Grigory Yavlinsky’s web-site, 11.03.2020

Apparently, the Kremlin’s special operation with respect to the Constitution has come to the finish line. With the help of the amendment proposed by the deputy-cosmonaut [Valentina Tereshkova], all the terms of the incumbent President are proposed to be “nullified” [or “reset”] so that Putin could remain in power for at least another 16 years. The President, certainly, agrees with everything. Further, the Constitutional Court will be obliged to recognise the “space amendment” as lawful (although in 1998 the same Constitutional Court considered “nullification” for Boris Yeltsin unlawful), then a plebiscite – and Putin will be forever. But the fact is that the whole procedure (invented in the Kremlin for finalisation of the irremovability of the president’s person) to amend the Basic Law of the Russian Federation in all its components is unlawful, illegal and does not comply with the current Constitution either in content or in form.

It concerns:

• the content of Putin’s amendments;
• amendment forms;
• procedures for discussion and voting on amendments in three readings;
• the proposed adoption of the amendments by the Federal Assembly;
• the signing of the Presidential Amendment Act;
• “resetting” of the presidential term;
• “popular vote” for the amendments;
• changes to the current Constitution.

The final delegitimisation, that is, the deprivation of all legitimacy, of the country’s Constitution puts the future of Russia at risk. In the same way as the spontaneous, ill-conceived and unverified Belovezhskaya Accords of 1991 caused the bloodshed in Donbass after more than two decades.

Thus,

1. The content of the amendments introduced by Putin affects, without doubt, the topics and subjects directly related to Chapters 1 and 2 of the Constitution, the change of which should be carried out in a completely different order and requires the convening of the Constitutional Assembly. The Constitutional Assembly shall be convened in accordance with the federal constitutional law (which has not been adopted so far) if the proposal to revise the provisions of Chapters 1, 2 and 9 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation (“Fundamentals of the Constitutional System”, “Rights and Freedoms of Man and Citizen”, “Constitutional Amendments and Revision of the Constitution”) will be supported by 3/5 of the total number of members of the Federation Council and State Duma deputies. None of this is being done or is envisaged, although the amendments proposed by Putin contradict the provisions of the current Constitution and violate the fundamental rights and freedoms of Russian citizens (see the expert opinion of the Yabloko party).

2. The 1998 Law “On the Procedure for the Adoption and Entry into Force of Amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation” requires a justification for the need for each constitutional amendment. This has not been done: the explanatory note to the bill outlines the content of the amendments, but does not explain the reasons and purpose of their introduction. Justification is lacking not because of negligence, but because the real motives for changing the Constitution are carefully hidden from society: it is an attempt to legalise a corporate nomenclature-bureaucratic state with an ideology of demagogic patriotism, and any other explanation will be obviously false and extremely confusing.

3. Putin’s amendments, which are introduced in Chapters 3 through 8, relate to fundamentally different topics: the powers and competence of the bodies of power, the composition of government, local self-government, international law, the social sphere, and the rights of citizens. However, the 1998 law “On the Procedure of Adoption and Entry into Force of Amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation” expressly prohibits introduction of various and multidirectional amendments to the Constitution through the mechanism of one amendment. It establishes that one law of the Russian Federation on the amendment of the Constitution can only cover “interrelated changes to the constitutional text”. The implementation of this rule requires introduction and consideration of at least six separate laws in the present situation.

4. The voting procedure for amendments provided for by the 1998 law is grossly violated. The Constitutional Law, approved by the State Duma and the Federation Council, must be ratified by representative bodies of at least 2/3 of the subjects of the Russian Federation. The legislation, naturally, proceeds from the fact that the republics, regions and territories of the Russian Federation and their representative bodies are autonomous, independent political entities that will seriously consider and discuss the proposed changes. This takes time, and the law provides it: one year. However, the reality is quite different: on March 10, the State Duma and on March 11, the Federation Council considered the constitutional amendment; on March 12 the adopted law will be sent to the regions, which will express their position within one more day.

5. Putin’s decree on the preparation of a plebiscite is also unlawful and unconstitutional (the “popular vote” under the amendments, in fact, turns into a plebiscite on Putin’s virtually indefinite rule). Neither the 136th Article of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, nor the 1998 law provide for the possibility of such a vote (see in detail: Yabloko contested in the Supreme Court Putin’s order to vote on constitutional amendments).

Thus, both in content and in form, the entire process of changing the Constitution of Russia, carried out by Putin since January 15, 2020, is unlawful. Everything that happens is a mine for our future. Sooner or later, the Constitution of the country will be justifiably recognised by society or its part as unlawful, and this will become the subject of acute civil conflict.

