Press Release, 12.10.2018

A few days ago, Valery Zorkin, Chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, said that it is necessary to “pinpoint changes” to the Russian Constitution in order to eliminate the shortcomings of the Fundamental Law of the Russian Federation.

Yabloko’s Viktor Sheinis, one of the authors of the Constitution and member of the Federal Political Committee of Yabloko, argues on the Zorkin initiative.

“Only Valery Zorkin did not bother to explain what changes he would consider “pinpointed” and what radical. For example, extending the presidential term of office by 1.5 times – is it a pinpointed or a radical change? You gave [the president] six years instead of four. Or let us take the issue about turning [Russia] from the European way of the development to the ‘Euroasian’ way of development – do they consider it a “pinpointed change”? Sheinis says.

He also notes that many of the Russian MPs would like to eliminate from the Russian Constitution the provision that international treaties of the Russian Federation are superior to the domestic law. This is a very disturbing trend. “Is it positive?! Will that be ‘pinpointed’ or radical changes?!” Sheinis asks.

Sheinis also notes that Valery Zorkin virtually does not dwell on the need to ensure true independence of the branches of power: the legislative, the executive and the judiciary, which, in fact is very vague today. He also provides an example of President’s appointment of the Chair of the Constitutional Court which is a violation of the Constitution. Nevertheless, there is such a law, which, according to Sheinis, violates the Constitution. The Presidential Administration should be a servicing body, it does not have any independent powers.

According to Sheinis, “a political reform is needed: so that the balance of powers is preserved, so that the parliament, the court and mass media be independent… There should be an opposition and a …[true] multi-party system, not just branches of the ruling party [like today], but independent parties.”

“I think that one should not start with the Constitution. This would be like starting from the middle, not from the beginning. You can change the Constitution, but it will do nothing, if the changes touch only its text. A political reform must precede a constitutional reform,” Shenis notes.