benefit. It was also impossible to expropriate for the sake of any company, even state. Now all this is possible, it is necessary only the desire of the authorities and close to them structures to obtain this property. Even if it comes to trial, the outcome is very predictable.

The very concept of private property in such conditions lost all value. Now it is more correct to say not "own", but "temporarily use". Almost the embodiment of the dream of a true communist. But in all developed countries, the inviolability of private property is the key to successful development. Only having guarantees that nobody will encroach upon property, it is possible to develop peacefully both the household and business.

In the US - the country with the most developed institution for the protection of private property - seizure is possible only for the purposes of "public use". This term implies a lot of things that need to be carefully substantiated in court. Plus, the additional limiter is the case law and the accumulated baggage of judicial decisions. That is, in order to remove someone's property, we need to try hard and compensate for all costs, including, for example, the costs of moving.

It is not necessary to count on trust in the authorities in such conditions. Property - this is the little thing that people have left. The outlet that brightens up the difficult times. When you are in your own apartment, or in your home, and at least in your garden, then the changes are not so terrible, because there is something to lean on, there is where to hide. But even this last hope in people is mercilessly selected and trampled.

The nature of the Russian man is, of course, paradoxical: we, with tears in our eyes, watch the final shots of the "Pokrovsky Gate", where they demolish the house of loved heroes, but with a calm soul we climb over the fence behind neighboring apples. Both here and there, in fact, violated the inviolability of private property. However, the perception is completely different. And the state should take this into account.

What has happened in history with all these renovations?

The "side effect" of the authorities' actions was the consolidation of the public. For the first time in a long time, we have formed an almost ideal soil for the cultivation of civil society. "Almost", because it is also dangerous. For it can degenerate into a devastating political protest. Therefore, the only way out is real, not nominal public control. He and the foundations of the political system will help to maintain, and at the same time, restore public confidence in the institutions of state power.