Russia’s 2020 Constitutional Amendments

This article describes the 2020 amendments to the Russian Constitution. These amendments do not formally alter Russia’s fundamental – but still not fully realized – constitutional commitments to democracy, separation of powers, and individual rights found in Chapters 1 and 2 of the Russian Constitution. Yet, these amendments represent the most significant changes to the Russian Constitution since the foundation of Russia’s post-Soviet constitutional order in 1993. Put in comparative perspective, some of the constitutional changes offer potential for the development of Russian constitutionalism. This is particularly the case in a growing comparative trend toward the constitutionalization of economic rights. Most of the amendments, however, are similar to recent examples of abusive constitution-making in Europe, Latin America, and Africa where self-interested elites use constitutional change to entrench power. The process of constitution-making demonstrates the self-interested nature of these changes. The amendments were initiated and drafted by the government elite with no input from the Russian people. Moreover, the all-Russian plebiscite is simply an attempt to manufacture the appearance of popular legitimacy; it has none of the procedural safeguards contained in a formal referendum process. The content of these amendments further demonstrates their self-interested intent. The amendments consolidate the power of the current political elite by further concentrating power in the office of the president. This undermines Russia’s commitment to the “separation of powers.” In addition, the amendments also undermine Russia’s commitment to republican democracy by affording the current Russian President the possibility of a third (and fourth) consecutive term. Finally, the amendments entrench constitutional nationalism, using the constitution as a shield against Russia’s international obligations and denying people who have ever had foreign residency from serving as Russian President. This constitutional nationalism ultimately undermines the Constitution’s foundational commitment to ensuring Russia is “part of the world community.” From a comparative perspective, these amendments follow a trend toward self-interested constitutional change intended to protect the power of the current political elite. In so doing, these amendments further weaken the still-unrealized project of implementing Russia’s foundational constitutional commitments. The continuing failure of this project is more than just a formal legal problem; it continues older political practices that encourage the personalization of power, engender corruption, and weaken institutions. These amendments therefore threaten the Russian Constitution’s core purpose of “reviving the sovereign statehood of Russia and asserting the inviolability of its democratic foundation.” The amendments therefore threaten the still unrealised project of creating a strong, effective, and stable Russian state.

About the author: William Partlett – J.D. in Law, D.Phil. in Soviet History, Associate Professor at Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Citation: Partlett W. (2020) Popravki k Konstitutsii Rossii 2020 goda [Russia’s 2020 constitutional amendments]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.29, no.3, pp.51–62. (In Russian).

References

Baglai M.V. (2018) Konstitutsionnoe pravo Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Constitutional law of the Russian Federation], 13th ed., Moscow: NORMA. (In Russian).

Barber N. (2018) The Principles of Constitutionalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baturo A. (2019) Continuismo in Comparison: Avoidance, Extension, and Removal of Presidential Term Limits. In: Elgie R., Baturo A. (eds.) The Politics of Presidential Term Limits, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, pp.75–100.

Frantz E. (2018) Authoritarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know, New York: Oxford University Press.

Geddes B., Wright J., Frantz E. (2018) How Dictatorships Work: Power, Personalization, and Collapse, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Halmai G. (2019) The Making of “Illiberal Constitutionalism” with or without a New Constitution: The Case of Hungary and Poland. In: Landau D., Ler­ner H. (eds.) Comparative Constitution-Making, Cheltenham; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.302–323.

Henkin L. (1996) Human Rights and State “Sovereignty”. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, vol.25, no.1, pp.31–45.

Landau D. (2012) The Reality of Social Rights Enforcement. Harvard International Law Journal, vol.53, no.1, pp.189–248.

Landau D. (2013) Abusive Constitutionalism. UC Davis Law Review, vol.47, no.1, pp.189–260.

Landau D. (2013) Constitution-Making Gone Wrong. Alabama Law Review, vol.64, no.5, pp.923–980.

Maltz G. (2007) The Case for Presidential Term Limits. Journal of Democracy, vol.18, no.1, pp.128–142.

Partlett W. (2012) The Dangers of Popular Constitution-Making. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, vol.83, no.1, pp.193–238.

Partlett W. (forthcoming in 2020) Expanding Revision Clauses in Democratic Constitutions. In: Negretto G. (ed.) Redrafting Constitutions in Democratic Orders: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Partlett W., Nwokora Z. (2019) The Foundations of Democratic Dualism: Why Constitutional Politics and Ordinary Politics Are Different. Constellations: An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory, vol.26, no.2, pp.177–193.

Rose-Ackerman S., Desierto D.A., Volosin N. (2011) Hyper-Presidentialism: Separation of Powers without Checks and Balances in Argentina and the Philippines. Berkeley Journal of International Law, vol.29, no.1, pp.246–333.

Tull D.M., Simons C. (2017) The Institutionalisation of Power Revisited: Presidential Term Limits Revisited. Africa Spectrum, vol.52, no.2, pp.79–102.

Van Cranenburgh O. (2008) Big Men Rule: Presidential Power, Regime Type, and Democracy in 30 African Countries. Democratization, vol.15, no.5, pp.952–973.

Vile M.J.C. (1998) Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers, 2nd ed., Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.