In this situation, the country and the people turn out to be hostages of the adventure of people who, in virtue of circumstances, were vested with enormous power, but who did not realise their responsibility adequate to this power. These people are guided by momentary political motives, the main of which is the retention of power, the voluntarist adaptation of the state to its corporate goals and very questionable ideas about the historical and philosophical essence of Russia, as well as its place and role in the world.  And these unfortunate rulers are simply unable to assess the nature and the scope of the consequences of their actions.

Putin has been trying to solve his main problem with the help of unconstitutional amendments: the change of power. In his speech in the State Duma on resetting of the presidential term, he pays a lot of attention to this topic: he argues that turnover [of power] will be necessary when the political, economic and social spheres become stable, when the state becomes less vulnerable from the outside. But in reality, none of this will ever be achieved without the change of power. Corruption, theft, total decay of the management system cannot be overcome without regular change of power. It is impossible for society to participate in the governance of the country, social elevators do not work, and the gap between the people and the authorities at all levels is increasingly turning into an abyss without the change of power. Finally, without a change of power the country will remain extremely vulnerable to the external influences that Putin is so afraid of. Because it is impossible to build a strong economy in a stagnant corrupt system, it is impossible to guarantee the safety of citizens.

A well-known statement by Ella Pamfilova’s [head of the Central Electoral Commission] about a “complex lunch” (see Voting on the Constitution is like a complex lunch. The opinion of the head of the CEC) is extremely cynical and extremely humiliating for citizens, but essentially says that this is not about amendments to the current Basic Law, but about a completely different Constitution. At the same time, the entire legal procedure for its creation, discussion and adoption was deliberately discarded; instead, an absolutely illegal sham was hastily invented. The humiliating action to implement it involves the Federal Assembly, the Supreme and the Constitutional Court, and regional legislative assemblies that renounce their subjectivity, and the Central Electoral Commission. The apotheosis of the unconstitutional process will be the “popular vote”, which will bind all by means of nationwide mutual responsibility.

The result of this adventure will be the final and complete delegitimisation of the post-Soviet Russian state (see “Lies and Legitimacy”, April 2011), approaching the line beyond which there is a “failed state” and another collapse of the country. A weak corporate-authoritarian state, which will approve the sham constitution, will certainly not cope with future problems and challenges. This will cause many troubles and, possibly, a tragedy.

***

To date, the situation looks depressing. The authorities are pushing the unlawful change of the Constitution with all their might and supplementing their amendments with increasingly dangerous and absurd provisions: on the “state-forming people” and the equality of this people with other peoples of Russia; about “the memory of the ancestors who transmitted to us ideals and faith in God”; about Russia as the successor of the USSR, the country of aggressive atheism; about the right and duty of the state to “protect the historical truth”. Such insertions into the Constitution are extremely vague, contradictory, and at any moment can lead to serious conflicts in society.

Putin has recently stated that the amended Constitution is meant for “a minimum thirty or fifty years”. By this, the President wanted to emphasise the fundamental, qualitative nature of the changes taking place. There are serious doubts that the eclectic non-legal construction created on his initiative will last for some time, that it is generally operational. However, there is no doubt that what is happening now will have far-reaching consequences for the country and every citizen of Russia.

Why does Putin need all this? The fact is that with inaction and the absence of initiatives on his part, he will already lose control: uncertainty and instability are growing, the struggle of groups will intensify. If in this situation Putin does not do anything, he will become a lame duck. His personal failure as a statesman is that the system he built does not allow him to give some kind of institutional answer, do what Putin talks so much about – to create the basis of stability not only for decades, but at least for the coming years. This is precisely what the performance in the State Duma demonstrates. Instead of amending the Constitution in accordance with the requirements of the time and for the institutional strengthening of the state, there comes instrumentalisation of the Basic Law, which undermines the legitimacy of the state. And such issues as the economy and the well-being of people within the given frameworks are out of the question. There is no place for them.

Effective resistance to this is possible only through the recognition by the active part of society of the need to engage in politics. To this end, there has been prepared an alternative reflecting the growing demand for change. These are amendments by the Public Constitutional Council, developed and proposed in full accordance with applicable law and paving the way for the building of a strong modern democratic state in Russia. To vote against Putin’s amendments or to boycott the vote is not enough. An alternative (the alternative amendment package) should be supported. The goal is not a struggle for a “place in the sun” in Putin’s mafia-corporate system and self-preservation in the hope of physically “staying out”, but preventing the institutional consolidation of this system, accompanied by the destruction of the legitimacy of the Russian state (see “Putin is paving the way for creation of a totalitarian state in Russia“, March 2020 )

If this initiative is not implemented, they will continue to forcefully and absolutely unlawfully to feed the society with “complex lunches” from stale vinaigrette, borsch and stewed fruit in one trough.

By the way, mass events in Moscow (by decree of Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin) are already banned in connection with the coronavirus.

Source

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.