Rus Articles Journal

Whose care to write constitutions? The Ukrainian politicians exorcized

about need of adoption of the new country constitution again, the benefit of the constitution is written by all who feel like it.

If to trust Saltykov-Shchedrin, then even the city`s mayor of the city of Glupov, the councilor of state Bonevolensky F. I. composed them. It depicted the problem costing before all the power having and decided to do much good for the citizens the new constitution.

The section - “Duties of citizens“ - is written easily and simply, the same Bonevolensky could use up the whole fathers-in-law (the father-in-law - 24 leaves) developing papers and concretizing this subject. And here with “Rights“ - a problem. Even it is difficult to define what is it. The right to housing - and a bear in the wood has a den, the right for work - and a horse works. At Bonevolensky further the first phrase so business also did not go.

Anywhere this difficulty and did not get to today. Read modern constitutions of Russia or Ukraine. At the president, obvious or their secret author, directly imperial powers, and all other branches of the power, together with the people, it seems as servants at it is mute. However, the Ukrainian parliament after long and persistent fight managed to poogranichit for a while several absolute power of the president and to expand the rights. But now all returned “into place“.

It results, from - for aspirations of authors of the basic law to write it “under itself“. The constitution is, first of all the law and professional lawyers, specially created group of highly skilled scientists - jurists have to write it at a complete elimination of influence of all interested parties - parliament, the president, judicial authorities, prosecutors, etc. Any deputies, representatives of the president and other lobbyists the power of priderzhashchy, it is impossible to admit to this group on a gun shot.

But to write the text of the constitution - half-business. The principles of democracy demand procedure of adoption of this text - the accounting of opinions of all segments of the population, introduction of the relevant amendments. And likely the worst way for this purpose - a national referendum. When Anatoly Karpov became the world champion in chess, the newspaper “Komsomolskaya Pravda“ organized on the pages two games of chess between him and readers of the newspaper. Unexpectedly very evident sociological experiment turned out. Among readers of the newspaper, the champion`s opponents, there was a number of the Soviet grand masters standing in chess hierarchy only one step lower than the rival.

Further events developed according to the following scenario. Let`s allow everything grand masters including Anatoly Karpov, unanimously consider that readers need to make the hardly noticeable course a pawn. But these grand masters - the person ten, and comes to edition 10000 letters suggesting to give effective, but absolutely useless shah to the enemy king. As decisions for readers were made by a democratic principle, i.e. by a majority vote, on a board gave a check to the king.

As a result, Karpov easily won one party, and the second, sparing vanity of readers, drew. Grand masters estimated the level of game of the collective player as average second-grade sportsman.

It is easy to see that all “democratically“ made decisions have such level, including the constitution adopted thus will have it also.

Other way extended now - the constitution is adopted at a session of parliament. Result - interests of the people on the last place. On the first - deputies, the president, the high-ranking officials, oligarchs, - generally, all who is capable to affect a voleizyavleniye of deputies, whether directly, whether through any lobbyists.

As it seems to me, the best way, this adoption of the constitution on the convention which is specially called for this purpose - meeting of delegates of all people which after execution of the mission stops the existence. On it authors of the draft constitution have to protect the child, and everything has to happen on parliamentary procedure - to amending, vote for each of them, final vote for all text, etc. And as there will be a need of amending this constitution sooner or later, not to convoke new convention in each such case, it is necessary, directly in its text, to grant to parliament the right to bring in it some limited quantity (we will tell 30 pieces) amendments, it is natural only the constitutional majority. The limit was reached - the new convention has to be called and all constitution is revised.

Another integral part of its text has to become regulations of work of parliament because procedure of adoption of laws to have very significant effect on quality of laws. Well and of course, the best achievements of the western democracies have to find the reflection on its pages. (Though about such “achievements“ as the proportional election system in parliament delegating all power in the country to leaders of political parties, and actually - to oligarchs, it is worth thinking still.)

And here such “rights“ as the right for work, for rest, for the dwelling having purely declarative character and which remained from Soviet period have to be excluded from the constitution. You can swing as much as necessary these “constitutional“ rights of neither work, nor housing the state will not provide to you.

Of course, it is difficult to compose the ideal constitution, it is difficult to construct the ideal mechanism of its acceptance, but to take at least a step in this direction all are costs.

And the most important - is important to adopt not so much the constitution, and to achieve its execution. The Stalin constitution of 1935 was likely the most democratic in the world because the Soviet officials accurately knew - it is not necessary to execute this useless scrap of paper and therefore in it it was possible to write anything.

Well-known 58 - I am the article of the Criminal code on the basis of which in camp sent millions of people, looks rules of conduct of kids in kindergarten in comparison with the relevant article of the American constitution: (Article III, section 3.)

“ High treason to the United States only warfare against them or accession to their enemies, rendering to enemies the help and support is considered. Nobody can be condemned for high treason, except as on the basis of testimonies of two witnesses about the same obvious act or own recognition at a public meeting of court. …“
“ … accession to their enemies, rendering to enemies the help and support“ it just is also contents Soviet 58 - y articles, and the Soviet article, unlike American which can be treated as much as widely, specifically listed types of such crimes. In the USA also the following offer of this article was sacredly and really executed.