Projects to amend the Constitution

Anatoly Papp, Demos Center

Ideas for amending the Russian Constitution or completely rewriting it have appeared since its adoption. Most often, initiatives came from the national-patriotic camp, for whose representatives the Russian Constitution is super-liberal, and this liberalism should be shortened and, on the contrary, the statist emphasis should be strengthened.

Thus, in February 2001, a State Duma deputy from the Rodina faction, deputy chairman of the Committee on International Affairs, Natalia Narochnitskaya, told Literaturnaya Gazeta that “The Constitution must reflect the true essence of the people for whom it is written. For Russia, it must be focused on Orthodox commandments, on moral values, where there is a place for shame and sins..."

According to representatives of the People's Party Gennady Raikov, stated on July 17, 2003 in Izvestia, what is required is “not a formal rewrite of the Constitution, but a reassessment and reorientation of our entire legislative system. It is necessary to revive the concepts of civil and social solidarity, public welfare, civic and public duty , public service, morality as inalienable duties of a person and restrictions on his rights and freedoms."

In October 2003, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, in an interview with the Daily Journal, stated: “In general, we need to organize Russia differently. ... 15 subjects, and so that everyone is silent. And no federalism - a unitary single republic! One president at the head of fifteen. And only appoint governors... That is, the most rigid unitary state and no elections of governors."

President Putin has repeatedly condemned plans to change the Constitution. Thus, at a meeting of the Federation Council dedicated to the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution, he said: “It’s time to stop talking about changing the Constitution.”

However, the most popular, occurring at least once every six months, were discussions of precisely such changes to the Constitution that would allow Vladimir Putin to prolong his tenure at the highest government post. The most frequently discussed possible mechanisms are:

• extension of the presidential term from 4 to 5 - 7 years (at the beginning of Putin's presidency);

• lifting the limit on 2 consecutive presidential terms;

• the creation “under Putin” of a new executive body (for example, the State Council), which would be the real center of power;

• unification with Belarus and the creation of a supranational position “under Putin”;

• redistribution of powers in favor of the Prime Minister appointed by the State Duma.

The "third term ban" in its obvious sense is aimed at preventing the abuse of power (or its usurpation). Therefore, if we are talking about the current president, overcoming this norm in any way (including through a nationwide referendum) and for any reason is tantamount to permission to usurp power.

The initiators of the amendments never discuss this topic - at least from this side. Moreover, in modern Russia this norm has already been neglected once - when, in January 2001, with the help of a formal trick, the adoption of a new law on the elections of heads of the subjects of the federation (the law "On the general principles of the organization of legislative (representative) and executive bodies of state power of the subjects of the Russian Federation") - many governors were given the opportunity to run for third and fourth terms in a row. The Constitutional Court recognized this law as consistent with the Russian Constitution.

The idea of ​​extending the presidential term has arisen many times over recent years .

On December 7, 2001, former Speaker of the Federation Council Sergei Mironov, two days after his appointment to this post, said that 4 years “for Russia in modern conditions is not enough.” According to rumors, the president's team discussed a seven-year term.

Already on December 12, 2001, Vladimir Putin said that he was against changes in the presidential terms of office. “The terms of presidential powers under the current president will not change. ... The issue of amendments leading to a fundamentally new Constitution is not on the agenda, if not there may be a question of dismantling its basic values ​​and abandoning democratic gains."

However, in January 2002, Sergei Mironov again spoke about the need to increase the period, citing the “transition period” in which Russia is located .

On August 19, 2002, deputies of the Duma of the Magadan Region came up with a legislative initiative to extend the term of office of the President of Russia to seven years after a trip to Magadan by the same Sergei Mironov .

At the same time, the chairman of the Committee on Northern Affairs of the Federation Council, Alexander Nazarov, stated that in the event of the unification of Russia and Belarus into a single state, “the president of the new state (and only Putin can become this) will be faced with a task of a more global scale,” and this task will be “ not for four years, but more,” and therefore “the Constitution will need to be amended, including with regard to the term of presidential powers.”

On June 20, 2003, Vladimir Putin said at a press conference in the Kremlin that it would be optimal for him to work under the “5 + 5” deadline.

On August 7, 2003, Sergei Mironov, speaking tothe Blagoveshchensk deputies , again stated that the presidential term of office should be increased to 5 years: “Four years ... is not enough, 7 years is a lot,” Mironov said.

On January 19, 2004, Chechen President Akhmad Kadyrov outdid all the fans of the current president by declaring that if he had the necessary powers, he would make Vladimir Putin president of Russia for life, and added that Putin is “the best president for Russia.”

