Personification of presidential power in Russia (based on the analysis of transcripts of State Duma meetings)

Khairullina Liliya Il'dusovna ORCID: 0000-0003-4700-4335 Lecturer; Department of Economics and Management; Kazan Cooperative Institute (branch) of the autonomous non-profit educational organization of Higher education of the Central Union of the Russian Federation 'Russian University of Cooperation' Postgraduate student; Institute of Philosophy and Socio-Political Sciences; Federal State Autonomous Institution of Higher Education 'Southern Federal University' 420137, Russia, Rep. 44 Adoratsky St., Kazan, Tatarstan hliliyai@mail.ru

Introduction

The personification of presidential power in the political sphere in Russia was already noticeable during the reign of the first President of the Russian Federation, Boris Yeltsin, when there was a noticeable preponderance towards the president in matters of state scale. Thus, during the creation of the Constitution, the form of government was distinguished by its uniqueness in terms of the presence of some strange contradictions. For example, when the consent of the Duma was necessary, but in reality its opinion did not play any role; when at first the Federation Council was elected, and after Boris Yeltsin's sudden decisions it began to be formed by the legislative authorities of the subjects, etc. ^{[1, p. 10]}. Consequently, in reality, the institutions of power played a fictitious role, and the decisions of the president were prioritized, while ignoring the rule of law. Even the Constitutional Court during the 90s, in cases of several disputes between the president and the Federation Council and the Duma, sided with the president when it was absolutely not necessary. There was an "authoritarian tendency" where the individual was supported, but not the institution, and the parliament acted as an "abstraction" and an "obscure thing" ^{[1, p. 11]}.

The relevance of the research topic is related to the fact that the president is currently the most influential political player in the structure of state power. The purpose of the article is to trace the personification of presidential power in the political sphere in Russia based on the analysis of transcripts of meetings of the State Duma. To achieve this goal, we analyzed the transcripts of the State Duma meetings for several reasons. Firstly, the State Duma, being a particularly important rule-making institution, expresses the interests of Russian society through the adoption of relevant legislative acts. Secondly, being an independent body in its decisions, it develops political "innovations" that are necessary for Russia as a truly democratic and rule-of-law state ^{[2, p.6]}. Thirdly, it is the activity of the lower house of parliament that determines the dynamics of the development of the entire socio-economic and political life of the state.

The hypothesis of the study is the assumption that the personality of the president plays an important role in the development and implementation of the internal policy of the state. Where, it would seem, preference should be given to institutional and legal obligations in the first place, the personal component of the leader prevails.

Literary review

In world science, presidential power is studied from the point of view of various theoretical approaches, where most often attention is focused on the consideration of the legal status of the president in the political system, the leadership qualities of a particular president and his personal influence. From our point of view, the issue of scientific research on the personification of presidential power in Russia is of particular topical interest. The literature used in the article can be divided into three groups.

The first group consists of works that focus on the issue of political power and its functioning. Among the most famous, it is necessary to single out the studies of V. V. Zheltov and M. V. Zheltov ^[3]; A.Y. Mamychev ^[4]; V. E. Chirkin ^[5]; I. V. Ivanov ^[6]; S.A. Ercan, C.M. Hendriks, J.S. Dryzek ^[7], J.M. Lewis, M. McGann, E. Blomkamp ^[8], M. Howlett, N.Sreeja ^[9].

The second group includes works on the problems of analyzing the phenomenon of bureaucratic government, the most significant of which are the works of V. P. Makarenko ^[10]; A.V. Obolonsky ^[11]; I. N. Ivanenko ^[12]; O. V. Kryshtanovskaya and I. A. Lavrov ^[13]; V. S. Osipov ^[14]; A. Bernstein ^[15]; Y. Hegele ^[16]; M. Mangset and K. Asdal ^[17].

The third group includes studies on the presidency and the personification of power, among which are the studies of the authors M.A. Kazakov ^[18]; M.A. Krasnov ^[19]; Domrin A. N. ^[20]; A. K. Deniev ^[21]; I. Çinar, S. Stokes and A. Uribe ^[22].

