Moscow News
www.mnweekly.ru
November 21, 2008
To change or not to change?
By Daria Chernyshova
This definition, if I may be forgiven for quoting from Wikipedia, includes the most important word "fundamental." Any legal foundation for a nation should be the most significant achievement of the state, its very essence. As rules are to be preserved, the Constitution should be accurate, easily accessible - and hard to change.
But changes are exactly what is planned for Russia's Constitution with President Dmitry Medvedev hoping to extend the presidential term to six years, while granting State Duma deputies five-year terms. This continues a long-running pattern of regular changes to the foundations of our nation, dating back to the first draft of 1918. Now, after a 15-year pause, the law-makers hope to rewrite the statutes again. Such frequent changes of our fundamental laws - I'd like to stress the word ‘fundamental' again - lead to misunderstandings and confusion. Is it evidence of strong government? I believe the contrary. Then perhaps it's the benevolent pursuit of an ideal order? The U.S., for example, is also guilty of making amendments to its Constitution in the last 200 years. So when Putin chose to step down from office rather than change the rules of the game, the news was widely welcomed by western leaders and even the caustic international media.
Now, President Dmitry Medvedev has decided it is time to amend the Russian Constitution.
On the one hand, his proposed reforms promote strong and stable leadership, while giving reform measures time to work. But what does it say about the strength of our government when a single proclamation by a single politician can radically change our fundamental values?
It harks back to the constant chopping and changing of the 20th century, which saw the inaugural 1918 Constitution replaced in 1924 by a Soviet version. In 1936, it was changed again, prompting an annual November holiday and ushering in 40 years of relative stability. Then, in 1977, a further constitutional change rather clumsily confirmed the authority of the Communist Party even as stagnation plagued the nation. The cataclysms of the early 1990s was greatly responsible for giving us the legislation that was constructed under Boris Yeltsin's government. Should we be expected to stay on that same path?
By contrast, across the Atlantic, America has maintained its Constitution more or less intact since 1789. Ours has lasted a mere 15 years, and within that frame of time it has achieved important things, shaping our social institutions and the way of life for millions of people. Addressing the Federal Assembly, Dmitry Medvedev pointed out the Russian Constitution's decisive role in developing democracy, building a new legal system, promoting economic freedoms, and providing social guarantees.
So why change the Constitution? The plan seems dubious, and it's not exactly clear why it is needed, especially since it has provoked sharp criticism both at home and abroad.
Some years ago, people knew when to mark Constitution Day - nowadays people have to think about it. Whatever the outcome of the latest amendments, I hope that the proposed changes will enjoy a serious debate.