Janani Kumar
Amending the Russian Constitution is outlined in Chapter Nine of the Russian Constitution and in Articles 134 to 137 of the Constitution. A proposal for a constitutional amendment can come from, "the President, the Council of the Federation, the State Duma, the Government of the Russian Federation, legislative (representative) bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, and by groups consisting of not less than one fifth of the members of the Council of Federation or of the deputies of the State Duma" (1). An amendment can be proposed by many members of the government, but the ratification process is extremely stringent.
The first process outlined is to ratify amendments Chapters 1, 2, and 9 of the Constitution and may not be revised by the Federal Assembly. To ratify any aspect of these three chapters it must be supported by a three-fifths of the members of the members of the Council of Federation and deputies of the State Duma, and then a Constitutional Assembly will be called. This assembly will then review the proposal and the proposal is approved if there is a two thirds of the total number of members approve or it shall be referred to a referendum. In the case of a referendum, in accordance with the Constitution it shall be approved if over half of the voters who voted vote in favor of it, and if over half of the electorate participated in the referendum. The second process outlined is for the ratification of amendments to Chapters 3-8 and it will be approved if two-thirds of the legislative authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation vote in favor of the proposal (1). I chose to qualify the ratification process as stringent because of the number of veto players involved in this process. In order to approve an amendment there are about five veto players involved if it goes to a referendum or three if it doesn't, making it a difficult Constitution to Amend.
This pattern that is outlined above was used when ratifying the original Russian Constitution during its adoption in 1993. During this time, the Constitution did not receive three-fifths of the votes when it was first voted upon. It then went to a referendum, where over half of the voters voted in favor of the Constitution. This is the same process that is used when amending Chapters 1,2, and 9 of the Russian Constitution (2).
"Informal amendments" to the Constitution are a result of the judicial review and reinterpretation of the constitution. The Constitutional Court of Russia is responsible for making these calls and also deciding whether laws or presidential decrees are in accordance to the Russian Constitution. This is the highest court in Russia and in order to determine if something is constitutional, all of the judges must be present and there must be a two-thirds majority who vote to determine if something is constitutional or not. The decisions made by this court may not be appealed (3).
Works Cited:
Celia Kaechele
ReplyDeleteThe new resolution of the Russian Federation was adopted in 1993 and the first substantial amendments were not made until 2008. These amendments extended the terms of the President from four to six years and the representatives to the Duma from four to five years. These amendments would take place for the following elections and would not affect those in office when the amendment was passed. This amendment was passed through the Duma and the Council in only 10 days, and the Communist Party was the only faction in opposition (1). The leader of the party believed strongly that there was already too much power in the hands of the President and extending the term of that office only increased this power (2). There have been no referendums to the Constitution since it was adopted in 1993 (3). The average turnout for Russian Parliamentary and Presidential elections are in the low to mid 60% so assuming this turnout would hold for a referendum it is likely that the referendum would have the requisite number of voters to pass an amendment, assuming half of the individuals who voted chose to vote in favor (4). It does appear that the stringent nature of the amendment process to the Constitution could have limited the number of amendments to the Constitution.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_Russia#cite_note-nyt-6
2: Barry, Ellen (15 November 2008). "Bill to Extend Russian President's Term Advances". The New York Times.
3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_by_country
4: http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=RU
Patricia Hrit
ReplyDeleteAs Janani described, it is rather difficult to amend aspects of the Russian constitution that are amendable. Based on lecture, this would lead one to believe there have been many informal amendments through Russia’s Constitutional Court system. Article 3 of the Constitution states the Constitutional Court “decides only questions of law” however, Vladimir Tournov, a former Charman of the Constitutional Court, wrote in 1995: “Of course the Constitutional Court is doomed to decide political questions” (1). An example of this was when the Constitutional Court essentially granted the President a new right “not only to propose this or that candidacy [for Prime Minister] but also ‘to insist on its approval’.” (1) They were not deciding a matter of law, the Constitution clearly states the Prime Minister can submit to the Duma candidates for Prime Minister, but created a new political dynamic between the Executive and the Legislative branches of government. This decision, and the precedence it set, contributed even further to the powerful executive structure in Russia we have discussed in previous posts.
1. Luryi, Yuri, “The Appointment of a Prime-Minister in Russia: The President. The Duma. The Constitutional Court.” http://www.heinonline.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/rsl25&id=595&collection=journals#607
Russia has a CIvil Law legal system. (1) This can be seen by how the constitution does not have an article that provides the provisions that the judicial branch, besides the Constitutional Court, would need to be able to change laws by using judicial review. Russia also has an explicitly created Constitutional Court. The existence and the powers of this body is in line with how a civil law system works. It is able to deal with the constitution, along with several other responsibilities (article 125). It can change other laws when this body deems them unconstitutional (article 125.6).
ReplyDeleteThe Constitutional Court appears to have more of a passive role in picking what cases it handles. Many times, it is referred cases, and the constitution does not mention the Court picking its own cases. This court acts after receiving complaints (125.4), or “upon request of the President of the Russian Federation, the Council of Federation, the State Duma, the Government of the Russian Federation, and legislative authorities of constituent entities of the Russian Federation.”
A trait of the civil law system is that the legislature has more power than the judicial branch (2). Russia’s constitution seems to be fit this case. More specifically, the legislative branch appoints the members of all three of Russia’s highest courts (102 g), after the President presents candidates (83 f), including the Constitutional Court.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html
Lecture 11.2
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Russia_2008#251
The Russian Constitution seems to allow for a passive, but relatively powerful judicial review. The Russian Federation uses a separate Constitutional Court to rule on the constitutionality of laws, provide interpretations of the Constitution, as well as resolve disputes of authority between the different branches of government (Russian Federation Constitution, Chapter 7, Article 125). This scope of power means that the court has both statutory and regulatory power(Lijphart Chaper 12). However, the Constitutional Court cannot actively pick out cases to pass judgment on; the Court can only hear cases at the request of the President, the Council of the Federation, the State Duma, the Supreme Court, etc (Russian Federation Constitution, Chapter 7, article 125).
ReplyDeleteEven though the Court must wait to have cases referred to them, it still exercises strong judicial review powers. As mentioned, the Court enjoys a wider scope of power that includes both statutory(rulings over legislation) and regulatory(solving authority disputes between branches)(Lijphart Chaper 12).
Furthermore, Russia is using a centralized judicial review system, meaning that they established a special constitutional court, which inherently tends to support use of stronger judicial review(Lijphart Chapter 12). Judicial Review is the specific role of centralized courts, which influences the court to fill that role to a higher degree than a decentralized system in which the courts also serve other roles(Lijphart Chapter 12).
Even though strong judicial review tends to be anti-majoritarian(Lijphart, Chapter 12), the Russian Constitutional Court also has some contradictory majoritarian qualities. The judges on the Constitutional Court do not have a fixed term, and are appointed by the officials of the party in power(Russian Federation Constitution, Article 128).
The appointments by officials in power might be exaggerated in Russia due to the power and influence of the executive branch, specifically the President. This power could allow the party in power to get an inordinate amount of party-supportive judges onto the court with relatively low resistance. This “court-stacking” behavior, combined with the passive judicial review, and the strong judicial review enjoyed by the Constitutional Court, seems to be more supportive of majoritarian values/characteristics.