The next day, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who missed such a radical initiative, said: “all term limits must be lifted: let good people work, bad people must be removed the next day.”

On February 5, the Duma Council decided to accept for consideration the legislative initiative of the deputies of the Ivanovo region to extend the powers of the President of the Russian Federation to seven years . The extension of the deadline was supported by Nikolai Fedorov (President of Chuvashia), Governor of the Belgorod Region Evgeny Savchenko, and Governor of the Ryazan Region Vyacheslav Lyubimov. Governor of the Bryansk region Yuri Lodkin not in 7, but in 5 years.

At that time, presidential candidates Irina Khakamada, Nikolai Kharitonov and Ivan Rybkin, as well as State Duma deputy Vladimir Ryzhkov, member of the political council of the SPS party Boris Nemtsov, and chairman of the Duma committee on legislation, deputy Pavel Krasheninnikov, spoke out against the extension.

On February 5, 2004, Vladimir Putin once again spoke out against changing the Constitution: “I understand the initiative of those who propose to extend the constitutional term of the president. They proceed from the desire ... to achieve stable implementation of the main directions of the president’s policy, which, it seems to me, is supported by the majority population." But this desire “should not lead to destabilization of the foundation of the state - the Constitution.”

On February 6, 2004, the chairman of the Federation Council Committee on Constitutional Legislation, Yuri Sharandin, said: “I hope that a reasonable beginning will prevail in the lower house and this initiative will not be allowed to proceed.”

On February 12, 2002, Putin made an important announcement: he believes that the task of any leader is to prepare a successor . At the same time, he again opposed changing the constitution and increasing the presidential term to 7 years.

On February 18, 2004, State Duma deputies rejected amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation to increase the term of office of the President in Russia from 4 to 7 years.

Despite this, less than a month later, on March 12, a certain youth movement “For Stability” announced at a press conference the formation of an initiative group to collect signatures for holding a referendum on amending the Constitution to increase the presidential term to seven to ten years,” reportedNewsru.com .

On March 15, Vladimir Putin once again spoke on the topic of a successor: “The selection of a candidate began a long time ago, four years ago.”

On March 19, 2004, Moscow News published an article by Elena Dikun entitled “Card Game,” which talked about plans to consolidate regions (up to 8 entities) existing in the presidential administration. The obvious goal of such a unification is to “knock out the economic base from under the governors, undermine the influence of the oligarchs, and at the same time shift the concerns of reconciling rich and poor regions to the leaders of the united entities,” while “the blocking of the administrative division should become a cover for another operation. On the quiet, when in Several amendments will be made to the Constitution at once; it will be easy to push through a provision allowing the president to run for a third term. Actually, such plans are being hatched by a group of security officials, which includes Prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov, FSB Director Nikolai Patrushev, and deputy heads of the Kremlin administration Igor Sechin and Viktor Ivanov." There is supposedly another option: “Simultaneously with the changes to consolidate the regions, it is planned to enshrine in the Constitution the status of the State Council, which is currently not formalized in law. Since Russia is a federal state, it is quite logical for the State Council to become the main body of the country. Simply put, in Russia there will be a president, a prime minister, speakers of the Federation Council and the State Duma, leaders of political parties, and above everything - the Supreme State Council. After 2008, naturally, Vladimir Putin will head it. A suitable name has been prepared for the new position - Chairman of the Supreme State Council."

On September 13, 2004, Vladimir Putin made a statement in which he announced a plan for a radical restructuring of state power . Its main provisions were the abolition of direct elections of regional leaders and a new procedure for elections to the State Duma - exclusively based on party lists. Putin declared the reason for these radical steps to be the need to fight terrorism, referring to the seizure of the school in Beslan and previous terrorist attacks.

The majority of independent politicians, both democratic and left-wing, declared the president’s innovations to be unrelated to the fight against terrorism, but aimed at strengthening personal power and violating the Russian Constitution.

On September 16, the Committee "2008: Free Choice" published a statement "On the danger of a constitutional revolution in Russia." According to the Committee, Putin’s proposals contain “an extensive program for dismantling the fundamental institutions of democracy in Russia,” the goal of which is “further strengthening the regime of Vladimir Putin’s personal power.”

The call contained in the statement to the legislative assemblies of the constituent entities of the federation and the heads of executive power of the regions “to decisively and unequivocally speak out in defense of the rights of their voters, to demand that representatives of the regions in the Federation Council consistently reject any attempts to pass anti-constitutional bills through the Federal Assembly,” as subsequent events showed, remained unheard.

Already on September 28, Putin submitted to the State Duma a bill on the formation of government bodies in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation .

