Alexander Rahr (Germany), political scientist, scientific Director of the German-Russian forum:

– In the history of Russia there was no tradition of constitutional creativity. More precisely, there were several Royal cosmetic constitutions which the kings suffered. “Paper can endure”, is from there. Was the Constitution of Lenin and Stalin, declarative, on-to the tsarist. The Constitution Yeltsin rushed. It is known fact that like Germany, the loser in the Second world war, in 1946, received its Constitution from the hands of the winner – the USA, Russia, the loser in the “cold war”, in 1993 wrote the Constitution at the dictation of the winner – the USA. In addition, the document sewed in the conditions of an aggravation of struggle for power. Based on the totality of these factors, the adoption of amendments to Constitucio is a good step.

And here Russia is running ahead of the locomotive time. Yes, the Constitution is the law of life. But life, as shown by “figure” and a “crown” that change faster than we have time for this. In quarantine indicated two trends which call for strong state and a request for a welfare state. Both queries in a timely and clearly record the Russian amendments to the Constitution, than Express the will and sentiments of people.

Tatyana Zhdanok (Latvia), doctor of physical and matematicheskih Sciences, member of the European Parliament:

– Not long ago, I was flying the plane with the actress and opposition Liya Akhedzhakova. No it is not dragged into the controversy she was involved: “Who needs the Constitution and the Parliament?” I stopped the discussion: “You do not have a bad conscience?” To understand: the President of Latvia, by the way, a foreign citizen, the preamble to the Latvian Constitution was written for a night in the train, the people insisted on his participation in the adjustments to the document, no one had heard him. In Russia the opposite situation: the government encourages the people to constitutional creativity. Latvian opposition dream of such a dialogue with the government, and the Russian, the visible part, the dialogue stops.

Laszlo Kemeny (Hungary), Professor of political science Budapest University:

– the Formula of what they say RAR and Zhdanok – the era of people’s participation in the constitutional co-creation and the arrogance of the elites, at the time, brought Georg Hegel: “the Bar of lawyers with knowledge of the law, often claims this knowledge of their monopoly… But as it is not necessary to be a shoemaker to know whether or not shoes, not need to be an expert, to have knowledge about subjects of common interest”. All you need to know what is written in the Constitution. This is exactly what is now happening in Russia, where amendments to the Basic Law are taken in collaboration with the people. It’s a chance to adopt the Constitution of civil society. Don’t want to hurt the Russians, but today you have a painful transition from turning, after the shooting of the White house the Constitution of 1993, to Constimuli consolidation.

Dmitry de koshko (France), political scientist, publicist:

In the eyes of the French to be changed to complement the Constitution – the norm. We had five Republican constitutions. With the 1958 Constitution of the Fifth Republic 24 times changed. While de Gaulle in 1969, said: “If you don’t vote for it, then I’ll go.” The President of Russia puts conditions. The response of the opposition – Putin accused of “reset conditions” for the sake of amendments and for the desire to remain in power indefinitely. Rough game for those who have not understood the essence of the amendments on the change of power. It just provides a mechanism for the succession of elites. Against what then is the “democratic” opposition?

However, and this for France is not new. The last amendment of the Constitution we had at the 23rd President Nicolas Sarkozy in 2008. Then he spit on the will of the people, who in the referendum, 56 percent of voters voted against the supremacy of the Constitution of the EU over domestic law, did the necessary amendment. On behalf of the President signed the “Lisbon Treaty” imposing the rule part of the EU law over domestic, and achieved his encouragement in one of the regional parliaments, which gave him and the neo-liberal part of the opposition local victory. In Russia, too, the struggle for and against the amendments on the supremacy of domestic law over international law, even after their adoption, will not end.

Einars graudins (Latvia), human rights:

– this is one of the phenomena of Russia. Its constitutional amendments have three objectives – strengthening the sovereignty, the supremacy of national legislation over international law and securing social guarantees for civil society, which can not be achieved without the command of the state.

