Grigory Yavlinsky’s web-site, 19.03.2020

The situation with coronavirus is certainly serious. But there is no doubt that the mankind and all of us will cope with the pandemic. However, one cannot fail to notice that right now the events that will decisively determine our future are taking place in our country.

There were no illusions about what the Constitutional Court’s conclusion on Putin’s amendments and “zeroing out” [resetting] of the presidential terms would be (11 out of 15 judges, including the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, were appointed to these posts on the proposal of Vladimir Putin). However, it was unlikely that anyone could have imagined that the constitutionality of the rejection of a change of power in Russia would be justified by the fact that there is “developed parliamentarism, a real multi-party system, presence of political competition, an effective model of separation of powers, equipped with a system of checks and balances, and also ensuring rights and freedoms by independent justice, including the activities of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation” in our country today. Such an assessment of the Constitutional Court is either a demonstration of extreme cynicism or a legal absurdity in combination with a profound misunderstanding of reality.

In addition, it turned out that the Constitutional Court proceeds from the priority of political expediency over law and makes decisions on the basis of the principle “the end justifies the means”: “the legislator can take into account the specific historical factors of making the relevant decision, including the degree of threat to the state and society, the state of the political and economic systems, etc.” That is, the Constitutional Court, virtually decides that the head of state can remain in power for as long as necessary if “there are still a lot of vulnerable things… inside the country”, as the President said in his speech in the State Duma. “This also refers to domestic political stability, interethnic and inter-religious harmony, economic and social development,” Putin said then. And this is after 20 years of his continuous rule!

It turns out that the unsatisfactory governing of the country, which led to the deplorable “situation in the political and economic systems”, “growing threats to the state and society”, and “so on” (literally this is a quote from the conclusion), is a “concrete historical factor in the adoption of an appropriate decision” on the refusal of a change of power in Russia. That is, according to the judges of the Constitutional Court, the worse the results of the governing are, the longer the unhappy ruler has the right to stay in power.

In addition, it is in the Constitutional Court’s justification for this amendment that the “popular vote” emerges, which, it turns out, “gives additional constitutional legitimacy to the relevant decision”. “Additional constitutional legitimacy” is like “sturgeon of the second freshness”. But, most importantly, the Constitutional Court gives the unconstitutional plebiscite (Yabloko challenged the Supreme Court’s decree on voting on constitutional amendments in the Supreme Court) to establish constitutional legitimacy. This despite the fact that the organisers of the “resetting” deliberately ignored the need for a constitutional referendum. Thus, the authorities can organise a plebiscite at their discretion and at any time and issue with its help any decision that will now be declared a priority in relation to all other laws.

As for the preservation of one person in power, the confirmation of the authority of the “father of the nation”, as was already the case in the plebiscite – presidential elections of 2018, can persist, judging by the conclusion of the Constitutional Court, not only until 2036, but endlessly. “The constitutional principle of democracy means the possibility of the people exercising their right to elect in free elections the person whom it considers most worthy of the head of state post,” the judges of the Constitutional Court wrote.

These provisions in the 52-page document of the Constitutional Court are they key and clearly demonstrating the direction of thinking and the level of understanding of problems. In general, the logic of the judges of the Constitutional Court is absolutely Orwellian: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength”.

As a result, what happened in the Constitutional Court became significant: Putin’s illegal amendments and “nullification” were also supplemented by an unlawful decision of the main judicial body on constitutional control. The thesis that Putin’s changing of the Constitution is accompanied by the final discredit of the entire state system that is deliberately involved in this process is confirmed (see Putin’s amendments and “zeroing” are unlawful, March 2020). In fact, self-liquidation of Russian statehood is taking place before our eyes.

That is why the decision of the Constitutional Court was made in camera, in a hurry and secretly: no one heard the discussion, the ratio of the votes [ore and contra] of the judges was not made public. Nothing is known about their positions (if they were expressed at all). At the same time, member of the Constitutional Court Konstantin Aranovsky, who had expressed a special opinion about the succession of Russia and the USSR shortly before that, did not participate in the procedure (Chairman of the Constitutional Court Zorkin said that Aranovsky was “on a sick leave”). Accordingly, his dissenting opinion was gone this time.

I do not know if they are ashamed to be involved in this disgrace. Obviously, these people are guided by a resigned slavish understanding that despite legal, moral, and any other obstacles, Putin and his ideas about the state will dominate in Russia in the foreseeable perspective. They know that without Putin’s consent they won’t be part of the Constitutional Court, that with such “independent justice” they would not even receive a status pension. These people are scared. It was fear (certainly, not for the country, but for themselves and their privileges) that made them sign this shameful conclusion.

So, the marathon on the collapse of statehood, law and justice is almost complete. The conclusion of the Constitutional Court nullified the Constitution and the Russian legal system as a whole. A decree on a plebiscite is signed, and it will consolidate this collapse. After the “nullification” of the Constitution and law is confirmed by a “popular” vote, absolutely everything will be possible in Russia, but not for all.

PS .: The Constitutional Court completely ignored the Federal Law No. 33-FZ “On the Procedure for Adopting and Entering into Force of Amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation” of March 4, 1998, which is the main (special) legislative act adopted in the development of Article 136 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court turned a blind eye to the unconstitutionality of the amendment procedure.

Grigory Yavlinsky

Is Chairman of the Federal Political Committee of the Russian United Democratic Party YABLOKO, Vice President of Liberal International, PhD in Economics, Professor of the National Research University Higher School of Economics.