On October 17, a referendum was held in Belarus that lifted the limit on the number of presidential terms. And on October 18, this idea was heard once again in Russia. Konstantin Zatulin, a member of the Russian State Duma Committee on CIS Affairs, recalled it, proposing, following the Belarusian example, “to amend the Constitution through a referendum.”

As before in such cases, statements in support and condemnation of this initiative began to pour in amid a slight commotion. On the 19th, Secretary of State of the Union of Russia and Belarus Pavel Borodin said on the radio station “Echo of Moscow”: “If we had a referendum similar to the Belarusian one, I would vote “yes” with my hands and feet. ... The Slavic peoples have always lived as a sovereign state, they have always lived We will have a king, and we have a king in Russia too...God gives such power as Putin or Lukashenko...I think it’s a completely possible option, Putin can do it just fine. I know this man, very educated, businesslike, enterprising, efficient, and I think that a third, fourth, and fifth term is quite possible."

Putin's press secretary Alexei Gromov said on this occasion that "Borodin... expresses a personal opinion that does not correspond to reality."

On January 31 of this year, an interview with Mikhail Khodorkovsky appeared on his personal website: [* “It seems to me that the President, as the guarantor of national stability, should stand above political battles. And the presidential term of office will be less important, provided that the government is responsible for the country’s economy and governance, formed by a parliamentary majority.

The head of state should probably retain the functions of appointing some of the judges, the Prosecutor General, the heads of the special services, as well as the role of the supreme political arbiter" ](http://www.khodorkovsky.ru/speech/1591.html). Commenting on this interview , Lenta.Ru recalled that “Khodorkovsky advocated transforming Russia into a parliamentary republic two years ago, before the start of the YUKOS case *.

The next day, the LDPR published a manifesto signed by Vladimir Zhirinovsky. “What can all of us, all who consider themselves patriots of Russia, do?” - the author asks pathetically - * “First of all, contact the head of state with a demand to hold a national referendum with proposals:

• change the title of the position of the head of state: not President, but Supreme Ruler;

-liquidate the Upper House of Parliament;

-change the territorial division of the country: form 30 provinces of 5 million inhabitants each, only with geographical names and their own Dumas of no more than 30 deputies, elected only from party lists;

- hold elections in all government structures simultaneously once every five years on the last Sunday of March.

-Consistently implement the law on the appointment of heads of executive power in the constituent entities of Russia. By law, all of them should be called governors (of republics, territories, regions)."*

Less than a week later, on February 8, the leaders of the Institute of National Strategy, led by their president Stanislav Belkovsky, held a press conference “The New Constitution of Russia: concept, text, mechanisms of adoption.” Stanislav Belkovsky began by declaring that “the Yeltsin Constitution of 1993 has exhausted itself,” and proposed a recipe for the “problem of continuity of power”: “The point must be, on the one hand, to strengthen the post of head of state, raising it above the separation of powers. We must eliminate restrictions on the terms of office and give his decisions an indisputable, imperative significance, i.e., in fact, give the head of state the status of an “uncrowned monarch”; on the other hand, the government’s dependence on parliament should be ensured.”

Then a much more radical proposal was made public: to reconsider the concept of the Russian state. Instead of the current, liberal-democratic, “untenable model for Russia,” a state-civilization model was proposed. This new civilization will differ from the current Christian European civilization by a different “civilizational standard.” The “standard” itself is sketched out on a dotted line, but it becomes clear that, at a minimum, Russia will have to board up the “window to Europe” and throw away the last 300 years of its culture.

The primary task of the transition to a new state concept is “exiting the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg Court and revising the very concept of human rights, which today has become a universal master key for desovereignization. So that the concept of human rights ceases to be a lever for intervention policies.”

On February 9, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, with reference to Stanislav Belkovsky, reported that “the new Constitution in Russia will appear in a year and a half, by June 12, 2007. The main task of revising the Basic Law is stated as follows: the head of state will be elected by parliament from 2008 - by analogy with the appointment of the current heads of regions. ... A group of experts in the Kremlin, led by the curator of domestic policy issues, is working on the text of the new Constitution. The existence of such plans was confirmed several days ago by the head of the Accounts Chamber apparatus, Sergei Shakhrai."

“There have been talks about the emergence of such a project for a long time,” continues “Nezavisimaya” - * “but only recently these plans were confirmed by a representative of the government, Sergei Shakhrai. ... Shakhrai claims that the current transition to a purely party Duma and a new method of appointing governors - only a preamble to the main part of the reform...Judging by Shakhrai’s statements, the change in the electoral law and the increase in the required number of parties indicates: “the system is preparing for the transition to a government of a parliamentary majority.”

