How Democratic is the New Russian Constitution?
How Democratic is the New Russian Constitution?
Introduction
In 1990, a constitutional commission in Russia was created with the purpose of creating a new Russian constitution which was finalised in 1993 after much debate over the content. The aim was to create a framework under which a liberal democratic or socialist society could develop giving Russian citizens a fairer and more successful system than the one it had replaced. Although the Russian constitution has undoubtedly been drastically changed, it is debatable whether or not the end result is in fact democratic.
Main Text
When Yeltsin started constructing the new constitution, he introduced 3 key principles - the protection of human rights, that it must maintain the unity of Russia and that the constitutions of the republics and Russia do not contradict each other. These conditions are democratic as they are consistent with the notion of equality. In a democratic society, people need to be treated equally as when elections are held with each citizens having a right to 1 vote, this is acknowledging that each individual in society is as important as the other and therefore each individual has an equal right to choose who will make decisions for them.
Another important democratic element of the new Russian constitution is that it has changed from being a 1-party system to a multi-party parliament. The effect being that the system has moved from ruling by decree to governing by law. For democracy, it is important to have a plurality of opinions and influential groups in society not just one group motivated by self-interest and heavily controlled by their centre imposing their view on others like in the case of the communist party (CPSU) who had these powers through the old constitution in Russia. For democracy, it was essential to first remove the monopoly of power held by the CPSU.
One of the basic concepts of the new democratic system is that the powers of the state are separated between the three institutions: the executive, legislature and judiciary. This is a common basis of many democratic constitutions as it is designed to ensure each institution keeps the others in check and decisions between the branches are made democratically by following effective set procedures. As a result not one institution can exercise its powers over the state, the constitution remains intact and in accordance to the democratic foundations it was constructed on. Has this separation of powers been effectively achieved?
Considering the legislature branch in the Russian government and its powers, the removal of the CPSU paved the way for party politics. A bicameral federal assembly or parliament has been introduced through which nearly all legislation must pass by a simple majority if it is to become law. It also drafts legislation meaning law making is vested in both the executive and judiciary. Powers of the assembly are more clearly defined and split more equally between the two chambers (The federal council and state duma). All 450 members are democratically elected, some locally and some nationally.
Under the new constitution the powers of the legislature compared especially to the executive are much more substantial than before. Notable powers of parliament making the balance of power between the executive and legislature more equal and democratic are: its ability to veto presidential decrees by a two thirds majority in both chambers as well as to refuse the presidents proposal of prime minister. It can start proceedings to impeach the prime minister and it can change the government through a no confidence vote, which requires a minimum of 90 votes from one faction.
Although is ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Under the new constitution the powers of the legislature compared especially to the executive are much more substantial than before. Notable powers of parliament making the balance of power between the executive and legislature more equal and democratic are: its ability to veto presidential decrees by a two thirds majority in both chambers as well as to refuse the presidents proposal of prime minister. It can start proceedings to impeach the prime minister and it can change the government through a no confidence vote, which requires a minimum of 90 votes from one faction.
Although is has an important role, the federal assembly's or legislature's powers are limited. For example, the complicated and lengthy procedure coupled with the requirement for a two-thirds majority in both chambers mean that its powers to veto presidential bills do not act as a continuous check. Also, the federal assembly can only refuse the presidents choice of prime minister three times before it considers itself dissolved. Its powers to hold a minister to account are limited and it cannot dismiss individual ministers or the prime minister. Considering the parliament is democratically elected in Russia and government ministers are not, these powers are limiting in terms of how much they allow the democratically elected to scrutinise the unelected government.
The fact that members of the federal council and state duma are elected suggests a much greater scope for democracy than the constitution before, and having some elected by area ensures all areas of the country are represented in the parliament. However, citizens in a democratic society need to be able to elect people with powers and influence sufficient for them to ensure that state officials and other unelected bodies are acting in societies best interests.
Under the new constitution, parliament's oversight powers have grown and it can make recommendations to ministers. However, there is no statutory requirement for the ministers to incorporate these recommendations into their policies. It also lacks the ability to monitor the effects of its legislation, which is necessary if laws are to work as intended.
For a constitution to be democratic it needs a legal system that effectively supports it. For democracy, society needs to be governed by the rule of law that applies to all individuals and organisations within it. In more detail, the legal system in a country should support the constitution by supporting the role of the state institutions in ensuring they act only within their given boundaries and therefore needs similar powers to the executive and legislature. The legal system is also responsible for protecting the constitutional rights of citizens. The legal system therefore needs to be independent and have political power and autonomy. In this way it can maintain its loyalty to the constitution as opposed to those operating within it who may have different motivations to the constitution.
In the Russian judiciary branch, the concept of Rechtsstaat has been introduced which involves judicial review of legislative and executive acts in light of protecting individual rights. This is significant in terms of democracy as it increases the powers of the courts in checking the actions of the executive and legislature in relation to constitutional principles.
Some other important democratic aspects to do with the legal system are legal security and the right for private ownership of land and property as well as property rights. Why are these important in a democratic constitution? Considering various models of democratisation, it can be generally accepted that to achieve democracy the economy needs to be allowed to operate under a relatively free market mechanism. This is necessary as it involves giving responsibilities and power to individuals within organisations who can make their own individual economic decisions (within limits designed in their interests). They therefore have more power over their own actions and decisions while at the same time (if supported in the right way) increase the county's chance of economic success or growth.
