1993 Constitution Could have Supported a Very Different Direction in Russia’s Political Development, Shablinsky Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Dec. 12 – The 1993 Russian Constitution while heavily presidential in format could have supported an entirely different direction of political development than Russia has experienced, Ilya Shablinsky says, one vastly more democratic had the population demanded its rights rather than passively accepted what the powers did.

            Instead, because of the absence of such demands, Vladimir Putin and his regime were not only able to create a highly authoritarian state but amend the constitution by the vote of the people to make the current dictatorial system constitutional, the Moscow Helsinki Group legal specialist says.

            What happened in 1993 and even more with the Putin constitutional amendments of 2008. 2013, and 2023 was the seizure of effective power by one group because the other group did not effectively take part and insist on a compromise (znak.com/2021-12-12/chto_mozhet_ostanovit_proizvol_silovikov_v_rf_i_yavlyayutsya_li_qr_kody_ogranicheniem_prav).

            On the one hand, this is a danger for any constitution. If one group exploits its provisions to its benefit and other groups do not demand that provisions within it that benefit them be observed, a fundamentally democratic document can become the basis for authoritarian rule, Shablinsky suggests.

            But on the other, this was a particular threat in Russia because of the tight organization of the siloviki and the passiveness and deferential patriarchal nature of Russian society. However, the experience of other countries suggest that when the dictator departs, those who have voted the way they were told will be ready to vote entirely differently.

            Obviously, for Russia to move forward, the legal specialist says, all of the Putin amendments need to be scrapped. But much of the language in the 1993 Constitution can and should be retained. What is required is the development of a population prepared to demand its rights in the inevitable competition with other groups, including siloviki.

            One place where the Russian constitution should be changed, he suggests, involves the judiciary. The independence and power of the courts must be strengthened. Now they are very weak, but “when the courts become independent from the executive power, then the issue about the arbitrariness of the siloviki will go away by itself.”

            The reason for that conclusion, Shabinsky says, is this: “The siloviki inall countries are more or less the same. One should not demonize only ours. But where there is control by society, where law prevails, and where the judges are independent, the siloviki have fewer opportunities to engage in arbitrary action.”