Russia’s recent national referendum approved a change to the country’s constitution that would allow Vladimir Putin, the current president of Russia, to run for another two six-year terms after his current term ends in 2024. If Putin wins, he will be able to hold the position of Russian president until 2036. To put it simply, Putin, who is 67, will presumably be in power until his death.
Russian plebiscites, or referendums, are a mechanism of direct democracy. Citizens vote directly on policy questions and amendments, unlike in a representative democracy, where elected officials make decisions on citizens’ behalf. This particular plebiscite lasted from Thursday, June 25, to Wednesday, July 1 . The vote was originally scheduled for Wednesday, April 22, but was delayed because of the coronavirus pandemic.
Preliminary results counting 50% of voters showed that more than 70% of Russian citizens voted in favor of the amendments, which secure and expand Putin’s presence in Russian law.
The referendum also included religious amendments, like the assertion of marriage as a heterosexual union and the enshrinement of Christianity. These amendments also allow executive overreach onto the judicial and legislative bodies, permitting Putin to vicariously redirect proposed legislation to the constitutional court, which is completely under his thumb. Other amendments also confirmed that Russia’s parliamentary rule is above international law and that “inter-state actors,” presumably corporations, will not face legal consequences for actions legal inside Russia but illegal internationally. Another amendment targeted ethnic minorities in the oblasts, or provinces, of eastern Russia, by establishing that the Russian language was that of “nation building” and pushing an agenda of prescriptivism to eradicate local cultures.
It is clear that Putin seeks to create a more conservative Russia, based upon a facade of Christianity and his own personal taste in leadership. Ratifying anti-LGBTQ legislation because of “tradition” is certainly not palatable, but insulating future dictatorships is a much higher degree of totalitarian rule. With these amendments, Putin orchestrates the illusion of judicial review. Under the guise of constitutional legitimacy, Putin now has the ability to “supplement” the legislative process by appealing legislation to the constitutional court. If the legislation is determined to be constitutional, then Putin will sign it into law. However, if the legislation is not constitutional, it will be sent back to the Duma, the lower house of parliament.
The twist in this situation is that members of the constitutional court are confirmed by the federation council, a body appointed and controlled by – you guessed it – the federation president, Vladimir Putin. By shelling out judicial systems and simultaneously intensely surveilling any legislation put through parliament, Putin has an even more definite grasp on what is and what is not allowed in Russia.
For Americans, this should be a warning sign. The resemblance between Putin’s executive overreach and our own judiciary is sobering: While justices on the Supreme Court are confirmed by the Senate, they act outside of democracy once in power. Legislation in Congressional gridlock is sent to the Supreme Court and interpreted by justices who are not obligated to a constituency or concerned about public approval. The cause of this is the failure of the American Congress. By failing to reach consensuses and enact legislation, Congress has allowed the U.S. Supreme Court to assume the role of a legislature, making decisions on our country’s behalf without the restrictions of public approval or any formal public election. Putin’s courts act as an appendage, consistently ruling in favor of his personal agenda. While one can distinguish between the ideology of Vladimir Putin and the record of the Supreme Court, judicial elitism can be utilized for an autocracy. The theater of the Russian system and the realness of our own should be fuel for change.
America may not have the theatrical propaganda machine that Putin’s Russia does, but it certainly is not fully committed to the democracy it claims to love.
In the modern day, people view Russia and its affiliates as a global disgrace. In the eyes of most Western liberals, Russia is an authoritarian, oligarchic nation of vodka drinkers too depressed to maintain their population’s birth rate.
Of course, the veil of stereotypes never fully obscures the truth. The Russian Federation is a nation of 146 million, with an economy and industries mostly vested in oil, gas, agriculture and technology. The explosion of Russian neoliberalism following the collapse of the Soviet Union (Russia’s once-powerful predecessor) gave a mirage of hope to the young, broken country. However, hyper-privatization burdened and drove the populace down into gloomy, vehement nihilism.
What I wish is for people to look not through the lens of overblown “Russiagate” narratives, but to instead analyze politics for themselves. Russia is a nation of educated and hopeful youths yearning for a better future, much like us. Rumors of future protests in Moscow show resilience and hope. The Putin dictatorship may seem ridiculous and far from likely to young Americans, but ultra-corporatism, broken legislative bodies and a skyrocketing wealth gap do not seem too outlandish for both the American and Russian futures.
Daniel Cody is a sophomore journalism major from Pennsylvania who writes about politics and culture.