An analysis of the literature shows that the concepts of "president" and "personification" are studied in various areas of modern science and practice, while there are no works devoted to the study of the conceptual aspects of the personification of presidential power in modern Russia.

Materials and methods

The author reviewed 215 transcripts of State Duma meetings: 62 transcripts from January to December 2017, 82 from January to December 2020, and 71 from January to December 2023.

In the research methodology, we relied on A. Y. Sungurov's temporal approach to the creative process of innovation in the public sphere, which is an important factor in the development of pluralism and democracy in the state. The concept of "innovation" covers two aspects: it is the innovation process itself (as a result of which innovation is born) and innovation as a result of the innovation process (the dynamic component is part of the very essence of the concept). Innovations in the public sphere imply not only the stages of the origin of an innovative idea and its implementation in the real world, but also the stage of decision-making by an authorized person (body). At the same time, this stage can last for quite a long time – up to decades. ^{[3, pp. 92-107]}. According to this approach, there are two stages with corresponding phases in the political and state spheres. Based on these stages of innovation, the personification of presidential power can be traced through the process of legislative rule-making in Russia.

Results

Based on the conducted research, it can be concluded that the independent branch of government represented by the State Duma is completely dependent on the President of the Russian Federation. Of course, the President of the Russian Federation has certain counter-leverage that the Duma does not possess ^{[20, pp. 41-42]}: first, he has the right to influence the Federation Council, which, according to Part 4 of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, may reject a law passed by the Duma. Secondly, the President's right to reject laws (Part 3 of Article 107).

Thus, we come to the following conclusions:

– deputies of the State Duma do not initiate laws that are significant for the state and society, most often they come from the president or the government of the Russian Federation (in fulfillment of instructions from the same president). At the same time, the government can be presented by deputies in a negative image, while the president is always in a positive one.;

– Members of the lower house of parliament are not looking for independent effective solutions to solve certain problems. If decisions are made, it is only after the "signal of the president";

– there is no adequate political debate in the promotion and adoption of bills: any "step" in lawmaking must first receive the approval of the president;

– political innovations may not always really come to life, since, on the one hand, the failure of the regional segment is felt, and on the other, in order for the "law to work" sometimes, it is necessary to appeal to higher authorities, including the President.

Discussion

According to the structure of innovations by A. Y. Sungurov, the first phase – the phase of awareness of the problem and its inclusion in the agenda – consists in legislative initiative and comes more often from the executive authorities.

Article 104 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states that the right of legislative initiative belongs to the President of the Russian Federation, the Federation Council, senators of the Federation Council, deputies of the State Duma, the Government of the Russian Federation, legislative (representative) bodies of subjects of the Russian Federation, as well as the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in matters of their jurisdiction (the Constitution of the Russian Federation (with comments from the Constitutional Courts of the Russian Federation) – 2nd ed. – Moscow: Prospekt, 2023. – 120 p.)

The results of the study demonstrated that the main initiative in legislative activity belongs to the President of the Russian Federation: presidential and government bills are considered first and only then by deputies. It is also worth noting that a number of legislative initiatives prepared by the government are being implemented again in accordance with the instructions of the president. It turns out that the main initiative in recognizing the existing problems and including them in the agenda of the lower house still comes from the presidential government. Of course, such a right is primarily conditioned by the status of the President of the Russian Federation as a guarantor of the rights and freedoms of citizens, who determines the foreign and domestic policy of the state. In addition, the regulations of the lower house (Article 50) provide for the priority consideration of draft laws of the President of the Russian Federation ^[23].

Thus, this fact is confirmed by the statements of the deputies themselves, who emphasize in their speeches that the priority issues that can be included in the draft agenda by the Duma, without coordination with anyone, are primarily presidential issues that require immediate resolution. The primary task is to implement the president's message, since, according to the deputies, solving these tasks means solving issues of concern to the population ^[23]. Consequently, the deputies' attention is focused on the issues that are identified primarily by the president.

