Klishas answered the questions on the amendments to the Constitution

Despite output at its extraordinary meeting in Moscow brought together members of the Federation Council (or senators of the Russian Federation, they will be referred to in the case of the amendments to the Constitution). The fact that amendments have already been approved by all the regional Legislatures. The Senate approved these decisions.

it started in Russia, this political week with the arrival of the initiator of these amendments of the President in the lower house of Parliament, the State Duma. Here’s what he said throughout the current situation: “We see how difficult the situation is in world politics, and security in the global economy. There is also coronavirus arrived to us. And oil prices are dancing and jumping, and with them the national currency, and exchange. But, by the way, use this platform to say absolutely confidently: we go through this period with dignity. The overall economy will be strengthened, and key industries will be more powerful and competitive. But we have to work together, consolidated”.

“Vesti on Saturday” met the chief in the Senate expert on the Constitution Andrew Clisham.

– Andrey, you born in 1972?

– Yes.

And I in 1972. We are the same age. How did you vote on 12 December 1993 the Constitution?


– I against.

– See, starting with some of the contradictions.

– I’ll tell you why against. Because I never questioned the presidential nature of the Russian state machine, but the Constitution in the current version I think super-presidential. So I first of all wanted to return to the amendments proposed by Putin during the Message, to strengthen the role of Parliament. How will this work?

– If you come and ask who we have in the country on behalf of the people and his interests make the decisions, we humans with you will say that is Putin. And will right. It is in a sense not the fault of President Putin that people think so. Perhaps this is the problem of Parliament.

– Now the Parliament gets the powers. Very good.

– Gets. By the way, please note that the President gives Parliament powers that are not related to additional legislative functions.

– There are basic things, the formation of a government.

– we Have as a result of this redistribution of powers appears very important thing — the politically responsible Ministers. We never had this before. We had a politically responsible before the President of the government. And if the Prime Minister walked away, it took the government to resign.

– And now, by the way, it is possible to change the Prime Minister, leaving the government, and the Ministers approved…

– It’s not just some difference in the details of government formation. This is a fundamental difference. We have a politically responsible Minister, responsible in particular and to the state Duma. So, we reach the main. Increases a representative Parliament. And what representative level? It’s a direct link with voters, with citizens. And this inverse relationship between Executive authority and voters, which was very weak in the current Constitution finally gets a clear outline. Yes, through the Parliament.

– I remember in Europe, when taking the similarity of the Constitution of the European Union, was not able to insert in the preamble a reference to Christianity as the Foundation of European civilization. But Russia as another Europe, a reference to God. Why Christianity?

Because Russia is a multinational, multiconfessional country. From the times of the Russian Empire and even before we have formed a unique Eurasian civilization.

– We’re a different Europe.

– I would not began to call us Europe. While the Constitution guarantees and value, and developmentment of national languages. And Russian language in particular.

– are You and experienced person that can feel where I am getting us. Because it published an article about the state-forming Russian people. And, accordingly, Russian language as the state of this nation. What is the fate of those other articles in the Constitution that Russian state, but the Republic has the right to use their national language? They stayed?

– the Republic has the right to use their national language. They, of course, remained. Moreover, we reiterated in the wording of the Constitution, the value of languages and cultures of the peoples that inhabit the country. We even mention God in the Constitution was written like that sent to us by our forefathers faith in God. It is quite difficult to deny, because you gave the ancestors of faith in God, you have the right to dispose as they see fit.

– This is an important story. No infringement is whether the rights of atheists?

I personally had the opportunity to talk with the Patriarch. Know what was bothering him? You will be surprised. Not by itself, the amendment about God in the Constitution.

– And he asked first.

Yes, he offered it, and he was supported by leaders of other traditional religions. Patriarch bothered in the first place that secularism, which is enshrined in our Constitution.

– This rule is left.

– Should remain unchanged. That worries Church leaders, including Patriarch. Because of the worst periods in its history, the Church had survived when the state or assuming the functions of governance of the Church, as in the Imperial period, or when the state is simply without any legal grounds interfered in its Affairs. Therefore, the secular character of the state, ultimately the ability to believe or not to believe in God is also a kind of religion. These are all the provisions of the Constitution remain unchanged.

– Why the Constitution propisano that today’s Russian Federation inherited from the Soviet Union but does not mention that the Russian Empire?

