My profile:
 | To Our Readers |
Has something you've read here startled you? Are you angry, excited, puzzled or pleased? Do you have ideas to improve our coverage? |
These are the very officials who claim that they have made Russia significantly stronger in recent years and saved it from impending collapse and international isolation. Yet none of the notable political forces in Russia, even among the opposition, has ever cast doubt on Russia's sovereignty. No one is questioning Russia's borders, either. So why the panic over sovereignty? Or is this discussion really about something else altogether?
The subject of external threats to Russia's independence and territorial integrity first came up during the Beslan tragedy last September, when in an address to the nation, the president stated that certain powerful outside forces longed to weaken and even dismember Russia. After Viktor Yushchenko won the presidential election in Ukraine, sovereignty was even more widely discussed, and the defeat of Kremlin favorite Viktor Yanukovych was seen as the result of outside interference. Many officials demanded Russia take measures to prevent a similar turn of events back home. Federal Security Service director Nikolai Patrushev warned the State Duma of the danger and named particular international organizations that he believed were trying to organize a color revolution.
In recent interviews and statements, deputy chief of staff Vladislav Surkov, one of the Kremlin's main ideologues, has spelled out his vision for state power, which he calls "sovereign democracy." The state should be headed by the "national elite," as opposed to the "offshore aristocracy" that practically governs from abroad. Domestic capital or the state should dominate in strategic industries, as a sovereign democracy faces tough competition from other countries. Historical memory, or in other words recollections of imperial greatness, is crucial and sets Russia apart from other European nations. Russia should move carefully toward democracy under the unblinking eye of the authorities, so as to keep destructive or immature politicians away from the helm of the state. Democracy will grow stronger as society becomes objectively more prepared to handle it -- and today, it's simply not ready yet, Surkov believes.
This kind of rhetoric reveals a conflict between two ideas, two sets of values that are equally dear to every patriot and citizen's heart: Russia's freedom and independence -- its sovereignty -- and Russians' political and civil rights, or Russian democracy. These two concepts have been set in opposition to one another.
How are democracy and sovereignty related? Who is the real sovereign in today's Russia? Who really holds the power and jurisdiction? There can be no doubt about it: According to the Constitution, the only possessor of sovereignty and the source of authority and power is the multiethnic people of Russia. For this reason, we need to cast aside the widely held conviction among many Russians and even among certain analysts and experts that confuses sovereignty with state power.
Several important consequences and conclusions flow from the notion that the people are the sole sovereign in today's Russia. First, let's look at the current Constitution, which was approved in 1993 by the people via national referendum and which forms the basis of the state. The Constitution stipulates the basic political and civil rights of all Russians. Everything that prevents Russians from enjoying these rights is unconstitutional and limits the sovereign people from exercising their power.
Thus, the recent version of the law on referendums contradicts the Constitution, as it makes it virtually impossible to conduct a referendum based on public initiative. The constitutionality of the latest changes to election laws seems similarly questionable, as the amendments eliminate single-mandate districts -- and therefore deny individual citizens the right to participate in the Duma. They furthermore raise the amount of votes a party needs to be part of the parliament and allow officials to lower the required voter turnout and to remove the "against all" option from ballots. Along with the elimination of popular elections for regional leaders and the appointment of senators to the Federation Council, these changes indicate that the state, which does not have sovereign rights and has only been engaged by the people to rule them for a particular period of time within certain limits, is consciously and consistently pushing the true sovereign aside, away from governing via the state, which wholly belongs to the people.
The policy of limiting citizens' rights and liberties to preserve and strengthen state sovereignty -- putting democracy on ice, so to speak -- is also extremely questionable. If the people are the sovereign in today's Russia, then limiting their sovereign power in the name of Russia's sovereignty is absolutely absurd. Sovereignty is not at variance with democracy. On the contrary, sovereignty is democracy: The more democracy, the more sovereignty.
When the state limits civil liberties, it is like a vassal limiting the rights of his own master. The Constitution defines this kind of action as a crime punishable by law: the usurpation of power. Understanding the true meaning of sovereignty means that the people have the inalienable right to disobey authorities who have usurped their sovereign rights.
The German Constitution directly states that citizens have a right to resist in such situations. The Germans appear to have learned their lesson from the terrible events of the 1930s, when the Nazis took over the government and dragged Germany into the darkest era in its history.
The Russian Constitution does not contain a passage of this sort, but this does not mean that the Russian people do not have the right to resist a government that is ruling them illegally. Resistance is justified if the government infringes on citizens' basic rights, such as the right to free and unlimited information or to participation in free and fair elections. In this sense, what happened in Ukraine and Georgia was little more than the sovereign people restoring their rights. And they did so in a way that was completely and indisputably constitutional.
The Russian people have the right to organize protests without the authorities' permission. Why? Because the very law that prohibits demonstrations without a permit violates our constitutional rights by making our right to peaceful assembly dependent on bureaucrats' whims. Resisting this unjust law is therefore justified.
The concept of sovereignty has been completely misinterpreted recently. The constitutional principle of the people as sovereign is being replaced by the unconstitutional notion of sovereign democracy. This term implies just the opposite of democracy. It means limiting democracy and political competition and indulging the ruling elite's desire to preserve its power by any means necessary.
Any attempt to usurp the people's sovereign power will be doomed to fail tragically. In the merciless and bitter irony of history, those who have tried to hold on to power while shouting slogans about saving Russia were not only unable to stay in power; they also drove Russia to the brink of destruction.
Only the full and unambiguous expression of the people's sovereignty via free, fair and timely elections will protect Russia's sovereignty and territorial integrity, its internal strength and liberty.
Vladimir Ryzhkov is a deputy in the State Duma. He contributed this comment to Vedomosti, where it appeared in longer form.
