Paul Goble
Staunton,
December 12 – Many analysts are inclined to blame the presidentialist nature of
the 1993 Russian Constitution for the rise of authoritarianism under Vladimir
Putin; but Sergey Shelin argues that is a mistake and that Putin’s approach to
rule “arose not because a quarter of a century ago this document was adopted.”
The Rosbalt commentator says that the
power vertical at the core of the Putin system has been built on the basis of more
or less informal understandings rather than on the basis of constitutions or
laws. Thus, whatever defects the constitution has – and it has many, he says –
it didn’t provide the road map to today (rosbalt.ru/blogs/2018/12/12/1752413.html).
“The 1993 Constitution is the first Basic
Law in Russian history, the initiators of which seriously intended to live and
work within its framework. And for a good decade,” Shelin continues, “it could
be called effective” in that regard. Indeed,
it put into legal form the results of “the small civil war” which had occurred
two months before.
And it did so in a remarkable way. “The
victors at that time did not seek to make their rule absolute,” and they made
it clear by the document they drafted, approved and for a time lived under, “wanted
to construct a society of a contemporary type.” The Constitution reflects both
of these things.
The constitution combines both a
clear definition of rights, so clear that proclaiming them now in the streets
could invite arrest, and a clear definition of the powers of the president to
control many things, something Putin certainly wants to emphasize. But there is
no simple answer to whether the 1993 document ineluctably led to Putinism.
“In October 1993,” Shelin says, “the
presidential power won a victory in a difficult struggle and one of these tasks
… was to ensure that such a struggle would not begin again, but the authorities
did not attempt to legalize its role as the only power in the country.” Instead, it created a number of centers of
power under the president.
But that is not the basic problem of
the constitution. Its basic weaknesses concern federalism. “At some points, the
subjects of the Federation are presented almost as autonomous states, but in others
as territories entirely run from above.” The constitution did not resolve these
disputes which had roiled the political scene in the early 1990s but simply put
them on hold.
Despite its references to a single
power system, Shelin says, “the Basic Law would not have interfered with the division
of powers and the strengthening of rights if the country had wanted to move in
that direction.” A quarter of a century ago, it looked like that might be a possibility.
But that hasn’t happened.
“Today,” Shelin concludes, the 1993
Constitution is a monument to our 1990s, with all their unachieved hopes and
missed opportunities.” It was not in and of itself a road map to where Russia
is now.
No comments:
Post a Comment