What do you think of Putin's proposals to have governors elected by regional legislatures on his recommendation?

In this proposal the president has violated the Constitution and the electoral rights of citizens a number of times, both actively - the right to vote - and passively - the right to run for elective posts. Vladimir Putin's proposal to have governors elected on the recommendation of the president means that your passive right to be elected would be violated and, for example, you will not become a mayor of Moscow unless your candidacy is nominated by the president.

Maybe, in all that haste the president had failed to make inquiries in order to see that on January 18, 1996 the Constitutional Court passed ruling No. 2-p on checking the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Charter of the Altai Territory. The problem was that the Altai Territory had sought to have its governor elected by the session of the local legislature.

The ruling decided against what Putin is suggesting now. Then, the administration of the Altai Territory asked the Constitutional Court to clarify the issue; the court ruled that a procedure whereby a regional leader is ratified by the parliament "fails to ensure the right of citizens to participation in the affairs of the state, in particular, in the election of the head of the executive power of the region".

Furthermore, certain excerpts from that ruling prove that Putin's proposals run counter to the Constitution. For example, the ruling reads: "Proceeding from the essence of that article (Article 3 Part II of the Constitution of Russia), that enshrines the right of citizens to elect organs of state power, a top official who forms organs of executive power receives his or her mandate directly from the people and is amenable to them." In other words, it is written in black and white that all regional leaders are elected by popular vote.

How could you then explain the Dagestani phenomenon where the republican leader is elected by members of the State Council - the local legislature?

The republic of Dagestan is the exception to the law on the general principles concerning the organization of legislative and executive organs of power in the Russian Federation.

It says that the regions up to 1995 (when the law was passed) where regional leaders had been elected collectively by local legislatures, are allowed to continue using such a procedure. But other regions were not granted that right.

As you understand, a Constitutional Court ruling has no retroactive effect and is not subject to revision. Maybe, the president would like to cancel it, but he has no power to do so.

Besides, the president himself said more than once several months ago that he opposed the idea of appointing governors instead of electing them by nationwide vote. Today he has suddenly revised his position, which, as it seems to me, does not contribute to his image. And I cannot understand what those proposals have to do with the fight against terrorism.

Perhaps he is referring to Article 55 Part II, which says that "human rights and liberties may be restricted by the federal law to the extent required for the protection of the fundamentals of the constitutional system". The president and his government have more than once stated that a war has been declared on Russia.

No, this clearly has nothing to do with terrorism. In his address to the nation on September 4 the president himself assured us that all measures for combating terrorism would not run counter to the Constitution.

I still do not understand what it has to do with terrorism. Can you imagine George W. Bush addressing the Senate after September 11, 2001 and suggesting that for the purpose of apprehending Bin Laden the governors of the states should be appointed by Washington, instead of being elected? How can appointing governors in Moscow or Kamchatka help catch Basayev? Moreover, the president claims that the measures will strengthen the country, whereas I insist they will weaken it.

How?

Over the past two years we have seen two examples of de facto appointed governors - Murat Zyazikov in Ingushetia and Alu Alkhanov in Chechnya. The Beslan events have proven that neither of them has any influence over the Caucasus.

They proved unable to render any assistance during the hostage crisis. Today our president is offering us 89 Zyazikovs in 89 regions. How can such people strengthen the country - in place of influential regional leaders such as Yuri Luzhkov in Moscow, Mintimer Shaimiyev in Tatarstan - I have no idea.

In my opinion, appointing governors on recommendation of the president would only weaken the regions. The same is true of his plan to have the State Duma deputies elected on the party-list basis alone, while judging by numerous opinion polls, deputies elected by single-mandate constituencies have more influence in the lower house than those elected on party lists.

The Kremlin is introducing on the sly ideas that had been shelved for some five-six years. And who could have imagined they would use the blood of innocent children to bring their old draft bills back and to continue strengthening Putin's authoritarian regime!

How soon can the State Duma pass that law?

Honestly speaking, we should reject such proposals forthwith by addressing the president with a polite letter, because the Duma Charter says that the State Duma cannot discuss drafts that violate the Constitution. If the Duma is honest with the people, that is what it should do.

Gazeta.ru, September 13, 2004