Let's talk about the Constitution ...
December 12 in Russia celebrates such a public holiday as Constitution Day. It was 12 of December in 1993 that, as it turned out, the majority of Russian citizens who came to the polling station for the referendum spoke in favor of adopting a new basic document of the country. Did the voters have the opportunity, before the start of the referendum, to get acquainted with the new basic law more or less thoroughly? - This is a separate issue that can be ranked as rhetorical.
Anyway, about 12 million Russians (1993% of the electorate) came to the polling stations of 58,2 in December 54,81, of which, as we were all told, 58,43% voted for (about 33 million) the adoption of the Constitution .
For obvious reasons, then there were no open sites for discussing its text. There was no possibility of a full-fledged public (professional) analysis of the work of those personalities who prepared the basic law, and those who, during such preparation, were particularly active in giving advice (including from abroad). By and large, the development of constitutional norms was carried out in the mode of a narrow circle of initiates, to whom it was at the mercy of what still defines the regulatory framework of the Russian state.
Of course, the Constitution is “not a girl” to argue “like - dislike”, but this does not prevent all the years of its existence from issuing mountains of materials both to supporters of the content of the basic law and its opponents.
On Constitution Day, the Constitution seems to need “either well or nothing”, but still, why not take advantage of the situation and not discuss that set of laws that, from a legal point of view, determines the daily life of each of us as citizens of Russia, and the direction of movement Russia?
Does our Constitution have advantages? - Undoubtedly, they are. Does it have minuses? - Oh yeah!
The main advantage of the existing Constitution is the fact that it was born at all. Today, there is little reminder of the year 1993, however, if you mentally go back to the time when the referendum was being held, then Russia actually stood on the threshold of a new political strife against the backdrop of a severe economic crisis. Only a few weeks have passed since the October events in Moscow. The country was in a legal time-lapse, and therefore the authorities seized on any version of the document that would allow it (the authorities) to take root and establish a more or less adequate dialogue between the branches that are formed and the regional forces.
Did someone at the time think about the people, about their well-being? It makes no sense to ask such a question to those who drafted the Constitution later adopted, because everyone will answer in a single impulse that they thought only about the people ... And therefore it is quite possible to assume that the thoughts were related primarily to creating version of the "gentlemen's agreement" with political opponents, which would make it possible to somewhat defuse the situation.
Who knows what would happen if the country continued to live in fact without a basic law after December 1993? This is an even more difficult question. Indirectly, the answer to it is given by the adored neighboring state - Ukraine. But only indirectly. There (in Ukraine) there seems to be a Constitution, but it is objectively impossible to count the episodes when the feet were wiped about the country's main legal document. Ukraine in this regard is generally a unique state. In this country, they managed to carry out an anti-constitutional coup, after which they still continue to exist under the old Constitution ... It's like burning your own house (partially with relatives), claiming that the house was opposed, and continue to live in what was left of the house, falling asleep and waking up among the charred smoking logs in the midst of the ashes. At the same time constantly claiming a neighbor for the fact that he did not support such a burning ...
If no universal document regulating the interaction of the branches of the central authorities with each other and the regions had not appeared in Russia 21 a year ago, then it is not yet clear what would happen to Russia today. Meanwhile, one can keep the main law of the Russian Federation for an arbitrarily long time, but, be that as it may, thanks to or in spite of it, but Russia remained unified, independent, and was able to regain the territory that was lost due to political momentum. At least, the Constitution did not prevent this with its adequate use.
Another thing that could have been thought about the adoption of the Constitution with a more patriotic base. But talk about it well now. Then the “thoughts” in this direction stubbornly did not visit the heads of our rulers, and the very notion of “patriotism” cynically turned into something smelling of naphthalene, connected (thanks to a surge of liberal thought) to “bloody gebny”, “commies” and “Stalin's ghouls” ...
However, as time went on, the Constitution of short panties (there is an opinion that worn in their overseas advisers), to put it mildly, does not in all respects contemporary realities. Russia, in the legal sense, even fits into these worn and cropped jeans, it doesn’t look quite natural in this form ... And so without a bang-radicalism - little by little, step by step, evolutionarily, it’s time to change the legal “clothes of Russia” to the real needs of the state and societies.
Once again, there is no particular need to sort out the constitutional clauses bit by bit, in which there is a very dubious sense from the point of view of Russian statehood and national interests. But today they are precisely the ones that require the greatest attention from the point of view of legal modernization (alteration). And this modernization is able to bring the country (its security and independence) no less than modernization, for example, of the army and fleet. The modernization of the RF Armed Forces is proceeding in stages and is designed in such a way that meets modern security challenges. So why does a certain circle of people believe that the modernization of the Constitution will certainly plunge the country into chaos? If the appearance of a new submarine, tank, fighter or fighter's outfit (point update) in equipping the country's power component did not destroy the Russian army, and with it the whole of Russia, why should the point improvement of the basic law lead to chaos?
Of course, this is a somewhat crafty question. After all, many understand that the Constitution of Russia was created with the filing of those who wanted Russia to not grow from these short pants, and even better - in these same pants went to another world, fragmented from internal contradictions. But these gentlemen miscalculated. And now they and their followers are ready to do everything so that, through the principles of 21, a year ago, they would return Russia to the very state it all started in 93 with a fever in power, problems in the Caucasus, territorial claims of “friends” and preparation to the “parade of sovereignties”, sometimes hidden behind very beautiful and streamlined phrases. If Russia does not want to go along this route, which “friends” persistently try to bring us through by means of neoliberal conductors of ideas, then step-by-step legal modernization and updating the basic law corresponding to the realities must be turned on so that the process will work really efficiently.
