Thanks to the activities of Mikhail Svetov, a topic as exotic for libertarian discourse as lustration has become an important component of the public rhetoric of Russian libertarians. Indeed, there is no other libertarian party in the world that pays such attention to this issue. Some advocate for the liberalization of the psychoactive substances market, others for the liberalization of the weapons market, some for tax cuts, and others are even forced to speak in favor of abolishing price regulations on essential goods, but no one demands the mass removal from power of officials of the current regime simply by virtue of holding their current position.

Arguments for lustration

1. Lustrations are the gentlest way to remove those who have demonstrated their professional incompetence from power. If they were to be tried instead, it would be long, expensive, dirty, and crude; it would be better for them to accept that they will simply be pushed out of the area where they are incompetent and be given the freedom to engage in anything else.
2. Without lustrations, nothing will work at all. Any number of wonderful laws can be passed, but functionaries of the former regime will sabotage the reforms, distort and discredit them, and this will lead to the liberal government, failing to achieve quick successes, losing public support. Therefore, lustrations are important specifically as a tool for rapid cleansing, in contrast to numerous individual proceedings, so as not to lose the pace of transformation.
3. Post-Soviet countries that carried out decisive lustrations are now in a much better position than those that did not, and former Soviet leaders there have not returned to power.
4. Lustrations are populism, and populism means votes in elections; there is no need to fear populism—on the contrary, one should fear remaining marginal.
5. (point added based on the results of the discussion in the comments) A law on lustrations has a psychotherapeutic effect. Long existence under conditions of a de facto estate society requires compensation, and the restriction of rights of representatives of the old upper estate, thereby transferring them to a conditionally lower one, is a good bloodless recipe that allows people to feel like full-fledged citizens.

Arguments against lustrations

1. Lustrations are a diversion of forces toward a negative agenda. Instead of implementing the new, a significant portion of those coming to power will be occupied with settling old scores; moreover, any delays in reforms will inevitably be justified by claiming that not enough people are being lustrated and that enemies are conducting sabotage.
2. It is easy to say now that lustration is a gentle tool, but it is difficult to say how gentle it will prove to be in practice. Formally, a person is deprived of their position, the right to hold government office, and the right to run for representative bodies of power. In fact, they will also receive the stigma of being “lustrated,” and it is impossible to say in advance what other restrictions of rights this stigma will lead to. The freezing of accounts, for example. “Here is your quota of 300 dollars a month for withdrawal, and full unblocking only after the results of a commission’s work to ensure that there are no funds on the account obtained from criminal activity under the previous regime.” Even if such measures are not in Mikhail’s current rhetoric, who can guarantee that they won’t be proposed, for example, by employees of the Anti-Corruption Foundation?
3. A law on lustrations hits broadly. If a new government is formed as a result of a split among elites, the members of the new government will be interested in formulating the clauses of the law so that they themselves do not fall under it. It will turn out as it did in Ukraine, where many functionaries of the previous regime did not fall under the law, while the scapegoats suffered.
4. Mass restrictions of citizens’ rights will inevitably create a large group of the population that harbors resentment toward the reformers. The more mass the lustrations are (and Mikhail has not set clear criteria for the end of the process, and intends to lustrate until he is stopped), the larger the group of victims will be. Since the active voting right of the lustrated will remain, candidates promising to roll back reforms and return the “good old days” will receive broad support in the next elections.
5. Lustrations were popular mainly in countries with a developed national consciousness against the backdrop of Soviet occupation. In the former metropole, this idea will meet fierce resistance because the current government is perceived as one’s own, not as colonial.

Alternative to lustrations

Instead of announcing the mass restriction of rights for officials, one could promote the mass reduction of positions. There is no point in lustrating Medinsky, Kolobkov, or Oreshkin; there is point in abolishing the ministries of culture, sports, and economic development. There is no point in lustrating Zolotov; there is point in abolishing the Rosgvardia. There is no point in purging the gubernatorial corps; there is point in taking away the powers of the regions in favor of municipalities. As for the positions that are decided to be kept, it is not so important to conduct personnel purges manually; it is much more important to improve democratic institutions so that unqualified functionaries simply leave peacefully in the next elections.

If after the mass privatization of state property it turns out that a considerable portion of it was bought up by former government officials? Well, that’s wonderful! If the money was obtained as a result of aggressive violence and specific victims are found, then this can be gradually investigated, a lawsuit filed, and compensation recovered, and whatever remains will belong to them indisputably. If no one makes claims, it means this money was obtained by them from official salaries, bribes for bypassing state regulations, and other relatively harmless ways, so let this money now work in the free market.

It seems to me that libertarians have far more relevant topics in their agenda, for example, the reduction of the state, and a far more effective tool than the mass restriction of people’s rights—for example, the market. So, discussing lustrations purely in an academic vein as one of the possible tools of social transformation—why not. But to obsess over this meme oneself means turning from a sect of witnesses of the market into a sect of witnesses of lustrations, and from there, the label of “dem-shiza” [democratic craziness] is not far off.