| JRL HOME | SUPPORT | SUBSCRIBE | RESEARCH & ANALYTICAL SUPPLEMENT | |
Old Saint Basil's Cathedral in MoscowJohnson's Russia List title and scenes of Saint Petersburg
Excerpts from the JRL E-Mail Community :: Founded and Edited by David Johnson
#13 - JRL 2007-228 - JRL Home
Russia Profile
www.russiaprofile.org
November 2, 2007
One Man's Will
Only Putin can Decide to Validate Russia's Laws

Comment by Georgy Bovt
Georgy Bovt is a Moscow-based political analyst.

Speculations about possible changes to the constitution to enable Vladimir Putin to run for a third term had abated for a while. Putin himself was responsible for cutting them short, having publicly stated on a number of occasions that he was not going to modify the constitution to suit his needs. People were reluctant to take his word for it, but at long last they started to believe him. However, in the past two weeks, immediately following the president's live call-in show, some strange new public actions began under the slogan "Putin should remain in office!"

The argument for changing the constitution is no longer as popular as it once was. Today it is resorted to only occasionally at public demonstrations sporadically organized by local authorities in different parts of the country that are officially presented as "spontaneous popular outbursts." Federation Council Speaker Sergei Mironov has even expressly stated that there remains a possibility for Putin to retain power "without modifying the constitution."

What are, theoretically speaking, the legal means of extending Vladimir Putin's term in office? The "simplest" of these would still be to amend the constitution, even though Putin himself is strongly against this. In order to do so, changes would have to be made to Chapter 4 of the country's main code of laws, which decrees that a president can serve no more than two terms in a row. The procedure of introducing such amendments is described in detail in Chapter 136. Despite the widespread popular view, there is no need to hold a referendum. Amendments to the constitution may be initiated (besides the president himself) by the speaker of the Duma, the head of the Federation Council, a group of deputies, either from the Duma or the Federation Council, consisting of no less than one fifth of total membership of either part of the Federal Assembly. Finally, they may be initiated by the legislative assembly of any one of the country's regions. It should be noted in this respect that three proposals to amend the constitution were at different times submitted to the Duma by regional legislatures: in 2002 by Magadan deputies, in 2003 by Ivanov deputies and in 2006 by Chechen legislators. Amendments to the constitution must be approved by two-thirds of each house of parliament and, after that, by two-thirds of Russia's regional legislative assemblies. The president's signature is not required.

Theoretically, there is another possibility, which doesn't require making changes to the constitution. Instead, the law on elections would have to be amended, or more specifically, the clause in it that deals with early presidential elections. At present, the law forbids a president who resigns prior to the end of his term to participate in early elections. On one hand, this provision may simply be annulled. On the other hand, the results of the first round of early presidential elections may be invalidated so as to enable the current president to take part in the second round. All of this, of course, presupposes that the president resigns prematurely.

Most of these scenarios seem rather cumbersome; some of them are outright ridiculous. It is hard to imagine how the first round of early presidential elections could be "delegitimized" in practice, to allow Putin to participate in the second round (most likely, the Constitutional Court would have to intervene). If actually implemented, most of the procedures outlined above would border on farce and be interpreted as a mockery of common sense as well as of the spirit of the constitution (if not, strictly speaking, its letter).

No doubt, the whole civilized world would immediately adopt a sarcastic attitude toward Russia if any of this were to happen. The West would have every reason to criticize the country, claiming once again that it failed to pass the "democracy test." Putin's international reputation, which he cherishes so much, will suffer accordingly. Pragmatically-minded investors, however, are more likely to welcome such a turn of events. They probably wouldn't mind if Putin's term in office were extended. Even if they are unsatisfied with some aspects of the president's policy, he embodies for them greater certainty than any other candidate.

As regards present-day Russia, there are no political or public organizations in our country that would be influential enough to resist legal experiments or abuses, even the most egregious ones. In the current situation, any amendments to the constitution or the code of laws, however preposterous, could be adopted without the slightest political resistance, or even public discussion. There won't be any mass protests either, since most politicians, lawmakers, and ordinary Russian citizens regard the constitution and all other laws as something secondary and second-rate, by far less important than political expediency. The law can always be disregarded, whereas political expediency, in the eyes of most Russians, requires that President Putin continue to rule the country after March 2008.

The overwhelming majority of Russian voters stand in favor of a third term, and they couldn't care less about the means of accomplishing this. The constitution and the code of laws have little, if any, authority or value for them. No more than one-third of Russians are strongly against a third term, but it is not clear whether they oppose it because they dislike Putin or because they privilege legality and constitutional principles over political expediency.

At present, the constitution still has validity, thanks to the stubbornness of a single person who keeps repeating that he doesn't want to rewrite the country's main code of laws. There are no more deterring factors, and that is the most appalling thing. But what else could be expected in a country whose citizens disregard written laws and regulations on a daily basis? As a result, we have reached a sort of national consensus, which sanctions disdain for legal principles, including those inscribed in the constitution. Everything is decided by specific circumstances, down-to-earth expediency, and informal personal ties, even if they are immoral and corrupt.

I believe that after (and if) Vladimir Putin leaves his post, guided by the letter of the law and not political expediency, he will remain an unrivalled national authority figure, but would have to prove to the political establishment and all Russian citizens the ultimate significance of his move. Putin's determination could change deep-seated stereotypes of behavior, which are a product of Russia's centuries-old political history, including, unfortunately, the post-Soviet years as well.