Politics after all is so important and criticised as it involves the use of state powers to make decisions which affect a majority of citizens but which are taken by a minority. If citizens believe they can collectively make those decisions alone within their own enterprise, then if they were to give this power over to the state it would be undemocratic? For democracy, the state must be given only the necessary powers it needs to work towards society's aims. If the state has unnecessary economic powers it is contradicting the principles of democracy.
For democracy, there is also a need for political stability. For any system of government to be politically stable, it needs to be accepted, for it to be accepted, it must also be successful which means it must be able to support economic prosperity as then society as a whole is benefiting and less likely to challenge the system. This is why it is important if a constitution is to be democratic, for private enterprise to be given legal rights over things like property.
Russia elects it's president in a general election in which any individual with one million signatures of the electorate from a stated geographical spread across the whole country can be a candidate. If none of the candidates win over 50% of the votes then there is a second round held in which the two most popularly voted candidates stand. This is perhaps not as democratic as it could be as it means that if the elections go through to a second round, the electorate can only choose between two candidates even though it is possible that in the first round the majority of voters did not vote for either. As there is no limit to the number of candidates who run for president, the larger the number, the more first choice votes of the electorate that will be knocked out in the second round.
There are also questions as to how democratically and fairly these elections are run; results are often late and if there is a possibility that totals have been manipulated a mathematical model is used to predict what the voting pattern should be for that area and if different to the actual results, then the actual results are changed in line with the mathematical model.
The electoral competition does encourage candidates to run campaigns. In a democratic system, campaigns are necessary if the electorate is to make an informed choice ensuring the elected president is likely to act on the propaganda, which formed the basis, on which he was democratically elected. However, in the presidential campaigns so far, although each candidate is allocated a share of state funds many candidates later admitted they had spent three or four times greater than the limit. Also when parties went over the legal limit for the amount of paid political advertising on TV, state officials failed to take action.
An important criticism of the constitution is that the prime minister does not have to command a majority in parliament and therefore does not need to be particularly committed to his elected party members like the prime minister in the UK for example. Considering the conditions on which presidential bills can be vetoed, the parliament's views are not of primary concern to the president or prime minister and he is not committed to his party's aims which are more clearly established and understood amongst the electorate who would have voted that party in under a system like that of the UK.
Perhaps as a result of this, the party system in Russia is very weak. Parties are too large in number and too weak in organisation or commitment. It can be argued that for democracy itself within a pro-democratic system it is necessary to have a plurality of opinions which are constantly scrutinised and to have real alternatives available to people. To achieve this requires strong parties, this normally results in domination of party politics by two or three parties as in the UK with the president devoted to his party. Strong parties can work together towards a commonly understood and agreed aim that is communicated to the electorate. This means the electorate have a more accurate understanding of what exactly they are voting for and should that party get in power, they have a greater chance of achieving their aims as the party is working together towards them.
One of the main problems with the new constitution questioning how democratic it is, is that it is built on principles of a strong federal president and presidential powers over the legislature and judiciary branches are considerable: the president is in charge of the security and presidential councils. The Security Council has significant powers compared to the FC. It was the security council that decided to use force in Chechnya while the federal assembly could not get a vote of no-confidence on the government and the FC's attempts to prevent military action through legislation failed. The president can also veto legislation passed through the federal assembly within 14 days. If so, it is passed through again but must get a two-thirds majority in both chambers, this gives him a substantial advantage. He does not need to command a majority party and his nominations for prime minister can be refused no more than twice before parliament dissolves. Impeachment of the president is very difficult and under extreme circumstances, he can dissolve the duma.
He has extensive powers in naming the government, making foreign and domestic policy and introducing legislation. As well as appointing the government, he can pick those of influence around him in that he nominates members of the constitutional, Supreme and Supreme Arbitration Courts to the Federal Council which means he could make sure that in resolving any conflict between the executive and the FC, the courts are bias on the side of the executive.
Under the presidents so far the weighting of power towards the president has not been a problem but would it successfully restrain authoritarian rule considering the absence of a developed party system, tradition of democratic institutions and firm social basis for liberal politics. This is perhaps the cost of building democracy from the roof down as it was in Russia.
Conclusion
The Russian constitution has in many respects achieved a separation of powers between the three state institutions. However, although the balance of accountability between the executive and legislature is not clearly defined, power is weighted too heavily towards the president. Especially as the president chooses his government and the state duma has little control over the government. These powers of the president suggest that the constitution may not be able to withstand authoritarian rule in the future.
The powers of the federal assembly and the courts in relation to government need to be increased. In the US, for example, the courts have the power to challenge or even nullify the presidents' actions.
Members of the federal assembly and the president himself are elected but national election campaigns need to be regulated more closely and the use of mathematical models does not seem an acceptable tool to conclude democratic election if the totals are in question.
Party politics needs to develop more and the commitment of the president to parliament needs to be increased perhaps with the requirement that he needs to be able to command a majority in public.
Considering it's history, time will tell how much the rules of the constitution are adhered to. The Russian constitution is definitely on the way to democracy but the constitutional framework needs to be used in the right ways necessary to develop a democratic society.
