#6
gazeta.ru
December 11, 2001
Co-Author of Constitution on Extending Putin's Term
The very same day as being elected chairman of the Federation Council, Sergei Mironov an old acquaintance of President Putin, spoke in favour of considerably extending the term of presidential rule in Russia. Many believe Mironov’s proposal is a signal of the beginning of a campaign by the Kremlin to ensure Putin stays in power for at least another 15 years, a move that would require fundamental changes to the Russian Constitution. In an interview with Gazeta.Ru co-author of the current Russian Constitution Sergei Shakhrai gives his opinion of the proposed changes to the Constitution.
Last Thursday the new speaker of the upper house Sergei Mironov suggested that the constitutional term of office of the Russian head of state should be extended from four to seven years.
Valery Goreglyad, the leader of the pro-presidential alliance of upper house senators called ‘Federatsia’ or ‘Federation’ immediately backed the proposal.
However, although it would appear that the initiative to extend Putin’s term in office was concocted within the walls of the presidential administration, the well-known Russian politician Sergei Shakhrai, one of the co-authors of the Federal Constitution, told Gazeta.Ru that neither Sergei Mironov, nor his colleague Goreglyad, the leader of ‘Federatsia’, had discussed the idea with the president.
On December 12 Russia marks Constitution Day. On that day eight years ago the Russian people endorsed the current Constitution of the Russian Federation.
On the eve of the 8th anniversary of the adoption of the Russian Constitution, Sergei Shakhrai who together with Sergei Alexeyev elaborated the fundamental Russian law back in 1993, granted the following interview to Gazeta.Ru in which he comments on the recent proposals to radically revise certain provisions of the Constitution.
Mr.Shakhrai, what do you think of the idea to amend the Constitution? In your opinion, do you think that time has come to change anything therein?
Today, for me as a lawyer and a politician remembering the eerie period (in early 1990s) when the old Constitution (adopted in 1978) was no longer working and the new law had still not come into force, one thing seems obvious: as soon as they start voting for amendments, everything will again collapse at once.
I believe that given the fact that the effective Constitution is a framework act, changing it is likely only to entail further difficulties.
We have the Constitutional Court that can give interpretations of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court may remove any ambiguity. Besides, the Constitution envisages the adoption of federal laws designed to fill the existing gaps. We are to adopt thousands more such laws, hence there is no need to change the Constitution.
Otherwise we will knock everything loose again: Starting with good intentions we will end up opening a Pandora’s box.
Therefore, if after all the issue of the Constitution is raised, one should work on the project in its entirety, and not chop off pieces.
The other day the new speaker of the Federation Council spoke in favour of extending the presidential term of rule in Russia. In your opinion, is such a proposal well founded? And in your opinion how long should the new term be: five or seven years?
I would like to answer that question, firstly, in my capacity as a professional lawyer, and then from the standpoint of political necessity.
Article 81 of the Russian Constitution reads that the president of the Russian Federation shall be elected for a term of four years.
In compliance with the law, to amend that provision the proposal would need the backing of two thirds of the State Duma deputies, three quarters of the Federation Council senators and two thirds of the regional legislatures. (Gazeta.Ru note: In Russia there are 89 regions which in the Constitution are defined as ‘subjects of the federation’. Each region has its own parliament, therefore the approval of 2/3 of the 89 local parliaments is also required to make amendments to the Constitution).
On the one hand, it seems somewhat complicated to do so. Nonetheless, given the present-day situation, the idea may as well be implemented. Such is the legal aspect of the matter.
At the same time, from the standpoint of political necessity, even if that amendment is passed it will apply only to the next presidential term of office. The new term of office, a term of five, or seven, or maybe even fifteen years, would begin as from the next presidential election date - March 7, 2004.
Since everyone understands perfectly well, that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin by all means will run for a second term in office, for him the 2004 poll will be not only a vote for his personality and his deeds, but also for that amendment. In fact a mini-referendum will be held.
I think, that (the new FC speaker Sergei) Mironov did not coordinate his proposal (concerning the extension of presidential term – Gazeta.Ru) with Putin. But then again why should he need to?
He is the chairman of the Federation Council, an independent political figure, well known as a deputy and a lawyer.
Sergei Mikhailovich (Mironov) never said that the Constitution needs to be changed tomorrow.
It was, I’d say, a public deliberation. But since in his official capacity the speaker is the third figure in the state hierarchy and a man from Putin’s team, everybody has begun to guess whether the president issued the order. Putin did not. I know that for certain.
If the Constitution is amended before Vladimir Putin’s present term of office expires, will that legally enable the incumbent president to retain power for three consecutive terms: his first term of 4 years (2000-2004) plus two more terms (of 7 years each)?
We are an interesting nation indeed, living in a world of myths and abbreviations and moving in a circle. The ink has hardly dried on the Constitutional Court’s ruling on Yeltsin’s case.
At that time the State Duma inquired with the Constitutional Court whether the period during which Yeltsin ruled Russia before the adoption of the new Constitution (1991-1993) should be considered as his first term of office. The Constitutional Court said: “Yes. That was his first term”.
The Constitutional Court will not change its legal stance.
The only thing that lawyers could devise is that when amending the provision on the length of the presidential term they include a clause saying that the amended provision shall not apply to the earlier term of presidency.
Why did not you make the presidential term of office 7 years from the very beginning? Such proposals were made at the time the Constitution was drawn up.
In the times when the modern Constitution was elaborated everything was very much personified. Everyone understood that the issue concerned president Yeltsin. The opposition that was very powerful at the time would never have accepted such a term.
For the authors of the Constitution that meant that the ‘7-year provision’ could have destroyed the entire text of the act.
Was there any sense to insist? Moreover, the argument was almost the same: the proponents of the 7-year term cited France as an example. Later the French themselves reduced the term. Thus, it emerged, that we had been right (not to introduce a 7 year term) in the first place.
It is said that apart from amending the term of presidential rule, more amendments may be proposed pertaining to the procedure of the formation of the Federation Council? Do you think such changes are appropriate?
At present the Constitution outlines basic things: it says that the legislative organ should have a chamber of regional representatives.
According to the Constitution, two deputies from each subject of the Federation are to be members of the Federation Council: one from the representative body and one from the executive body of the regional authority.
Such wording suggests that several variants are possible.
Transitional provisions (P. II of the Constitution) envisage that representatives to the Federation Council shall be elected on the basis of a direct vote by secret ballot. That is exactly how the Federation Council of the 1st calling was formed.
Later the new order was introduced, the one that exists now: Each region (of Russia’s 89) is represented in the upper house by 2 senators.
Sergei Mironov has suggested that senators should be elected directly by the residents of the regions.
And on this point I fully agree with him.
I think that the new procedure of forming the upper house should be as follows. Governors would propose their candidates and regional parliaments would propose theirs. The population would be invited to vote either in favour or against those candidates, in other words, to give them a vote of confidence or no confidence.
Thus, senators would receive a vote of confidence, not from the governors or regional legislatures, but directly from the residents of the regions.
I am convinced that in 2003 we will have not only State Duma elections but also elections to the Federation Council.
If you were now offered to rewrite the Constitution of Russia anew, how would the new document differ from the one that we have now?
It would be even wiser.
Next Article