It is very interesting that the government in the speeches of deputies was not always characterized by positive qualities: on certain issues, the Government of the Russian Federation could take an "ostrich position" (A.V. Kurinny, Communist Party faction) ^[23], and for many years it managed to "stupefy the population and the Duma ..." (S. M. Katasonov, faction LDPR) ^[23]. Moreover, according to the deputies of the Communist Party faction, among the priorities of the government's policy are not the growth of economic development and an increase in social standards, but, on the contrary, a decrease in the pace of economic development and a decrease in the standard of living of the population ^[23]. The violation of social rights, according to the deputy of the same faction, is a consequence of the ineffective work of the government. Sarcastically, it was noted that people get themselves animals only because they are dissatisfied with the activities of the government, so they are looking for "an outlet in animals!" (V. V. Zhirinovsky, head of the LDPR faction) ^[23].

According to our observations, there are more than 30 mentions of the words "president" and "Vladimir Putin" in each meeting. At the same time, there was almost constant talk about the implementation of the provisions of the President's address or that the draft laws were being prepared in accordance with the instructions of the President of the Russian Federation. The deputies also emphasized the relevance of the President's words and the importance of draft laws developed specifically in pursuance of the president's instructions.

Deputies of different factions used the following phrases in their speeches: "President Putin has repeatedly said ...", "President Putin formulated the idea ...", "President of the Russian Federation V. V. Putin outlined in his message to the Federal Assembly ...", "President V. Putin has repeatedly stressed", "The President of the country instructed us ...", "How President Vladimir Putin said that the key problem is ...", "... and quite rightly, Vladimir Putin said that ...", "and the president of our country drew attention to it (the problem)," "we support the president's initiative." Thus, it turns out that the deputies in their speeches, for greater persuasiveness, mention the president and his phrases, in other words, they attach special importance to the personalized "authority" of the president. In the psychology of influence, this method is known as "authority fixation," when information coming from a significant figure is accepted as indisputable evidence.

In addition, the speeches of the deputies emphasized the special role of the president in solving the most important issues of the state, because Vladimir Putin knows how to negotiate and always act in the interests of his state ^[23]. Against this background, in some speeches of deputies, there was also a description of "pre-Putin" Russia with all its problems.: These are the collapsed economic system of the state, the imperfect legal system, the very low level of economic policy of the state, and even the lack of social comfort in Russian families. And only thanks to President Putin, according to one of the deputies of the United Russia faction, V. A. Vasiliev, the state was able to overcome all difficulties, and society united ^[23]. It was only under the leadership of the Russian president that the citizens of the country once again felt "belonging to a great, strong power, proud of their country, which they respect and consider (V. G. Gazaev, the Just Russia faction) ^[23]. The deputies claim that during his years in power, Vladimir Putin was able to do everything to make the population feel protected and confident that the situation of the 90s, when people were left alone with their problems, would not happen again ^[24]. This means that today, taking into account all external threats and challenges, the advantage is not oil and gas, whose prices are declining, but the main advantage, according to the chairman of the State Duma V. V. Volodin himself, is V. V. Putin, whom it is necessary to protect ^[24]. Even representatives of foreign delegations stated at official meetings that it was a blessing to have such a president and "how bad it is that they do not have a president like Putin" ^[25].

The second and third phases – the phases of preparation of draft decisions – according to the structure of political innovations take place directly in the authorities. In these phases, the available information is analyzed, special studies can be conducted, and then a solution to the problem is proposed.

An analysis of the transcripts shows that in reality, even if the problem was recognized as important by the members of the lower house, its discussion and finding a solution could take months, and sometimes even longer. One gets the impression that not only to find and find solutions, but also to discuss certain topics at Duma meetings, an instruction from "above" is required, or rather, even a "signal from the president" (as Deputy V. K. Hartung, the Just Russia faction, put it) ^[23]. The deputies noted that there are many topics, directions and draft laws for discussion, but they are awaiting "direct instructions from the president" (O. V. Timofeev) ^[23]. But even this sometimes turns out to be insufficient: the president can give instructions to almost all levels of government, but neither the budget nor the legislative activity shows "no reaction!" (O. A. Nilov) ^[23]. The deputies themselves admit that the president can speak, give tasks, but there was no reaction ^[23] and nothing is being done ^[24], and criticism sounds from all sides ^[25].

