Against the background of the duty panegyrics on the occasion of the 20 anniversary jubilee of the Constitution, two proposals for introducing fundamental changes to its text evoked a public response. A group of Orthodox public figures called for a reference to the special role of Orthodoxy in the formation of Russia and its culture. And the deputy Yevgeny Fedorov stated the need to lift the ban on the state ideology and cancel the priority of “international” legislation over our national.
The howl of liberals of all stripes makes it possible to say that both of them are in the top ten, as they say. They are outraged by the very thought of revising the “sacred” Constitution and are voting on the supposedly existing desire of the ROC to make Orthodoxy a state religion. This is accompanied by “pugals” about the protests of Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Catholics, Protestants, shamanists, violation of the rights of atheists and about the soon turning of Russia into “Orthodox Iran”, where tomorrow women will be forbidden to go without a headscarf ...
If these were children, it would be possible to say: they are fooling around, that is, they are posing as fools. Because adults cannot but know that it was the common faith that formed the Russian people from the loose union of the tribes, who then created Russia. What exactly the values of Orthodoxy formed the basis of the national worldview, culture and state ideology. And that this basis has been preserved even when, at the “imperial” stage of development, streams of other peoples and cultures flowed into the Russian river. Moreover, even in the atheistic Soviet era, the “Moral Code of the Builder of Communism” was based on Christian tenets ...
So they know, but they lie. Why? Because today Russia is at a very important stage: after two decades of liberal timelessness, when we were moving in a dead end, we are finally trying to realize what Russia is, where it went from and where it should go. And the mention in the preamble of the Constitution of Orthodox roots is not only a statement of an indisputable fact, but also a claim that we will rely on our traditional values and approaches. And not on Western dogmas - the cult of consumption and success, the primacy of the personal over the public, “freedom”, understood as maximum rights with minimum responsibilities ... That is, it’s about a change of course, and it is this, and not the offended feelings of the Chukchi shamans, that the liberals are outraged , who rushed to defend the "inviolability of the Constitution."
Absolutely from the same opera - a negative reaction to the proposals of the group Fedorov. After all, the constitutionally enshrined absence of state ideology is Russia's refusal from the right to have its own national values, its own path of development. That is, the prospect friendly to liberals for Russia - “to be a trailer trailer for someone else’s train” was laid down in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. And the primacy of international law over national law is nothing more than an indicator of the actual absence of sovereignty and the presence of external governance.
“Yes, but the Constitution is holy, it cannot be touched!” - liberals are outraged. Sorry, gentlemen, but, first, the proposals to amend or even replace the Constitution are a normal political struggle, and not an illegal appeal for a violent change of the constitutional order. And secondly, the Constitution is not the Bible. This is just a more or less democratically adopted Basic Law, by which the victorious political force legitimizes its tenure. This is especially true of the current Yeltsin's Constitution of 1993.
Can we call it democratically accepted or reflecting the will of the people? Judge for yourself. So, December is 1993 of the year. Two months ago, an unconstitutional coup was committed (arbitrary abolition of the Constitution by decree of the head of one of the branches of government is called that way). The result is a political crisis, blood; the parliament, which did not wish to obey, was shot, the democratically elected government bodies (councils) were dissolved, the Constitutional Court was dispersed, and the opposition was actually banned. The fullness of the executive, legislative and judicial power is concentrated in the hands of one person who himself (and despite all the laws in force) appoints a nationwide vote on the text of the Constitution proposed by him. And at the same time - elections to the authorities, which should only be introduced by the constitution that has not yet been adopted.
Next comes the vote. A little more than half of citizens participate in it, of which again a little more than half (according to official results) vote “for”. That is, in fact, about 32% instead of the required ones (50% + 1) voted for the Constitution as a result. However, a command comes in - the Constitution is considered adopted, and the voting ballots are urgently destroyed. What was done. That is, compared with what was going on in 1993 with the hot approval of many of the current oppositionists, even the most serious violations at the elections of the 2011 of the year are baby talk ...
Agree, to consider such a Constitution by the will of the people, and even more so something almost sacred, as proposed by today's liberals, there is not the slightest reason. But this, of course, is no reason not to recognize her at all. Yes, our Constitution is in many ways bad, hindering sovereign development, contrary to traditional values and, to put it mildly, not quite legally accepted. But the thing is that worse than the worst law can only be its absence. That is lawlessness, unrest. However, it is impossible to leave everything as it is: this is the way to the abyss. So it is necessary, living under the current Constitution, to attend to the development and adoption of a new Basic Law - such as Russia needs for sovereign development. And do it without haste and campaigning. Until then, change the existing Basic Law for the best, wherever possible.
Of course, by imposing the Constitution "for themselves" on the country, Yeltsin and the Western consultants who helped him put into it the maximum obstacles to change something. However, probably due to an oversight of the liberals gentlemen, the article survived, according to which the people of sovereignty and the only source of power in Russia are its people. Which, be it his desire, has the right to change the Constitution, the political and economic system, and any laws. Really, sin is not to take advantage.