The creation of such a government, according to Shakhrai, “is already inevitable, and for this there is no need to change the Constitution.” According to the author of the current Basic Law, it is enough to change only the 7th and 9th articles of the constitutional law on government - “and we move on to a system of government responsible to parliament.”

The basic law is turned on for other purposes: the parliament in the future not only must form a government, but also choose the head of state. It is to run into such a model for the election of the supreme power that reform is undergoing in the regions. Today, the regional parliament appoints the regional leader, in a few years the federal parliament will approve the head of state. According to Shakhrai, a constitutional assembly must be formed for the adoption of a new constitution, and the election of this body can be combined with the Duma elections of 2007.

Stanislav Belkovsky yesterday supplemented this scheme with details that became known to him. It turned out, however, a slightly different version of the correction of the Constitution. According to Belkovsky, the Kremlin is preparing a voluminous package of amendments to the current constitution. The goal is to preserve power in the hands of the current elite. The draft document will be discussed by public chambers, the law on which was recently adopted by parliament. It provides for the establishment of a parliamentary republic with a declarative figure of the president at the head (presumably Boris Gryzlov) and the current prime minister, which will apparently take the place of Vladimir Putin or his successor.

According to the political scientist, the text of the new basic law is being prepared in the presidential administration. There is a person who "is responsible for the project of developing and discussing a new constitution in the regional public chambers and the Central Public Chamber," Belkovsky said in an interview with the NG correspondent. ... The finished text of the Kremlin project, according to the political scientist, may appear at the end of this year. And on June 12, 2007, according to him, the Kremlin was going to hold a referendum on the approval of the document "*.

On February 9, the head of the CEC, Alexander Veshnyakov, opposed the change in the procedure for elections of the President of the Russian Federation: "There are fundamental legal positions enshrined in the Constitution, which in civilized democratic states are not even customary to discuss, not to mention them, depending on the political situation.. .. In Russia today there are forces that advocate the abolition of direct presidential elections, at the same time there are forces, and now the majority who advocate the preservation of the existing system of electing the president, and the current president also belongs to these forces " - said the head of the CEC.

And on February 10, the Presidential Administration categorically refuted reports that the Kremlin is conducting work related to amendments to the current constitution .

It is noteworthy how the chairman of the Constitutional Court of Russia Valery Zorkin commented on the possible changes in the Constitution: “The country's constitution works quite effectively, but possible changes are a matter of political will. The people want, the legislator, so that such a constitution is in the country, which means that it will be in the country That is how, he wants to change her - this is also possible. "

How are the ideas of changes in the constitution close to reality? On February 11, in an interview with the "independent newspaper", the chairman of the Constitutional Constitutional Committee on the constitutional law Yuri Sharandin reasoned: "He recalled that the constitutions are required to be amended by the consent of the two -thirds of each of the chambers of the Russian parliament. If we are talking about changes in Chapter 1, 2 And 9, which is about the state structure and rights of citizens enshrined in international agreements, it will be necessary to collect the Constitutional Assembly. At least ":" When the movement on the adoption of the law on the constitutional assembly begins, then we can talk about something more defined. The discussion according to this law will give food for thought. So far there is no such food. As for the chapters from 3 to 6, it will be possible to talk about something real when the State Duma has been introduced on amendments to the basic law. ”In the opinion of Sharandin, signs of a serious revision of the main constitutional norms may become“ statements on this topic of politicians And the leaders of the country who are directly related to this. We are talking about the leadership of the relevant committees, representatives of the presidential administration and the scientific community, " NG said.

President of the Panorama IIC Vladimir Poblovsky :

“The problem of the 8th year”, undoubtedly, is facing the ruling oligarchy (*), and it will somehow be decided.

There are two main paths: preserving Putin’s power as a nominal person, or a change of mask - the advance of another “primaryhead”. And if you still Putin-then as the president, or the prime minister?

In both cases, it is necessary to change the constitution. In the event of a third period, it is necessary to change. In the case of Putin's premiere, power can be redistributed informally, but then there should be some kind of completely dummy person - such as Sergey Mironov. Because with the volume of power that the president has the constitution, anyone will think in a year or two: why is I a dumber, if I can do everything? Already some Gryzlov, not to mention Sergey Ivanov, being the president, will quickly want to rule. Therefore, you still need to change the constitution - and under the post of prime minister.

But there is another option: non-Putin-if by the 7th-8th year Putin’s rating will fall too much. So far, people are not so much associated with the last reforms with Putin, but the reform of the housing and communal services on the nose - she can very much undermine the president’s rating. And then you will need to look for another figure that will arrange all the clans. Putin is now satisfied with everyone, the only problem is that he can confuse the people. It is not difficult to promote another figure in our country.

