The Democratic Foundation of the Russian Federation’s 1993 Constitution
The Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted by popular referendum on December 12, 1993, following significant political and social upheaval after the dissolution of the Soviet Union—a process that began in 1992 with constitutional drafting and debate. This constitution was the result of a nationwide democratic choice, with 54.8% of registered voters turning out and 58.4% of these voting in favor, marking a foundational moment in Russia’s post-Soviet history. The document itself embodies a clear intention from the Russian populace to create a state based on democratic values, rule of law, respect for human rights, and political pluralism—principles central to established Western democracies.
Key features of the Russian Constitution include the recognition of sovereignty in the hands of its multinational people, the enshrinement of human rights and freedoms as supreme values, and the establishment of a bicameral legislature, an elected president, and independent judiciary. The document explicitly guarantees political pluralism, free multi-party elections, equality before the law, freedom of association and expression, economic freedoms, the separation of religion and state, and a robust federal structure reflecting the diversity of the Russian people.
Comparison: Russian and Western European (Dutch) Constitutional Democracy
The Constitution of the Russian Federation, as adopted in 1993, is structured in a manner closely aligned with the core constitutional traditions of Western European democracies, such as the Netherlands.
The Russian Constitution proclaims equality regardless of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, status, or religion, and commits to political diversity and a multi-party system. It is, in structure and formal content, a “Western” constitution in its embrace of representative democracy and legal protections.
Alignment with Western Political Principles and Views
The Russian Constitution aligns with Western political principles, as found in the Netherlands and other Western European states, in several ways:
Political and Civil Rights: Freedom of speech, press, association, assembly, political participation, and protection from discrimination are all guaranteed at a constitutional level.
Checks and Balances: There is a declared separation of powers, with mechanisms for presidential impeachment, legislative oversight, constitutional review, and judicial protection of rights.
Federalism and Local Autonomy: The constitution devolves certain powers to local and regional governments in recognition of Russia's multinational character, reflecting federal structures in many Western states.
Social Rights: Commitments to social security, healthcare, education, and family protection match Western Europe’s “social state” mechanisms.
Legal Protections: Equality before the law, due process, right to a fair trial, and presumption of innocence are central tenets, consistent with Western legal tradition.
These principles are comparable to those entrenched in the Dutch Constitution, which is founded on parliamentary democracy, proportional representation, the rule of law, broad civil liberties, and accountable government.
The Failure of Implementation: The Rise of Authoritarianism
While the Russian people explicitly chose a constitutional system reflecting deep democratic aspirations, the actual implementation of these principles has been severely flawed, especially under President Vladimir Putin’s tenure. Since the early 2000s, and increasingly after 2012, Russia has experienced significant:
Centralization of Power: Political authority has been increasingly concentrated in the executive, with the parliament and courts subordinated to presidential control.
Suppression of Opposition: Political dissent, opposition parties, and independent media have faced systematic repression, including arrests, censorship, and legal persecution.
Manipulation of Elections: Elections, while still held, have been marred by fraud, administrative control, and lack of genuine competition, negating the constitutional guarantee of free and fair elections.
Restrictions on Civil Society: Laws targeting NGOs, mass media, and protests—such as those criminalizing “foreign agents” or “undesirable organizations”—stifle civil society’s ability to hold power to account or advocate for citizens’ interests.
Erosion of Rule of Law: Judicial independence is compromised, and state agencies are often used as tools for political control, leading to widespread arbitrary detentions, unfair trials, and absence of redress.
This trajectory stands in sharp contrast to the Dutch and broader Western European experience, where constitutional democracy, political competition, and the rule of law remain robustly institutionalized and meaningfully implemented in practice.
Contradiction to the Will of the People
The ongoing slide toward authoritarianism under Putin’s rule directly contravenes the foundational choice made by the Russian people in 1993 when they endorsed the constitutional order. Instead of enjoying the freedoms, accountability, and rights enshrined in their constitution, Russian citizens now face restricted rights, limited political participation, and an executive that increasingly acts outside or above constitutional norms.
This disenfranchisement is not just a theoretical problem; it undermines the legitimacy of the Russian state as conceived by its own people, echoing the foundational democratic principle that government must derive its authority from the consent and will of the governed. International experience—and historic precedent—shows that when a government ceases to respect this popular mandate, social and political pressures build, often leading to protest, mass demonstrations, and, at times, revolutionary activity to restore constitutional rule.
The Need for Democratic Action When Popular Will Is Ignored
Democratic theory and constitutionalism hold that if the state fails to honor its constitutional obligations and the people’s voice is disregarded, citizens are justified, and at times morally compelled, to mobilize for substantive change. This can include public demonstrations, protest actions, civil disobedience, or broader revolutionary movements intended to realign power with the will of the people.
Recent history in Europe, such as pro-democracy protests in Georgia, Hungary, Serbia, and Turkey, illustrates that when elected governments diverge sharply from constitutional democracy, citizens act collectively to demand change and reassert their rights. In Russia, where the constitutionally mandated rights are neither respected nor protected, the logical outcome under such substantial misalignment is increased public protest or civil resistance.
Areas Where the Constitution Is Not Actively Imposed
Political Rights: The right to freely participate in politics is undermined by controlled, non-competitive elections and persecution of political opponents.
Freedom of Expression and Association: Media is strictly controlled; opposition and independent journalism can result in criminal prosecution or violence.
Judicial Independence: Courts are largely subservient to executive interests, and legal prosecutions are frequently politically motivated.
Civic Participation: Protest rights, freedoms of assembly, and association are regularly violated through restrictive laws and repressive state actions.
Rule of Law: Arbitrary enforcement, lack of redress, and legal unpredictability are widespread, eroding faith in justice.
Negative Effects and Impacts on Russian Citizens
The failure to implement the democratically chosen constitution has profound social and personal consequences for Russian citizens. Direct impacts include:
Diminished Political Agency: Citizens are denied meaningful participation in state affairs, fostering disillusionment and apathy.
Suppression of Civil Liberties: Freedom of speech, association, and peaceful assembly are limited or criminalized, depriving citizens of avenues for expression and collective action.
Legal Insecurity: Courts rarely protect individuals against state abuse, making ordinary Russians vulnerable to arbitrary arrest, persecution, and lack of due process.
Reduced Social Accountability: Corruption and abuse of power grow in the absence of public oversight and legal recourse, reducing the quality of life and undermining economic and social welfare.
Social Fragmentation: The gap between constitutional promises and political reality erodes social trust and the sense of national purpose, increasing cynicism and potential instability.
Migrant Pressures and "Brain Drain": Repression leads not only to domestic unrest but also to emigration of educated citizens, weakening civil and political culture further.
Conclusion
The Russian Constitution of 1993 was adopted in a spirit that matches the core ideals of European and Western democratic tradition: popular sovereignty, human rights, the rule of law, and accountable, representative government. However, under current political realities, these provisions exist largely as formalities, not as living guarantees. The centralization of unchecked executive power, the suppression of dissent, and the failure to honor the institutional checks chosen by the Russian people represent a stark betrayal of democratic ideals.
History and political theory clearly support the notion that when constitutional government ceases to reflect the will of the people, citizens have the right—indeed, the responsibility—to take peaceful collective action to restore democratic rule and reassert the authority of their chosen constitution. This is a lesson visible both in Russia’s own constitutional aspirations and in the broader history of European democracy. The gap between how Russians have chosen to be governed and the current authoritarian reality under Putin is not merely a matter for legal debate—it is a profound question of national future, freedom, and legitimacy.
