The Russians voted for Vladimir Putin remained in power until may 2036. Other changes are ideological rather than obviously dangerous. According to the Central election Commission of the Russian Federation, the turnout of nearly 60 percent of the electorate, of which 78 percent voted for the amendment and 21 percent against. More than 600 thousand ballots were declared invalid.
In short, we can say that the election result slightly exceeded expectations of the Kremlin, which earlier ordered regions on the required turnout of 60 percent and 70 percent support for the amendment.
For a long time remained the question of why Vladimir Putin decided to change the current Constitution. The laws in Russia have long been altered in favor of the Kremlin, and in General, their interpretation can be easily changed depending on the desire of Putin and his entourage. The same mystery remains the question of why the constitutional changes needed the approval not only of Parliament but of the people in a referendum. The mechanism of amending the Constitution is described in detail in the Russian laws, and the popular vote there is not a word.
It was later revealed that the draft amendments to the main law of the country will be engaged not constitutional lawyers, and public figures: scientists, actors, doctors, managers and politicians and even, as they say, cooks. In the work on the new Constitution was attended even an outstanding vaulter Yelena Isinbayeva, which is directly in front of the camera admitted he had not read the previous edition of the Constitution and only now realized how important it is.
The key secret finally revealed cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova, who offered to release the current President from restrictions on new presidential mandate. It gradually became clear that the whole process of constitutional amendments will be one big show, which is intended to show the love of the working people to their leader and thereby provide him with a legitimate right to ensure that he was re-elected for President again and again. In other words, the acute problem of continuity at the highest state post decided to just save for the future.
Finally, from the chaos of folk art were born offers of as much as 206 amendments to the Constitution. That is, there are so many that the ordinary voter not to participate in a rational debate about the constitutional amendments and he is one: either to accept the proposed changes or reject them all together.
But some of the amendments deserve more detailed consideration. Perhaps the most problematic are articles that criticized the so-called Venice Commission. This Advisory body of the Council of Europe warned the Russian government, noting that the proposed changes are contrary to the commitments that this government took when in 1996 he joined the Council of Europe. By ratifying the European Convention on human rights, the Russian Federation voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the European court of human rights. Its verdicts shall be enforced in the Russian Federation, regardless of the desire of the Russian authorities or local courts.
The proposed amendments permitting the Constitutional court to block decisions of international organizations, including the verdicts of the European court of human rights, directly contradict the obligations that follow from membership of the Russian Federation in the Council of Europe. So we can expect that in the future the Russian government will treat its international obligations is even less responsible than before. Moreover, the possible independence of the arbitrator, the constitutional court is questionable in view of other proposed changes. It entitles the Council of the Federation upon the proposal of the President to remove judges, including constitutional. Before the proposal was made by the judiciary, not the President.
The second questionable group of amendments relates to the position of the President and the balance between the branches of government in the state. Although the Constitution and it is forbidden to elect to the presidency one and the same person more than two times in a row, the current President this restriction does not apply. That is, theoretically, Vladimir Putin may stay in office until 2036, i.e. to 84 years. Then he could become Senator of the Federation Council and, what’s more, enjoy lifelong immunity.
Other amendments are more ideological than obviously dangerous. In the new Constitution there was a mention of faith in God, speaks about unacceptability of belittling people’s heroism during the defense of the Motherland, and that Russia is committed to keeping the “historical truth.” In other words, the Kremlin gets another tool, which will allow him to defend a distorted interpretation of Soviet history.
In the new edition of the Constitution also stated that children are the most important priority of state policy of the Russian Federation. It is difficult to understand what the authors of the amendments it is understood. Given the current state of Affairs, it is unlikely that the government thus undertakes to provide for children materially and spiritually to their healthy development regardless of their social origin. Rather, it is a threat to those who are critical to the current government and whose children are, from the point of view of the Kremlin, growing up in an unhealthy environment.
What do the amendments to the Russian Constitution for Europe and the Czech Republic? In principle, nothing new. Probably, there is little doubt that Vladimir Putin will rule Russia until it would allow the physical and mental health. The fact that Russia is not fulfilling its obligations and violates international law, is also well known. The independence of the Russian judicial system to believe could only those who know nothing about Russia.
It is also well known that the Kremlin harshly the attempts to revise the Soviet view of history, including the period of world war II. Thus, with the adoption of the amendments to the Constitution in Russia, nothing new will happen. Just exacerbated many negative trends, Russia is still several steps away from the community of developed democratic States. From the club that it once was.