The mysticism of the Constitution

The Basic Law of Russia is ruled for the first time in 15 years

Today Russia celebrates the 15th anniversary of its Constitution. The public debate on the topic of the Basic Law does not stop. There is debate about whether amendments can be made to it. Another subject of discussion is the place and role of the Constitution in the life of the country. According to the results of a survey released yesterday by the Yuri Levada Analytical Center, over the past year the number of people who agree with the statement that the Constitution does not play a significant role in the life of the country has increased from 21 to 28%, since few people take it into account. And finally, for the first time in the history of the Yeltsin Constitution , it is now being ruled .

It's time to remember under what dramatic conditions the Russian main document was adopted. The development process took three years. In 1990, even before the collapse of the USSR, the Constitutional Commission was formed, the chairman of which was the President of the RSFSR, Boris Yeltsin. However, in essence, the process was led by Ruslan Khasbulatov. The original draft of the Constitution established a parliamentary form of government. Yeltsin did not like this. Contradictions between the branches of government grew, endless parliamentary debates took place, and constitutional reform reached a dead end. As a result, having already become the President of Russia after the collapse of the USSR, Boris Yeltsin, while formally remaining the head of the Constitutional Commission, established a Constitutional Conference, which was supposed to develop a new, presidential version of the Basic Law. The confrontation between the executive and legislative powers grew into an internal political crisis and ended with the forceful dispersal of parliament on October 3-4, 1993. On December 12, 1993, the Constitution was adopted in a national referendum held on the initiative of Boris Yeltsin. The opposition to the president, however, claimed that the results of the popular vote were rigged.

“The very fact of the adoption of the new Russian Constitution in a national referendum is not only the approval, in full compliance with the norms and principles of international law, of the Basic Law of the state,” Alexander Babakov, vice speaker of the State Duma from the A Just Russia faction, told a Vremya Novostey correspondent. -- For the first time in the centuries-old Russian history, through a free and secret expression of the will of the people, and not through coups and revolutions, citizens of Russia, in full accordance with generally accepted democratic procedures, independently chose for themselves and their country a political system, state structure, mechanisms for the implementation of democracy and legislated as dominant fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual."

“There is a mysticism about the Constitution. Just imagine that social processes of irreversible collapse are growing, and suddenly society begins to concentrate, discuss a document, and this document determines the development of society. Suddenly, concentration on the document forces society to centralize,” this is how Vladimir Pligin, chairman of the State Duma Committee on Constitutional Legislation and State Building, and member of the United Russia faction, commented yesterday on the importance of the Constitution.

He noted that the Constitution was adopted under the threat of continued dissolution of the state and the emergence of internal conflicts. “The Constitution created a program for the development of society and the three main principles laid down in the Constitution - a democratic, federal, rule of law state - have not been implemented,” says Mr. Pligin. - It seems to me that the Constitution is misunderstood and understudied. The Constitution offers a model in which there is both romanticism and idealism, but there is also a very high working component.”

“The Constitution is like health: you don’t notice it as long as it is there and everything is fine with it,” Igor Igoshin, deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on Science and High Technologies, deputy of the United Russia faction, told Vremya Novostey. - But look at Ukraine, where there is no successful constitutional design. Result: while Russia protects the real sector and increases pensions, there is an endless struggle for power in Ukraine. And that is reason enough to value our Constitution.”

“The document is illiterate, drawn up in a hurry, on the blood of the executed parliament. Due to this circumstance alone, I believe that morally this Constitution cannot give anything good to the people,” Ruslan Khasbulatov, speaker of the parliament dissolved in 1993, told Vremya Novostei. - I'm not even talking about the fact that Yeltsin's main document vested the executive power with powers that the head of state did not have even under the Stalinist Constitution. There are no other authorities at all! This Constitution was drawn up for Yeltsin, the victorious, tyrannical leader who scared everyone. Of course, she is not alive. For now, it is ruled by Yeltsin’s heirs. Someday they will leave, a full-fledged political leader will come, and a new Constitution will be adopted, fundamentally different.”

One of the authors of the Russian Constitution, chief of staff of the Accounts Chamber Sergei Shakhrai believes that the main document has been implemented today by 60%. According to him, the Constitution has several “basic models”, each of which has been implemented differently over the past period. “The priority of human rights and freedoms over the state has been implemented by 30%, the model of a market economy and social state has been implemented by less than 30%. The model of cooperative federalism has been implemented by 38%, and the model of a presidential-parliamentary republic has been implemented by 103%, that is, more than what is written in the Constitution. The model of civil control over the bureaucracy has only been implemented by 20 percent. If we add up, it turns out that the Constitution has been implemented by 55-60 percent,” Mr. Shahray said at yesterday’s press conference.

