President Vladimir Putin's proposed
administrative reforms, now passing through the State
Duma, violate a number of provisions in the
Constitution, as well as Constitutional Court rulings
that -- according to the Constitution -- are not subject
to review. The experts have identified precisely which
provisions are at risk: Article 73, which states that
Russia's 89 subyekty, or constituent regions, possess
the full range of state powers not specifically held by
the federal government or jointly held by the federal
and regional governments; and articles 83 and 84, which
spell out the powers and duties of the president.
Elements of Putin's proposals -- the
appointment of mayors and dissolution of regional
legislatures -- violate half the articles in the
Constitution and the very concept of federalism
enshrined in our country's official name: the Russian
Federation. I don't believe that Putin's reforms are
somehow inherently illegal, however. But they will be if
the Federal Assembly introduces them without first
amending the Constitution.
Instituting proper procedures for the
adoption of new laws would be a real change in the
Constitution. If a majority of Russian citizens no
longer want to live in a federation, there's nothing
undemocratic about that. If there is any doubt as to
whether Russians want to live in a unified state with
appointed mayors, we could hold a referendum on the
appropriate amendments to the Constitution. Even if
there seemed to be no doubt, we could hold a referendum
to make certain.
It's said that holding a referendum,
like holding an election, is an expensive business. This
is both true and false. On the one hand, any large
undertaking like this costs a fair amount of money. On
the other hand, decisions taken by our leaders without
the benefit of public feedback often end up costing far
more. The residents of California and many other states
regularly vote in referenda that set policy and make
law. These referenda, which are held in addition to
elections, are conducted at the state and municipal
levels. As a result, politicians don't have to guess
where the people stand on a certain issue.
But let's return to the issue of
amending the Russian Constitution. I agree that it would
be strange to come across a provision such as the
following: "The electronic mass media enjoy freedom of
speech to the extent determined by the corresponding
government agencies." Our Constitution would certainly
plummet to the bottom of the world constitution
rankings. But at least an amendment like this would help
to remove the cognitive dissonance we encounter in the
present Constitution. There are limits on freedom of
speech, and here's what they are.
Or how about this: "The financing of
opposition political organizations is forbidden, except
in cases determined by the corresponding state
agencies." Honest and to the point. The advantage would
be that we wouldn't have to keep two Constitutions in
our heads -- the one on paper and the one we actually
live by.
Konstantin Sonin is an assistant
professor at the New Economic School/CEFIR.
.gif){kind=spacer}