All three targets “criminal” in the eyes of the West. As evidenced by the experiences of political exaltation and Viktor Orban in Hungary, Gerhard Schroeder in Germany, Sarkozy in France (even he was not pleased with the “half”) and especially of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia.

Russia is even tougher: it’s six percent of the world’s population live on the sixth – biggest of the land and own 30 percent of minerals in the world. Hence all the problems: the powerful and wealthy by nature, and even the sovereign, hate and want to subjugate. It is an axiom tenacious since the era of Ancient Rome as the tool of divide and rule. The attack primarily through attempts to split civil society and its foundations. Treacherous blow: among the exponents of the views of society the ones that work against Russia, others. But to understand who is who, is the means to personally reach on a plateau of sovereignty in order to participate in its Assembly.

Dmitry de koshko (France), political scientist, publicist:

– It is in France, both in relation to the “Lisbon Treaty” and “popthe text was Putin.” The French are not very positive about the Russian amendment of the mention of God in the basic Law. Although, in my opinion, the wording made subtly – none of the religions, including Christianity, is not highly privileged and, thank God, atheists are not forced to obey to religious rituals, the French is not enough. A large part considers “superfluous” references to God in the Constitution of a secular state. But at the same time in awe of the amendments, as we say, “M” and “W”, divine in essence, protecting the rights of men to be men and women women their right to motherhood and fatherhood. This is a reality of the new pressure tolerance.

I am the power and importance of “male-female” amendments commensurate with the amendment of the Russian language. There were times when even Russian in the Patriotic war of 1812 refused to speak Russian. Today Russia defends the constitutional right to speak their language. This is the way of imitation, even of tracing paper of a different life, to understanding the options of personal sovereignty and its place in the world.

That’s why I prefer the amendment of the Russian language and compatriots. Upon reaching of the 100th anniversary of Russian Exodus compatriots share with each other as historical periods of residence and countries and towards Russia and the amendments to its Constitution. We almost impartial: less than 100 years Russian Exodus, as we recognized. Now constitutional. Of course, the amendment on the Russian language will help us, the 7-million-strong Russian Diaspora in the EU, to promote through the European Parliament a petition for recognition of the Russian language one of the official languages of Europe. So as an ethical minority of the EU, in number exceeding more than one EU country, we would have the right to be represented in the European Parliament.

Johan Backman (Finland), associate Professor of law at the University of Helsinki:

– because of the pandemic coronavirus I’m stuck in Moscow, – the border was closed. And something that I can open from the inside. Russian and other peoples have in common is that they have little interest in international valuable amendments. They are more interested in the root of things: the guarantees for the protection of property rights, rights of citizens, guarantee the indexation of pensions and wages – a very domestic issues.

But here, people understand that their domestic law is closely connected with the right of possession or disposition of shares of natural resources – minerals and water which takes place a global confrontation. And what is he Russian spirit of self-sufficiency: both supporters and opponents of the amendments, all recognize that, despite the difficult conditions of a pandemic, the Russians remember the amendments. It is clear that they feel the need to vote on it.

And again unusual move – how to vote in terms of coronavirus? Tip is also a call – through “numbers” although not a panacea, but tomorrow will be nor��Oh.

Gilian györgy (Hungary), lawyer (Hungary), Einars graudins (Latvia), human rights activist, Slobodan Stojicevic (Serbia), lawyer, University Professor in Belgrade:

– We were observers at the elections in Russia. And we see that in the face of unusual epidemiological situation technically voting on amendments to the Constitution enforceable. If Russia will reach to the time of voting the peak of coronavirus and there will be a smooth plateau, the voting there are no obstacles from the point of view of medicine. Experience shows that elections, previously held in Russia or two weeks ago in South Korea, all technologically achievable: some groups of the population vote in advance, some by mail or electronically, and where the epidemic subsides, it is appropriate traditional personal vote. This is the logic of the combined approach, to which the “figure” and “crown” put Russia.