This is a big problem - to resolve the interests of all clans among themselves. Around one figure, this is difficult, and here the idea of ​​a collective leadership arises, a variant of a parliamentary republic. There are disadvantages in it, because settlement should be carried out all the time, but no one loses at the first stage. Under the Presidential Republic, we suppose Gryzlov. Well, everyone who was against Gryzlov find themselves out. And under the parliamentary republic, the balance of power in parliament is changing all the time, the deputies go from the faction to the faction ...

The parliamentary republic also needs changes in the Constitution.

In the parliamentary form of government, the election of the 7th year becomes very important. The parliament is formed in such a way that the main clan interests are represented there. Since United Russia cannot be the basis of the authorities for the next period, the tag will be replaced: it will either be renamed, or divided, or preserved, but add one or two parties so that the future regime rests on two or three parties, as under Yeltsin.

The third presidential term of Putin is the best option for all groups, because on Putin’s figure all interests are more or less agreed, everyone is guaranteed from some major troubles - in general, everyone is fine. Provided that Putin remains a popular figure. And if popularity falls - then, of course, the conclusion suggests itself: to pass. One group of Chekists has a candidate Gryzlov, another group, also, apparently, Chekists - there is a candidate Ivanov, there are some other options, probably.

If there is no revolution (and it, in general, is approaching) - they will succeed. In terms of terms, this must be done in about a year.

Putin all the time says that he will not change the constitution. But he said at least six times that he would not cancel the direct elections of governors.

* The author’s definition of the modern Russian oligarchy was stated by Vladimir Poblovsky in the article “From Colombia to Nigeria” , published in the Paris “Russian Courier” and on the SCILLA website: oligarchy (“The Board of a few in Greek) is the unlimited political power of the wealthy minority, Collective authoritarianism of a group of large owners. Contrary to the new -fiber usage, the oligarchs are not just millionaires, but the millionaires who have received the monopoly right to state magistrates. The oligarch is not the rich person who sits, but that rich who has the opportunity to plant another rich. The oligarchs are not those who are "equivalent from power", but those who "equivalently." Under President Yeltsin, there was still no full -fledged oligarchy, because, although the wealthy minority already had almost all political power in its hands, there was no unlimited, uncontrolled, irremovability of this power minority. The oligarchy was fully held in Russia under President Putin. The authoritarian-oligarchic soup was welcomed by Vladimir Vladimirovich, who declared himself a fighter with the oligarchs and defender of democracy.

Alexander Verkhovsky, Director of the Siva Information and Analytical Center :

Each time they offer to change the constitution, this is aimed at direct probing public opinion by the initiators of possible constitutional and legal changes. At the same time, this can be a demonstration of their own ideological positions in different groups, not necessarily involved in the projects of constitutional changes. These two processes are mutual supporting. Accordingly, what seems to have flowed from the bowels of the Kremlin - traces of work leading comrades inventing some constitutional formula for preserving Putin in power. And what was written by Belkovsky is the ideological applications of his group. At the same time, those and others (both ideological authors and developers of possible projects, if any) are just applicants. Which of them will be in demand by the presidential authority is completely unknown, but everyone is trying. Objectively, and, I think, not consciously, Belkovsky plays along with this unknown Kremlin group. The radical applications of the Belkovsky group are a background in which real proposals will seem moderate.

For the success of the whole venture, the topic of changing the constitutional foundations of the social system must exist in a public discussion, then within the framework of this polemic (maybe substantial and completely meaningless) it is already possible to make and discuss some more specific proposals. Changes to the Constitution cannot be made with a run. It is imperative to organize a request competition. The point is not only to threaten, and then soften. Objectively very correctly, so that some more fundamental changes in the Constitution are discussed. Not necessarily for the worse, but in general: for example, about changing the entire system of life in the country, and at the same time change the entire constitution - as offered on the APN website. And in the corner of this great philosophical polemic, you can discuss the amendments of some two or three articles in the Constitution: in order to change the procedure for the election of the president, you need to change the text just a little.

The procedure for adopting amendments is such that it will not be so for a long time - in a few months you can manage. The main thing is that it is legally carefully done. And in this sense, a public discussion is useful. Even people who are thinking, in some way, are a conspiracy, in this case, they are interested in public discussions, because they may indicate punctures in their own plan, which are useful to correct in advance. This is quite reasonable behavior. Another thing is that I do not think that there is a single center planning the entire operation. Rather, there are competing groups, lobby for different operations, but since they have one goal, even in a situation of competition, a unidirectional action is obtained.