Reactions and Commentary to
Extending Russia's Presidential and Legislative Terms

Constitutional Court Chair Opposes Drastic Constitutional Amendments

ST. PETERSBURG. Nov 13 (Interfax) - There must be no drastic changes in the Russian constitution despite its possible shortcomings, Russian Constitutional Court Chairman  Valery Zorkin said in St. Petersburg on Thursday.

"Our constitution is not the Gospel; it was created by people who naturally have certain weaknesses and inadequacies. Certainly, our Constitution has many faults alongside merits. Yet this is not the reason to change it [the constitution] radically and by vector," he said.

Russian Liberal Politicians Oppose Extending Presidential Term

Moscow, 14 November, (Interfax) - Leaders of liberal parties and opposition social organizations have criticized the decision of the State Duma to adopt in the first reading a package of amendments to the constitution to extend the term of office of the president and parliament from four to six and five years, respectively.

"This is a wrong decision that reminds one of the practice in some Asian countries where there is a tendency towards staying in office for life. This leads to stagnation of power," Yabloko leader Sergey Mitrokhin told Interfax today.

"In some time from now the irremovability of authorities may lead to a conflict between the authorities and the population. This is especially topical in an economic crisis," Mitrokhin said.

Union of Right Forces leader Leonid Gozman agrees with him. "It would be better if the State Duma did not do this. Extending the president's term of office is not sensible. There are no benefits, but the drawbacks are obvious," Gozman told Interfax on Friday (14 November).

"The level of feedback between the authorities and society - which is extremely low as it is - is becoming still lower. There is one opportunity left for citizens to express their dissatisfaction with the authorities - to come to a polling station once every four years. Now they will have such an opportunity once in six years.
I do not see anything good in it," he said.

One of the leaders of the Other Russia coalition (leader of the banned National Bolshevik Party) Eduard Limonov also opposes extending the presidential and Duma terms of office.

"There is no political competition in Russia as it is; the authorities are free of criticism," he said.

A statement from the Other Russia distributed today says that the opposition is initiating a collection of signatures in support of the constitution and against extending the presidential term of office.

Some human rights champions share the opinion of liberal politicians.

"I do not like this. I like the principle 'do not touch the constitution'. If one starts making amendments, one might not stop," Lyudmila Alekseyeva, who heads the oldest human rights organization in Russia, the Moscow Helsinki Group, told Interfax.

"Amendments related to the changing the terms of office may create an unhealthy situation. The modern world needs modernization, while with us it is other way round," she said.

Political Analyst Pavlovskiy on Need For Constitutional Amendments

November 18, 2008 (Moskovskiy Komsomolets)
Interview with Gleb Pavlovskiy, president of the Effective Policy Foundation, conducted by Mikhail Zubov: "Formula 5x6; Why Amendments To the Constitution Are Needed"

Last week, theState Duma adopted amendments to the Constitution, extending the presidential term of office to 6 years, and the term of deputies to 5. Today, we asked the president of the Effective Policy Foundation, Gleb Pavlovskiy, to tell about the logic of the actions taken by the authorities, and about the goal of the reforms.

Rehearsals will end

(Correspondent) Gleb Olegovich, the extension of the terms of office of president and deputies of the State Duma will make it possible for Russians to go to the polls less often. Will this reform give us anything else?

(Pavlovskiy) First of all, it will not be less often. This is a delayed-action reform. Nothing changes in the next 3 years, and in 2011-2012 we will again have elections of the "old type." As usual, in the Fall - to the Duma, with a transition to the presidential elections in the Spring, without any break. However, this is the last time that it will be this way. The next Duma will be elected for a 5-year term at once, which is a good reason for the voter to stop and think about which of the parties he is prepared to tolerate in it all the way until 2016. And only after that will the first president with a 6-year term appear. I might add, did you know that the model of the short 4-year presidency is the Latin American model? In most of the European countries, the presidents are elected for a term of 5 or 6 years, as well as in our neighboring Austria and Finland. Or even for 7, as in Italy, and until quite recently also in France.

(Correspondent) Perhaps we would best be compared to other post-Soviet CIS countries?

(Pavlovskiy) I am afraid that the comparison would not be in their favor. There, they have followed an absolutely different path from ours - extending the terms of office of incumbent presidents. They are allowed to be re-elected for a third or even a fourth term, until they in fact become czars for life. All of the presidents of Russia, from Yeltsin and Putin to Medvedev, have refuted this path.

(Correspondent) They did not want to enter into conflict with the opinion of the people.
Afterall, ours is a democracy, and not a monarchy.

(Pavlovskiy) But a democracy has one very strict "catch." Whether they want to or not, those who have been elected must reckon with those that elected them. Someone who wants something from the authorities must find some other lever for himself. In Russia, only two bodies of power are elected by all the people - the president and parliament. And only they really depend on our opinion, because they are forced to confirm themselves at all-people's elections. The others are bureaucrat "appointees." They are specifically the ones who constitute the majority in power, the overwhelming mass! On whom can citizens rely in their demands for freedom and justice - on those whom they elected, or on the millions of appointees? To whom are the demands for combating corruption addressed, for example - to the elected president or to the staff apparatus? The staff apparatus outlives all presidents, it is long-lived. No one elected it, but a public official does not limit himself to any terms. And, frankly speaking, it is useless to appeal to him with requests about some reforms or renovations - bureaucracy is not capable of conversing. We must come to agreement with the ones we elect, and the ones that depend on us.
That is why society is interested in
strengthening the elected branch of power at the expense of the non-elected one. This is simple mechanics.