– We discussed, to mention us all periods.

– I praise you. In my opinion, it was very important to mention the Soviet Union, not from an ideological point of view. By the way, the Americans, surprisingly, have prompted the Russian delegation to the UN to call the Russian Federation successor to the Soviet Union, whereby Russia remained a permanent member of the security Council.

– you are Absolutely right. But it’s also a legal issue. Here we took into account not only ideological but also legal aspects.

– just the security Council, nuclear weapons.

All these circumstances. That’s why we mentioned in the Constitution that is the wording, as you call it.

– a Lot of talk about the zeroing of the term of the incumbent President. Although to me they seem minor, because, being realists, we understand that there is Putin, he remains the dominant figure in Russian politics.

– it Was very interesting to watch, and we all had the opportunity, how was wondering whether it will be the State Council, or the Federation Council or the security Council. Everyone was trying to understand whether there are some shady schemes with which the current President intends to continue to govern. And probably what we see today is the biggest disappointment of the public, because it was said that no shadow schemes will not.

– During the session of the Duma there was some confusion. Still, limiting future presidents to two terms remains?

– of Course. There is a clear statement that the proposals have now been formulated by the Duma, initiated Tereshkova, the concern of the President, which is applicable at the time of entry into force of these amendments. The most important provisions of the Constitution. They are primarily associated with the shiftamostu power, with the necessity of holding the elections of the Supreme bodies of state power. All these provisions will be in effect.

– That is, looking to the future (20 years, 30, 50), indeed there is such new for Russian reality?

– there’s a new reality. People are asked to decide on the national ballot, it is proposed to accept the decision of the Constitutional court, whether it is the provisions of those chapters of the Constitution that cannot be changed. I think that the constitutional court and our citizens will make the decision, and it will be about whether there is the possibility of Vladimir Putin, to run for the next presidential election or not. Decision he will make, we understand this perfectly.

– Yeah, let’s see what it will take in 2024.

We cannot say today what decision he will take.

– What I can say? Try constitutional court against the vote. In the new edition of the Constitution laid down that the judges can only 11 instead of 15. And now we need everyone to show loyalty.

the constitutional court has repeatedly — and, incidentally, acting judges — showed integrity. For example, the infamous decision in 1998, which today still remember, according to President Yeltsin, where the court said that the President’s term, which began to “flow” in 1996, is the second presidential term. The Constitutional court should check the constitutionality of these norms, including the norm on the reduction of the number of judges to 11. Maybe someone will be disappointed, but if you look carefully at the text of the law, none of the judges are not going to prematurely withdraw from the court.

– How to come to 11?

And then, when under current law, judges retire on reaching 70 years of age. The three judges retire before the end of 2020, another judge by age is also retiring next year. And then they will be 11. I odwell, the thing I want to say. Once the court of the wards worked, they were 10 and 9.

– I had a period.

– Then changed the rule of law — remains of 19 judges. Believe me, 11, on the basis of practice, of trial load, from what we see — it is quite optimal composition of judges. In the composition of the US Supreme court — 9 judges. Huge load. We know Americans sue for any reason, but the court cope. I’m sure the court will cope with this load. The constitutional court in the framework of these amendments gets a lot more power. And this is a big plus, I think, for the legal system of the country as a whole.

– on April 22 a vote on the principle of “Yes — no” package. What about those who have something one does not like it?

Good question. At the same time, very much end-to-end amendments. For example, the essential social unit. But we complement and powers of the government in this regard. That is, the amendments are cross-cutting in the text. It will be very difficult, if the citizens hold some position, but will not support others.

– Roughly speaking, supported the minimum wage, which may not be less than minimum wage.

– there are new concepts: socially-oriented state policy, the availability of medical care and so on. If not support, then it will be hard on the text to work. The task that the President in the Message set, is the following: we need to provide a different fundamental relationship with the population of the state authorities. This is important. When you vote for a politician, you too do not like something in it, but you have to find some balance within yourself, to make a decision. There are pros and cons, but still this man fits your views of who should represent your interests and to make decisions at the state level.

– This Constitution corresponds to your understanding?

– Yes. This package of constitutional amendments, alldid change people’s lives for the better, we believe. Going to really change. The decision should be taken.