In this article the author, Mykyta Vorobiov, a Senior Editor for Long Form Content and student at Bard College in Berlin, explores the significant changes made to Russia’s Constitution following the controversial 2020 referendum that allowed President Vladimir Putin to extend his rule. The amendments faced claims of illegitimacy and violations, with experts arguing that they undermined the foundational legal order. The article then delves into the efforts of Russian scholars who, in light of the ongoing political turmoil, have proposed a New Russian Constitution aimed at transforming the nation into a federative republic that encourages civic engagement and decentralizes power. This proposed framework includes mechanisms for local governance, the protection of indigenous cultures, and enhanced citizen participation in politics. While the draft has received mixed reactions, it represents a proactive step towards preparing for potential democratic reforms in Russia.
In 2020, Russia`s government held a notorious referendum about amendments to its legal system and, as a result of 78% per cent votes in favor of them, changed the Constitution adopted in 1993. More than 200 changes were accepted. Some opposition politicians and independent election monitors claimed that multiple violations occurred during the referendum, stating that the results did not reflect the actual vote.
The amendments “zeroed” Putin’s terms in power after 2024 and allowed him to be elected as a President two more times (after his previous four terms). The changes also solidified certain ideological provisions, strengthened the president’s power and centralised power in Moscow. They described Russia as a successor state of the USSR, defined marriage as a “union between a man and a woman”, eliminating, in fact, the dim theoretical hope for the recognition of same-sex marriages in the country, and cemented “trust in God, transferred by ancestors,” that can hardly be seen in a constitution of secular states.
Many of these changes seem to be not only ideological but also unconstitutional. Independent experts claim that it is illegal to vote for a whole package of amendments that consists of hundreds of provisions that are not connected to each other. Instead, the vote should have been held separately about each group of amendments. They also claim that the amendments jeopardise the foundations of the constitutional order. Putin promised not to change the first two foundational chapters of the Constitution, which can not legally be altered through a referendum, and he did it. However, by amending the rest of the chapters, he invalidated provisions from the first two foundational chapters, undermining the core legal order in the country. Therefore, most of the independent experts stated that the amendments are unconstitutional.
After the outbreak of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, many Russian academics and politicians were threatened and ended up in exile. Those trained in law started to consider what the Russian Constitution should look like after the end of Putin`s authoritarian rule. The Institute for Global Reconstitution, the project to rethink a current Russian constitution, run by three scholars, Greg Yudin, Evgeny Roschin and Artemy Magun, presented a project on the New Russian Constitution.
The New Constitution comprises seven sections: basic provisions, principles of the federal structure and democratic federalism, federal bodies of authority, freedom protection bodies, state of emergency, judicial authority and procedure for adopting and revising the constitution. It starts from the proposition to rename Russia into the Union of Republics of Russia, highlighting the country’s federative structure. In the “basic provisions” section, the authors introduce the principle of civic virtue, which will become the project’s core. According to scholars, this principle is to be cultivated through “civic upbringing and education”, putting civil society in the central place of the new federative republic. The basic provisions also include the promotion of mutual care by citizens.
Developing civil society, the authors want to encourage Russian people to be more involved in day-to-day politics. To achieve this goal, the Institute suggests creating a sophisticated self-governance system with House Committees and Housing Association Committees that will manage the common affairs in housing units and neighbouring areas. The Committees will send their representatives to the Citizens’ Council, and the Council, in turn, will influence municipal politics. Such a system will decentralise political life and create a bottom-up local governance system.
Also, the Constitution aims to make the Russian Federation an actual federative republic, bring equality to all its republics, and guarantee the protection of indigenous people, their cultures and languages. The new constitution prescribes that each republic should have “authorities, including the Republican Assembly, the Government and the Republican Court.” Therefore, both in the provisions about local self-governance through Housing Comities and enhancing the power of republics, the authors are making a step towards decentralising power in the country. This move can be seen as the opposite of what Vladimir Putin has done through his recent amendments, solidifying the power around Moscow and his own figure.
The legal experts’ opinions about this idea of the new constitution were different. As DW reports, a municipal deputy in Moscow, Tatyana Kasimova, compared such a project with Soviet rule, which also had housing committees. Ivan Kurilla, a professor at Wellesley College, stated that the draft could backfire because it contains no means of protecting citizens from the state, and local committees’ decisions might later become censorship tools. Lawyer Mikhail Benyash criticisedthe draft for not listing fundamental human rights.
However, some scholars also expressed positive attitudes towards this project. lIya Matveev called the draft of a newRussian constitution “a hybrid of Athenian democracy and the Roman republic”. He appreciated the idea of increased involvement of Russian citizens in politics but warned that the rejection of party politics may backfire. Some experts complimented the fresh concept for bravery but cautioned that this draft is still raw.
When the opportunity for change appears, these legal ideas will be ready to be immediately used by politicians who might not have enough time to develop a comprehensive legal system themselves. The projects, rethinking the Constitution, might inspire future democratic forces with practical ideas on how to enhance the participation of people in politics, decentralise the country and prevent another dictator from coming. Therefore, while academics are unable to work inside the country, pondering over new conceptions might be helpful. The project offered by the Institute for Global Reconstitution, so far, is too raw to be called a new constitution, but it offers some fresh and bold ideas for solidifying civil society that might be helpful if democratic changes in Russia occur. The draft might serve as a guidebook for future legal actions if updated and appropriately developed in the following months.