(Correspondent) State Duma deputies also got a term extension, but for a year less. Why?

(Pavlovskiy) It has long been time to separate the times of elections of president and parliament, because when there are two federal campaigns going one after the other, the first inevitably overshadows the second. Today at the Duma elections, there is in fact no debate about the party programs, but only about who will become the future president. The December elections become a rehearsal for the March elections, and this depletes the parties themselves. It is not parties that compete, but groups for support of candidates. We will never strengthen the system of parties and their variation in this way. This topic has been discussed for a long time now, and almost everyone is in agreement on this. The question consisted only of choosing the suitable moment.

(Correspondent) Why specifically now?

(Pavlovskiy) Extending the president's term of office is a very delicate question. Our voter is mistrusting and always asks the president whether he is trying to do something for himself.
Remember how long Vladimir Putin had been suspected of wanted to go the way of Turkmenbashi? And he was always very sensitive to this question. Any serious discussion about extending the president's powers and authorities becomes a cause for speculation. That is why Putin kept postponing this decision. And, in doing so, he shifted the problem onto the shoulders of his successors. Dmitriy Medvedev found it convenient to do this 3 years before the elections - when he is still not being perceived as a candidate in 2012. In a year or two, everyone would have shouted that he was preparing 6 years "for himself."

Discussion of values

(Correspondent) How, in your opinion, do Medvedev and Putin differ as people?

(Pavlovskiy) Typologically, they are entirely different people. Medvedev, as his first presidential message showed, is a man of norm as the highest value. In the Russian language, normalcy and norm are words that have the same root, but we, while considering ourselves normal, do not like to adhere to norms. This is what the president calls "legal nihilism." Medvedev takes a serious view of values. For him, fairness, property and freedom are not declarations, but a fundamental connection, the tenets of the country, so to speak... And he sincerely believes that, if we begin violating rules less often, most of the national ills will be eased. And also the state institutions, which everyone is so cursing, will being to work rather well. Medvedev himself is very correct. They say about people like that: "It will be hard for him in life!"
(until they become president, that is).

Putin is entirely different. I understand him as a man of my own generation. I recognize in him the type of a Soviet-educated intellectual of the 70's-80's. He acts more often not by the book, but improvises, as do all who have grown up in the world of shortages. In Soviet life, according to Bulgakov, "no matter where you turn- there is nothing!" It is foolish to press buttons and expect a result: One must go oneself, and do everything oneself. If you don't do it yourself, you will not get anything but reports. Whether he wants to or not, the president must be an "innovator"!

When Putin, having become president, came to head up the country, there was a war going on in the Caucasus, which could not be waged by the book - there was neither the money, nor the troops for this. The West offered aid, but everyone understood that, if they came to help, they would never leave. That means, using the skills of Soviet inventiveness (now, we call this innovation!), it was necessary to mold a Chechen peace out of what there was. I call this "jazz-statehood," where tactics and improvisation are more important than rules and norms. But no matter how much they cursed Putin, today there is peace in Chechnya, yet Bush does not have it in Iraq. And Dmitriy Medvedev can build his presidency on European norms and values because he is "standing on the shoulders" of Putin, who normalized our chaos while himself rarely following the norm.

Medvedev's task is to see that we achieve a long-term strategic clarity: Here is the state, here is society, and here is business. I might add that the need for a long-term strategy - whether it is to the year 2020 or not - is one other motive for a long presidency. What do 4 years mean for a poorly developed country? No program of regional development can be realized before the elections. And it is the rare president who would risk starting such a thing, if by the next elections he has only expenses on his hands, without results. Up until now in Russia, the conflict between the short presidential term and the need for long-term planning has been quite obvious.

Zyuganov Asks MPs Not to Rush to Extend Presidential, Duma Terms

MOSCOW. Nov 11 (Interfax) - Russian Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov has said that parliamentarians should not rush the bills extending the presidential and parliamentary terms, but rather focus on priorities such as financial and economic problems facing the country.

"As the serious financial and economic crisis is unfolding both globally and in Russia, we should first of all think of how to get out of it instead of making hasty amendments to the Constitution, extending the terms for the head of state and the State Duma," Zyuganov told Interfax.

There are still more than three and a half years before the term of the incumbent president and Duma expires. "Inevitably, the question arises:
why is there such a rush?" Zyuganov said.

At the same time, before these amendments are made to the Fundamental Law, the regulations about the parliamentary control over the executive authorities both at the federal and regional levels should be enacted, he said.

"I am certain that proposals to extend the term of office for the head of state and the federal parliament should not be considered unless we pass regulations extending the supervising functions for parliaments of every level," said the Communist leader.

"Bills granting supervising functions to parliamentarians should be considered and passed in the first place and the amendments to the country's Fundamental Law afterwards," he said.

Earlier, a number of Communist MPs, including Sergei Obukhov, Valery Rashkin, Anatoly Lokot and others, also told journalists that they do not understand why these significant changes to the Russian Constitution should be so urgent.

"The head of state suggested increasing terms both for the president and the State Duma starting from the next elections, when there are more than three and half years to go. This is why this current haste inevitably suggests that the country might hold an early presidential election," Obukhov said.