«Constitutional coup» — an expression that is increasingly heard in connection with what is happening before our eyes in Russia.
And it’s not surprising — on January 15, Vladimir Putin formed a commission to draft amendments to the Constitution, and on January 20, yesterday, he introduced a bill with these amendments in their final form.
Such an anti-constitutional, anti-democratic farce has never happened, not even in Soviet times, not even during Stalin’s era, when at least they simulated, even within a controlled and strictly ideologically defined framework, a nationwide discussion of new constitutional projects.
Here, they first create a commission with a lot of questionable personalities, and then, without even convening it, they already introduce the final projects of amendments that it was created to develop. It is very clear that they will be adopted in a similar way.
The citizens of Russia have been shown that they are «free». But not in the sense indicated in the Constitution of Russia, in the sense of possessing rights and freedoms, but in the sense that they do not depend on anything and that the main law of the country will rule and reshape as it sees fit and when it sees fit.
In connection with this, a discussion has arisen in opposition circles — is it necessary to protect the current constitution, which the authorities want to change for their own needs? The majority of the opposition believes that it is necessary because it is the one that enshrines the rights and freedoms of individuals and citizens in Russia, which must be fought for.
A less popular point of view was expressed by Alexei Navalny, who stated that there is nothing to protect, since the Constitution has long ceased to be in force in Russia. Moreover, it is this constitution, which gives the president superpowers, that ultimately allowed the establishment of a dictatorial regime that abolished all these rights and freedoms.
And we will express our opinion on this as individuals who have been writing about it for many years, which our old readers know well and new ones can see by reading our publications on this subject [link provided]. In them, for many years in a row, we have shown that the Russian authorities, from top to bottom, demonstratively trample on and deny the foundations of the constitutional order, illustrating this with numerous examples.
But does the fact that the Constitution is no longer in force mean that it should not be defended, as Navalny claims? Yes, there is no doubt that it would be better to have a more perfect constitution immediately, one that limits the powers of the presidency and expands the powers of parliament, the regions, and civil society.
However, the adoption of such a constitution will require conditions that are currently unattainable — not only the removal of the current regime from power, without which there is nothing to discuss, but also the consent of the entire or majority of society, the country and its parts to the provisions of the new constitution.
Until such a consensus is reached, the only solid foundation on which Russian civil society can rely is the current, albeit nominal, constitution of the country, which guarantees the rights of its citizens. And the fact that those in power today essentially reject it, which allows society to recognize and understand that an anti-constitutional coup is taking place (which actually happened a long time ago), on the contrary, allows society to make it a platform for its own consolidation in the struggle for its rights.
As for the Muslims of Russia and why they need their constitution, we would like to remind you of an article published on our website nine years ago (link provided). The only thing that needs to be clarified is that this article was written from the perspective of what should be, that is, how Muslims should relate to the Constitution of Russia if it were really the fundamental law of the country and its provisions were in force.
Today we know that the Constitution is not in force in Russia, and as far as the rights of Muslims are concerned, it was abolished earlier than for anyone else. Well, all the more reason for us to demand the restoration of its provisions concerning the rights and freedoms of citizens and the character of Russia as a legal, federal, multiethnic state, together with the rest of civil society.