For Putin, Constitutional Plebiscite ‘A Mistake Worse than a Crime,’ Pastukhov Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, June 3 – A remark often attributed to Talleyrand but in fact having as its author Antoine de la Meurthe, the author of the Code Napoleon, national leaders sometimes act in ways that are “worse than a crime” because they are “a mistake.” That observation applies with special force to Putin’s decision to go ahead with a vote on the constitution, Vladimir Pastukhov says.   

            Putin invoked the idea of a constitutional referendum in order to cover the crime he was involved with, one that was undermining the provisions of the existing basic law, the London-based Russian analyst says. But now he has compounded that with a mistake by going ahead with the plebiscite even though the pandemic provided him with a perfect excuse not to.

            The Kremlin leader could have used the coronavirus to delay the vote or even better to cancel it altogether, but instead, he has pressed ahead and will be holding it during the pandemic and thus raising more questions not only about the contents of the changes but about Putin’s judgment (mbk-news.appspot.com/sences/konstitucionnyj-eksgibicionizm/).

            Putin’s plans for a referendum were developed under one set of circumstances and had the obvious goal of “masking the constitutional overturn” he is carrying out and giving it “the appearance of something solid and legitimate,” Pastukhov continues. That may have made sense even though it was a crime, but the situation has changed and Putin is making a mistake.

            “The attitude of the masses has changed,” the analyst says, and people are now angry rather than simply willing to rubber stamp Putin’s plans. “Not to consider this circumstance means to show impermissible political near-sightedness” and to engage instead in “constitutional exhibitionism.” 

            With people still fearful of the coronavirus and distance voting being put in place, this referendum will not give Putin “any additional legitimacy” even if he wins. Rather, the whole thing will “on the contrary ever more delegitimize” the process and its author.  Putin would have seen that earlier in his career, but now he apparently lacks the ability to do so.

            He may get away with this at one level, but he has inflicted harm on himself and his system at another. And that harm may be far greater than he or his supporters now suspect even if with falsification, he claims victory after July 1.

            One measure of this self-inflicted loss is the protest of nearly 200 local and regional deputies against the constitutional changes.  What makes this especially important is that they are actually elected by the Russian people rather than appointed by Putin. And so they are speaking for far more than themselves (graniru.org/Politics/Russia/Election/m.279161.html).

            And their words are ringing: “Putin hopes,” they write, “that society will support his aspirations for power. He wants to receive approval for his shameful desires with the help of an obviously unconstitutional procedure that is absolutely uncontrolled by civil society … [But] we categorially do not support Vladimir Putin’s amendments.”

            “The destroy the Russian state and create a threat to its very existence in the near future. These changes are incompatible with freedom and democracy, and with the dignity and rights of man. We call on all citizens of Russia to show by their voting their disagreement with this usurpation of power.”

            “On us, free and responsible citizens, the future of Russia now depends. We are not afraid … We do not intend to hand over our future and the future of our children to temporary figures who want to hold on for decades. We feel the support of the majority of citizens of Russia.” And we are convinced that “Russia will be free.”