First Deputy Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Vice-Speaker of the State Duma Ivan Melnikov reminded Vremya Novostei that the Communist Party of the Russian Federation did not initially support the Constitution. “You can talk as much as you like about the advantages and disadvantages of the text, about what is taken into account there and what is not, but something else is important, more fundamental: it took a civilizational step back in comparison with the Soviet Constitution. There is no greater value in the world than a person. And everything should be in peace for his sake, his protection and well-being. And the Soviet Constitution was the highest form of guarantee of precisely this approach in spirit. At the same time, the current Constitution has only outlined the framework, outlined a set of rules by which one must live. But the main problem is that the current Constitution is not being implemented. The political practice of the government is much more reactionary than what is written in the Basic Law. Ask people who rules in Russia? In the worst case they will say that they are oligarchs, in the best case they will say that they are Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin. And the Constitution says: “The bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people.” Well, it wouldn’t even occur to anyone that this is so. Why? In reality, this is not visible at all,” said Comrade Melnikov.

In November of this year, the process of amending the Constitution was launched for the first time - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev initiated an increase in the term of office of the head of state and the State Duma from four years to six and five, respectively. Regional legislative assemblies have been given an unspoken directive to complete the process of approving the amendments by December 18, Boris Nadezhdin, one of the well-known members of the nascent Right Cause party, said at a press conference in Moscow yesterday. (This party is fundamentally against changes to the Basic Law). Meanwhile, according to Mr. Nadezhdin, these amendments in any case cannot be adopted earlier than in a year.

Members of the lower and upper houses of the Russian parliament have already approved these amendments. Now, according to Federal Law No. 33 “On the procedure for the adoption and entry into force of amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation,” changes to the Basic Law must be approved by the parliaments of the constituent entities of the federation. Article 9 of this law specifies that this must be done “within one year” from the date of approval of the amendments by the Federation Council. The bill then returns to the upper house for final passage. “But Article 11 says that the Federation Council must consider the amendments “at its regular meeting following the day of expiration of the period allotted for the adoption of these amendments by the regions,” Boris Nadezhdin emphasized. In other words, it is technically impossible to amend the Constitution before November-December 2009 - of course, if you strictly follow the algorithm prescribed in the law. “I wonder why they didn’t change this law first? - Mr. Nadezhdin rhetorically asked the Vremya Novostei correspondent. “And now it’s too late: if the law is applied, then it cannot be changed on the fly.”

“It’s a good question, there really is an inaccuracy in the law that can be interpreted in different ways,” Mikhail Krasnov, vice-president of the Indem Foundation, who participated in the Constitutional Conference in the summer of 1993, told Vremya Novostei. “Nadezhdin is right, the norm is actually ambiguous, but, of course, it will be interpreted in the sense that the Federation Council can finally approve the amendments when two-thirds of regional legislative assemblies approve them,” the expert predicts.

The same premonitions, apparently, overwhelm the members of the “Right Cause”. They have already begun sending letters to the speakers of regional legislative assemblies, in which they propose to wait until the amendments are approved and, in exchange for their approval, to bargain for more concessions from the federal center - for example, to demand an increase in the regions' share in the consolidated budget of Russia. The epistole was signed by the co-chairs of “Right Cause” Leonid Gozman, Georgy Bovt and Boris Titov.

In a conversation with Vremya Novostei, Boris Nadezhdin did not rule out the possibility of appealing to the Supreme Court if the procedure prescribed in the 33rd Federal Law is violated. “I don’t understand why there is such a rush to adopt these amendments,” notes Mr. Nadezhdin. “The explanation involuntarily suggests itself that this is someone’s subtle plan: to break the law when adopting amendments, and then, if necessary, cancel them as illegal.”

Mikhail Krasnov, in turn, believes that the rush to polish the Basic Law “shows a disregard for the Constitution.” “Everything is done correctly in letter, and there are no complaints about the procedure,” he says. “But exactly where the amendments began, and how indecently quickly they were adopted, indicates an anomaly in the political system.” The expert is not against changes to the Constitution, but believes that they should start from something else: “Do not increase the terms of office, but strive to achieve a greater balance in the system of checks and balances. The point is not how much power the president has, but whether parliament can oppose him with something.”

At yesterday's press conference, Georgy Bovt also drew attention to the fact that, for example, in the United States, the first amendment to the constitution was not an increase in the terms of the presidential government or their limitation, but the famous Bill of Rights, expanding the democratic rights and freedoms of citizens. “Increasing presidential powers has always been associated with usurpation of power,” added Mr. Bovt, citing as examples the least democratic countries in the world: Togo, Namibia, Venezuela, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Belarus. True, long presidential terms are established in Ireland, Finland, Mexico and the Philippines, but these countries are parliamentary republics, and the powers of presidents there are not as broad as in Russia. In France, on the contrary, the presidential term was recently reduced from seven to five years.

Ksenia VERETENNIKOVA, Natalia ROZHKOVA