Parliament is a place... for whom?

The strengthening of the State Duma should be considered in the context of "problem-24"

A quarter of a century after the adoption of the current Constitution, the speaker of the lower house of parliament, Vyacheslav Volodin, realized that the State Duma should somehow participate in the formation of the government - from which the parliament was decisively removed in 1993. The idea, we note, is correct - I have been writing and talking about this for many years. Although it is quite obvious that this insight is not connected with reading my articles in Novaya Gazeta, but with the gradual approach of 2024.

Volodin bravely stated that "there are issues related to the lack of the necessary balance in the activities of the legislative and executive branches of power" and it would be advisable "to additionally consider the question of the participation of the State Duma in the formation of the government."

Because the president “makes a decision on the composition of the government on the proposal of the chairman of the government, but without the opportunity to rely on an alternative position or opinion on candidates” and “when making proposals for candidates for future members of the government, there are no procedures for their discussion and consultations.”

And that “it would be right, in my opinion, for the State Duma to at least participate in consultations when appointing members of the government.” Which, of course, requires changes in the Constitution.

It must be said that Volodin is not the first of the first persons to speak cautiously about this.

In October 2018, that there are shortcomings in the Constitution - "the lack of a proper balance in the system of checks and balances, a tilt in favor of the executive branch of power, insufficient clarity in the distribution of powers between the president and the government, in determining the status of the presidential administration and the powers of the prosecutor's office", - wrote the Chairman of the Constitutional Court Valery Zorkin.

In December of the same year, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev announced the possibility of "adjustments" to the Constitution - although without specifying which ones.

And now - the continuation.

Why?

Already in the Constitution of 1993, there was a noticeable “tilt towards the executive branch” - for which, in fact, as I told Novaya Gazeta in December 2018, it was created: so that the parliament, elected by citizens and representing them, does not serious could not interfere with the executive power.

And so that he, even at the cost of his dissolution, could not prevent the president from appointing the prime minister he wants - the only representative of the executive branch whom the parliament approves. And in the same way, the parliament cannot dismiss the government - the president has the right to dissolve the parliament itself instead.

Another thing was just as obvious.

That if political parties, even after winning the parliamentary elections and forming a majority coalition, can only criticize the government, but can neither influence its composition nor change it, then in this situation it is very difficult for strong parties to arise that can seriously affect the state of affairs in the country.

And the only party that is formally the ruling party - created by the authorities themselves for the sake of self-preservation - does not have any influence on the government, being only a government department for drafting legislative proposals.

And that citizens in such a political structure - when the parliament they elect does not influence the government - treat the parliamentary elections as something secondary, in contrast to the presidential ones. And many politicians prefer positions in the executive branch to mandates in the legislative branch - and therefore they strive not for the trust of citizens, but for demonstrating loyalty to the authorities ...

Nevertheless, all the past years, only the opposition, and even then not all of them, spoke about the need to change the balance of power.

The only exception, when this was cautiously discussed outside the “opposition sector”, was the end of the “zero”. Remember the "problem-2008"?

Putin in 2008 could not be elected for a third term, but it was clear that he was absolutely not going to move away from real power. And the discussion began: in what way would any of his successors, who in the end turned out to be Dmitry Medvedev, be limited in his practically autocratic powers? It never got to the point then - Putin was absolutely sure that Medvedev would not dare to do any "bucking". Indeed, the new president did not advance further than the words “freedom is better than lack of freedom” - instead, he proposed extending the term of presidential office (no longer for himself) to six years and honestly admitted that he and Putin had been planning a “castling” from the very beginning …

Most likely, now we are dealing with a similar situation - the “problem-2024”, when Vladimir Putin, after serving two more terms, will cease to be the president who single-handedly forms the government.

And already now he and his entourage are beginning to think about how to “leave in order to stay” once again, to retain real power.

Why not as head of parliament?