2020 amendments to the Constitution of Russia

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  On the 15th of January 2020, Vladimir Putin proposed what would become the most sweeping changes to Russia's 1993 Constitution. Standing before the Federal Assembly, Putin announced proposals to rewrite much of the document. The changes, he said, would be put to a national vote. The proposals moved through parliament and into law with unusual speed.

  The questions worth asking go deeper than procedure. What was driving the changes? What did they actually do to the balance of power in the country? And when independent legal experts examined the result, what did they find?

• 2. The 2024 Problem

  ›

  Point 3 of Article 81 of the Russian Constitution stated that the same person could not serve as president for more than two consecutive terms. Vladimir Putin had been elected in 2012 and re-elected in 2018. Under the existing rules, he could not stand again in 2024. He had said as much himself. In a March 2018 interview with Megyn Kelly, Putin stated explicitly that he was not going to change the Constitution.

  A Gallup International poll conducted in December 2017 had already revealed how dependent Russian political life had become on one figure. If the person voters most wanted was not on the ballot, 46% said they would not know who else to vote for. In 77% of cases, that most-wanted person was Putin. Another 19% said they would invalidate their ballots entirely. Valery Fedorov, the Director of the Russian Public Opinion Research Center, said the population had not seriously thought through what succession might look like.

  Focus groups organized by the Levada Center surfaced two main possibilities: Putin retaining his position through some mechanism, or naming a successor. In 2018, Valery Zorkin proposed changing the constitution to allow Putin to remain. But Putin's public denials, which political analyst Sergei Markov noted had been repeated enough to stop serious planning for 2024, created an impasse. Political analyst Kirill Rogov observed that the "tandem" period had failed to build durable institutions for distributing power. During that arrangement, Medvedev had held the presidency while Putin served as prime minister. Security concerns for Putin and his family upon a full exit from office also entered the discussion.

  The formal bill reached the State Duma on the 20th of January 2020, five days after the Federal Assembly address.

• 3. The Legislative Sprint

  ›

  Putin appointed a commission to draft the amendments. It was headed by academician Taliya Habrieva, Senator Andrey Klishas, and MP Pavel Krasheninnikov.

  On the 11th of March, the State Duma, dominated by pro-government parties, approved the proposals in their third reading without a single objection. By the 13th of March, all 85 federal subjects had ratified the changes. On the 16th of March, the Constitutional Court gave its approval.

  Under Articles 136 and 108, amendments to Chapters 3 through 8 required a two-thirds supermajority in the State Duma. They also needed a three-quarters supermajority in the Federation Council. At least 57 of the 85 regional legislatures had to ratify them as well. All those thresholds were met. The Venice Commission would later observe that the pace was clearly inappropriate given the depth of the changes and their societal impact.

• 4. What Changed

  ›

  Excluding Chapters 1, 2, and 9 (which require convening a Constituent Assembly to alter), the amendments touched around 60% of the Constitution's articles. In 2020-41 articles were rewritten and five more were added. The stated aim was to move away from the super-presidential system established in 1993. The new framework was intended to rest more explicitly on checks and balances.

  The most consequential change was technical in appearance. The phrase "in a row" was removed from the presidential term limit clause. The amendment also nullified all terms served before it came into force. This reset the count for Putin entirely, and for former president Dmitry Medvedev, whose last term had ended in 2012.

  The State Duma gained new authority. It could now formally approve the Prime Minister, not just consent to the appointment. It could also approve Deputy Prime Ministers and Federal Ministers. The president could not refuse those appointments, though could remove ministers under certain conditions.

  The Federation Council gained new oversight of the judiciary. It could propose that the president dismiss federal judges. In some circumstances, it could itself remove judges of the Constitutional and Supreme courts.

  Presidential eligibility rules tightened. Candidates now required at least 25 years of continuous Russian residence, up from the previous ten. Holding foreign citizenship or residency at any point in one's life became permanently disqualifying. Ministers, judges, and regional governors faced similar foreign-citizenship restrictions during their time in office.

  Social amendments required the minimum wage to stay above the subsistence minimum and guaranteed regular pension indexation. Marriage was defined as a union between one man and one woman. The Constitution was placed above international law. One amendment banned the ceding of Russian territory to foreign powers.

• 5. The Vote

  ›

  The national vote was initially set for April 2020 but was postponed when the COVID-19 pandemic reached Russia. It was rescheduled for the 1st of July, with early voting open from the 25th of June.

  The approved format differed sharply from a standard referendum. Preparation time was one month, against the 90-100 days a referendum would normally require. Only observers from the Public Chambers, bodies composed by federal and regional authorities, were permitted. The process was described as "informing the public" about the amendments rather than formal campaigning for or against them. There was no minimum turnout requirement, and online voting was offered.

  With 98% of the ballot counted, 78% had voted in favor and 22% against. Putin signed the executive order on the 3rd of July. The amendments took effect on the 4th of July. The Venice Commission's full assessment of what those amendments meant would not be published until the 23rd of March 2021.

• 6. International Scrutiny

  ›

  On the 16th of March 2020, 128 Russian lawyers, political scientists, and human rights defenders sent a petition to the Council of Europe. Georgy Satarov, a member of the Constitutional Conference of the Russian Federation, was among the signatories. So was Irina Alebastrova, a professor at the Higher School of Economics with a doctorate in jurisprudence. Sergei Guriev of the Institute of Political Studies signed, as did human rights defender Lev Ponomaryov. The petition was posted on Change.org, where it accumulated over 200,000 signatures by the 27th of May. The Council of Europe referred the matter to the Venice Commission that same day.

  The Venice Commission's first opinion appeared on the 18th of June 2020, addressing Russia's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 46 of that Convention makes the Court's judgments binding without exception. The Commission found that the phrase "contrary to the Constitution" in the proposed amendments was too broad. It exceeded Article 79's existing standard, which addressed rulings that limited individual rights or contradicted the fundamentals of the constitutional system.

  The fuller assessment followed on the 23rd of March 2021. The Commission acknowledged several genuine improvements. Among them were stronger social rights protections and a fixed six-year term for most Federation Council senators. The State Council also received clearer constitutional footing. But its central finding was critical. The amendments had disproportionately strengthened the president's position. The ad hominem exclusion contradicted the very logic of the two-term limit the amendments claimed to introduce. It reset the term count for sitting and former presidents rather than applying the limit universally.

  Empowering the president to initiate dismissals of apex court judges on vague grounds was, the Commission concluded, a danger to the rule of law. Expanding presidential senatorial appointments also raised concerns. The Commission questioned whether the Federation Council could remain independent enough to exercise its oversight functions. Together, the Commission wrote, these changes went far beyond what separation of powers norms permit, even in presidential systems.

  Will Partlett described the amendments as an example of "theatrical constitution-making" used to support authoritarian populism. The Guardian noted the initial perception had been that the changes were designed to keep Putin in power past 2024. The New York Times described the same-sex marriage amendment as an effort to raise turnout. The referendum, the paper noted, could extend Putin's hold on power. Some observers characterized the process as a self-coup: term limits effectively eliminated, presidential authority expanded, and judicial independence weakened.

  The Venice Commission's finding that constitutionalizing existing laws removes them from ordinary democratic review carries a lasting implication. Provisions once open to revision become the fixed standard against which all other laws are measured.