Verigs of the Constitution

Harry Kasparov proposes to revise the Basic Law

In 1992, on June 12, when the country first celebrated the day of the adoption of the Declaration of the State Sovereignty of the RSFSR, which subsequently dried up to the day of Russia, we were citizens of the state who firmly embarked on the path of freedom. It seemed that no one would drive us from him. Shot down. And we go in the opposite direction. How to prevent the sprouts of democracy to finally fade - The New Times sorted out

Today, in the midst of the crisis, almost all unanimous are that it will not be possible to cope with it with economic measures with only economic measures - political reforms are needed. However, the question of how deep and what exactly they should be, in fact, is not even posed.

It is clear that shelter circles think not deep transformations under the reform, but exclusively political makeup: insignificant personnel permutations and hanging liberal fig leaflets. But, unfortunately, the most radical participants in the political process also do not give any thoughtful recipes, reducing everything mainly to the resignation of Vladimir Putin. It is assumed that without it, life in Russia will improve by itself. Those who are still trying to offer something substantial do not go beyond common words: independent media, independent courts, real separation of powers, etc.

From the dirty sheet

Neither cosmetic repair of the system, nor its complete demolition, nor lotions of textbook truths will save the country. Obviously, society should direct intellectual efforts primarily to the development of the architectural project of Russian statehood - the new Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Today, among the liberals, the opinion prevails that the roots of our present authoritarianism are not at all in the constitution - all the troubles because it is constantly violated. Even the United Civil Front (OGF), in the documents of which the expression “dismantling the Putin regime” picked up by the whole opposition first appeared, for a long time believed that political changes could be implemented, remaining within the framework of the 1993 Constitution. However, in 2009, 16 years after its adoption, it is time to admit: the onset of authoritarianism is a direct consequence of the ideas laid down in the basic law.

Of the two troubles

The obvious bias towards the strong presidential authority, which was awarded the 1993 Constitution, caused the quick drying of all, except for the presidential, power branches: legislative, judicial. The tree turned into a log that crushed all living things in Russian society. The constitution has a built -in mechanism of self -destruction, which ultimately destroyed it, or rather, the constitutional system in Russia.

The law of direct action is full of references to the exceptions provided for by federal laws! The fundamental articles of the first chapter: 2 (on the priority duty of the state) and 3 (on democracy) turned into empty declarations. At least 23 articles of the second chapter on the rights and freedoms of a citizen (17, 18, 23, 24, 27–32, 34, 37, 39–42, 45, 48, 50, 55, 58, 61) are not partially or completely or completely.

Plus, the constitution is extremely vulnerable to its legitimacy. She was taken in a hurry, without a full -fledged public discussion and, most importantly, without observing the necessary procedural norms. Not only the authorities do not respect her - the people do not respect her.

Therefore, the requirement addressed to power, dating back to the time of dissidents and the Brezhnev constitution of 1977: “Observe your constitution” - today has lost all meaning, even acquired a certain anti -democratic coloring.

The fact that in 1993 a significant part of the society (and the author of these lines also) voted for this document is simply explained: then it seemed that otherwise the country could not be torn with the Soviet past. Historical memory played a cruel joke with us. The fear of totalitarianism did not allow society to see the sprouts of authoritarianism, which are breaking through the text of the new basic law, to understand that the country needs a thoughtful system of retirement and counterweights, guaranteeing the independence of all branches of government, which ensures the balance of the political system.

Unfortunately, in the 20th century, Russia did not acquire a constitution, which would be the result of a public contract, and was not imposed on top. All 6 constitutions-1905 (the royal manifesto can be brought into this category with a certain stretch), 1918, 1922, 1936, 1977 and 1993-were created by the current government and were primarily aimed at preserving the existing order of things. Perhaps we came closest to the ideal from 1990 to 1993, when gradually, by introducing amendments to the Constitution of the RSFSR after violent discussions, a balanced document was created that guaranteed independence to all branches of government. However, the tragic events of 1993 interrupted this process.

Do not wake up

Until recently, the Russian opposition tried to avoid any conversations that the constitution had to be changed. Firstly, out of fear that the authorities can “go towards” and, taking advantage of the passivity of the main part of society, begin to cut the basic law for itself. Such a danger was especially acutely felt in 2007, when Putin was spoke about the third term of Putin as a decision. Then they still did not “print” the constitution, but a year later they did it calmly, increasing the presidential and Duma deadlines. This operation did not bring anything fundamentally new to the life of the country, simply because everyone understands: the basic law is nothing more than a front costs in which the power flaunts in the international arena. What is written there is already few people worry.

The second reason why the opposition preferred not to affect the problem of the Constitution is the fear of violating the unsteady unity that allows left, patriots and liberals to go to the “disagreement marches” together, to conduct fruitful discussions at meetings of the national assembly. The Red Book of the riot police, which visited the boots of riot police, became a symbol of unity of the non -systemic opposition.

Tomorrow will be too late

Today, when the country is on the verge of serious shocks that can turn our life, we have no right to repeat the mistakes made 16 years ago and in all subsequent years. It is time to get rid of fears and illusions: at this stage, the opposition can and should initiate a wide discussion about how we want to see the political structure of Russia. The discussion, as a result of which, may be born the text of a new, truly national constitution.

If the wide layers of society are connected to its discussion, and above all representatives of the intellectual elite, the document will receive legitimacy unique in the history of Russia, which will allow it to become the basis of the new social contract.

Here is a brief list of problems that need to be discussed in the first place.

1. Balance of executive and legislative power. The origins of the current authoritarianism in hypertrophy of the presidential powers. Perhaps Russia would have been suitable for something between French and Polish systems. The President is responsible for the strategy and has the right to veto, while all issues of current life are in charge of the government appointed by the parliament from among its members elected in single -mandate districts.

2. The powers of the local authorities. The situation present in the current constitution that the source of power is the people, so far remains an empty sound. The implementation of the principle of “power is transferred from the bottom up” a new document must be fully guaranteed. Municipal power must be endowed with real powers, and direct democracy - the elections of district judges, the heads of local police - to be distributed to the maximum extent.

3. The interaction of the center and regions. Current Russia can be called a federation only with a big stretch. A mechanism providing real federalism should be laid into the new constitution. It is necessary to transfer the maximum financial and political powers to the regions, and mainly to the city and municipal levels. An important step in this direction would be the liquidation of industry ministries, including the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

4. Guarantees of compliance with human rights. In the new constitution, these guarantees should be prescribed so that no laws or decrees could not deprive the citizen of his inalienable rights.

All these questions and many others will inevitably cause hot disputes, but the main thing is that the whole society participates in the discussion, and not one narrow group. The constitution is not a document for intra -plane use. This is the basic law with which and by which each of us, citizens of Russia to live.