In general, with the Constitution Day! Congratulations on the Constitution Day, which, as the head of state says, is by no means a stale document, giving rise to a certain optimism ...
Anyway, about 12 million Russians (1993% of the electorate) came to the polling stations of 58,2 in December 54,81, of which, as we were all told, 58,43% voted for (about 33 million) the adoption of the Constitution .
For obvious reasons, then there were no open sites for discussing its text. There was no possibility of a full-fledged public (professional) analysis of the work of those personalities who prepared the basic law, and those who, during such preparation, were particularly active in giving advice (including from abroad). By and large, the development of constitutional norms was carried out in the mode of a narrow circle of initiates, to whom it was at the mercy of what still defines the regulatory framework of the Russian state.
Of course, the Constitution is “not a girl” to argue “like - dislike”, but this does not prevent all the years of its existence from issuing mountains of materials both to supporters of the content of the basic law and its opponents.
On Constitution Day, the Constitution seems to need “either well or nothing”, but still, why not take advantage of the situation and not discuss that set of laws that, from a legal point of view, determines the daily life of each of us as citizens of Russia, and the direction of movement Russia?
Does our Constitution have advantages? - Undoubtedly, they are. Does it have minuses? - Oh yeah!
The main advantage of the existing Constitution is the fact that it was born at all. Today, there is little reminder of the year 1993, however, if you mentally go back to the time when the referendum was being held, then Russia actually stood on the threshold of a new political strife against the backdrop of a severe economic crisis. Only a few weeks have passed since the October events in Moscow. The country was in a legal time-lapse, and therefore the authorities seized on any version of the document that would allow it (the authorities) to take root and establish a more or less adequate dialogue between the branches that are formed and the regional forces.
Did someone at the time think about the people, about their well-being? It makes no sense to ask such a question to those who drafted the Constitution later adopted, because everyone will answer in a single impulse that they thought only about the people ... And therefore it is quite possible to assume that the thoughts were related primarily to creating version of the "gentlemen's agreement" with political opponents, which would make it possible to somewhat defuse the situation.
Who knows what would happen if the country continued to live in fact without a basic law after December 1993? This is an even more difficult question. Indirectly, the answer to it is given by the adored neighboring state - Ukraine. But only indirectly. There (in Ukraine) there seems to be a Constitution, but it is objectively impossible to count the episodes when the feet were wiped about the country's main legal document. Ukraine in this regard is generally a unique state. In this country, they managed to carry out an anti-constitutional coup, after which they still continue to exist under the old Constitution ... It's like burning your own house (partially with relatives), claiming that the house was opposed, and continue to live in what was left of the house, falling asleep and waking up among the charred smoking logs in the midst of the ashes. At the same time constantly claiming a neighbor for the fact that he did not support such a burning ...
If no universal document regulating the interaction of the branches of the central authorities with each other and the regions had not appeared in Russia 21 a year ago, then it is not yet clear what would happen to Russia today. Meanwhile, one can keep the main law of the Russian Federation for an arbitrarily long time, but, be that as it may, thanks to or in spite of it, but Russia remained unified, independent, and was able to regain the territory that was lost due to political momentum. At least, the Constitution did not prevent this with its adequate use.
Another thing that could have been thought about the adoption of the Constitution with a more patriotic base. But talk about it well now. Then the “thoughts” in this direction stubbornly did not visit the heads of our rulers, and the very notion of “patriotism” cynically turned into something smelling of naphthalene, connected (thanks to a surge of liberal thought) to “bloody gebny”, “commies” and “Stalin's ghouls” ...
However, as time went on, the Constitution of short panties (there is an opinion that worn in their overseas advisers), to put it mildly, does not in all respects contemporary realities. Russia, in the legal sense, even fits into these worn and cropped jeans, it doesn’t look quite natural in this form ... And so without a bang-radicalism - little by little, step by step, evolutionarily, it’s time to change the legal “clothes of Russia” to the real needs of the state and societies.
Once again, there is no particular need to sort out the constitutional clauses bit by bit, in which there is a very dubious sense from the point of view of Russian statehood and national interests. But today they are precisely the ones that require the greatest attention from the point of view of legal modernization (alteration). And this modernization is able to bring the country (its security and independence) no less than modernization, for example, of the army and fleet. The modernization of the RF Armed Forces is proceeding in stages and is designed in such a way that meets modern security challenges. So why does a certain circle of people believe that the modernization of the Constitution will certainly plunge the country into chaos? If the appearance of a new submarine, tank, fighter or fighter's outfit (point update) in equipping the country's power component did not destroy the Russian army, and with it the whole of Russia, why should the point improvement of the basic law lead to chaos?
Of course, this is a somewhat crafty question. After all, many understand that the Constitution of Russia was created with the filing of those who wanted Russia to not grow from these short pants, and even better - in these same pants went to another world, fragmented from internal contradictions. But these gentlemen miscalculated. And now they and their followers are ready to do everything so that, through the principles of 21, a year ago, they would return Russia to the very state it all started in 93 with a fever in power, problems in the Caucasus, territorial claims of “friends” and preparation to the “parade of sovereignties”, sometimes hidden behind very beautiful and streamlined phrases. If Russia does not want to go along this route, which “friends” persistently try to bring us through by means of neoliberal conductors of ideas, then step-by-step legal modernization and updating the basic law corresponding to the realities must be turned on so that the process will work really efficiently.
In general, with the Constitution Day! Congratulations on the Constitution Day, which, as the head of state says, is by no means a stale document, giving rise to a certain optimism ...
Information