Thus, there are problems, they are named, and it is even said that effective solutions need to be prepared, but in the end they do not receive subsequent parliamentary feedback in the form of specific solutions. From our point of view, such slowness in the preparation of draft decisions indicates the lack of interest of deputies in resolving certain important issues for the country. Perhaps that is why some parliamentarians may be absent from meetings, while others may be present, "absent", hiding their positions.

According to A. Y. Sungurov's scheme, after the creative stage comes the stage of innovation, which can consist of three phases. The next phase is the adoption of the bill in the first, second and third readings of the State Duma. The results of the study show that the promotion of laws in parliament very often depends on who introduces them. There are some double standards when passing bills. The bill introduced by the government could have a lot of complaints from deputies, but nevertheless it could be adopted in the first reading with subsequent revision in the second reading. This means that if a bill is introduced by the government, then, albeit with flaws, it was adopted by the State Duma, "and a normal bill that can solve the problem facing the country" was rejected and waited for its turn "when a similar bill is introduced" (V. K. Hartung) ^[23]. It turns out that the bill from the government was unconditionally subject to adoption and, if necessary, revision. At the same time, it is worth clarifying that when we talk about the government, we also mean the president, because, according to Article 110 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the government is under the general leadership of the President of the Russian Federation. As emphasized by a member of the Communist Party faction D. A. Parfenov in his speech, after instructions from the prime minister, which is essentially an instruction from the President of Russia, deputies can categorically change their minds to the opposite ^[23].

Undoubtedly, other bills were considered by the legislature, although it happened that the draft was adopted in the first reading only after an appeal to the president (G. P. Khovanskaya, the Fair Russia faction) ^[23].

At the decision-making stage on the implementation of an innovation by persons or bodies authorized to do so, it is also necessary to mention the main leader of the country, since it is the president who sets the bar for decision-making, with a focus on which all socially significant laws are subject to consideration, discussion and subsequent adoption. Laws should be adopted "... considering all the pros and cons ... if possible on the basis of consensus, because a socially significant law concerns everyone" (A. K. Isaev, United Russia faction) ^[23]. At the same time, decisions are mostly made by the president, since it is he who "hears" the people, and the deputies, in turn, only remain silent (V. V. Volodin, Chairman of the State Duma) ^[24].

Undoubtedly, decision-making must be accompanied by the approval of the presidential government in order to sign the law in the future, so that an amendment or an appropriate comment is made on time ^[23], otherwise even any amendment to the law will turn into a lengthy procedure.

It also happened that only after the president's decision and his relevant instructions were issued, a financial opportunity appeared: money was quickly found and the bill was actively undergoing subsequent reading ^[23]. Or, on the contrary: "After the bill was adopted in the first reading, the State Duma received the conclusion of the President of the Russian Federation, which does not support this draft federal law and notes that a significant number of provisions of the draft contradict the legislation of the Russian Federation. The Government of the Russian Federation has sent a review to the State Duma, in which it does not support the adoption of the bill and asks to withdraw it from consideration" (T. V. Saprykina, United Russia faction) ^[23].

The last phase is the implementation of the innovations adopted in the previous phase. Unfortunately, the implementation of all political innovations does not always have a positive trend. The adoption of a bill alone may not be enough for its implementation if it is not fully implemented locally, or rather, only for a "check mark". Therefore, at this stage, finances or any other opportunities for solving a particular issue are immediately available as soon as there is a call or appeal from citizens to the president: without a sharp exclamation with an order, local authorities do not want to work ^[23].

Conclusion

All these conclusions indicate the dependent work of the State Duma, the lack of independence in developing and making decisions. Many issues and their solutions depend on the president, and deputies, quoting political scientist E. Shulman, only "limit themselves to a statement of intent" ^[26]. The media inform that a particular deputy is ready to introduce a very relevant bill, but this statement ends everything, no further action follows. In other words, the legislator is "not worried" about resolving the problematic situation.

The results of the study proved that the presidential power in modern Russia is personified in the personality of the president, which plays an important role in the development and implementation of the internal policy of the state. Consequently, public authorities actively support and implement, first of all, the ideas and views of the president, ignoring institutional and legal obligations.