Russian Constitutionalism: Historical and Contemporary Development by Andrey N. Medushevsky (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS 583 Medushevsky, Andrey N. Russian Constitutionalism: Historical and Contemporary Development.BASEES/Routledge Series on Russian and East European Studies, 28. Routledge, London and New York, 2006. x + 264 pp. Notes. Index. ?65.00. Russia's post-Communist experience of constitution making is of interest and importance to students of both Russian and comparative politics. Many scho lars attribute theproblems Russia has faced since the collapse ofCommunism to faulty institutional design, and theRussian case raisesmany questions and issues that go to the heart of contemporary scholarship on transitional states and societies. However, few books in English have tackled this subject. In Russian Constitutionalism: Historical and Contemporary Developmentone of Russia's foremost specialists on comparative constitutionalism, Andrey Medushevsky, attempts to fillthisgap. Medushevky's interpretive analysis derives from detailed comparative and historical knowledge of legal thought and political practice in Russia and beyond. He draws on the constitutional experience of many societies and compares the history of Russian constitutionalism ? both tsarist and Soviet ? before addressing the problems of Russia's present-day constitution. Indeed, Medushevsky claims to offer the first analysis of Russian constitution alism from a comparative perspective. This work combines many different themes and strands, but at the centre is the argument that constitutional processes in Russia are cyclical in nature. In his analysis, the concept of a constitutional cycle covers the 'emergence, development and termination' (p. 9) of the constitution-making process. To be more precise, Medushevsky draws a distinction between three stages: 'deconstitutionalization (undermined legitimacy and repeal of the old consti tution), constitutionalization (adopting a new constitution and specifying its norms in the sectoral legislation), and reconstitutionalization (introduction of constitutional amendments bringing current rules in line with former constitutional rules and practices)' (p. 13).This typology of stages is used to structure the analysis of the three 'big' cycles in recent Russian history: pre revolutionary attempts at constitution building (chapter three); Soviet 'nomi nal constitutionalism' (chapter four); and, finally, constitutional developments since the collapse of Communism (chapter five). For Medushevky, Russia is currently in the 'reconstitutionalization' stage of the third big cycle. Given the pattern of previous cycles, he questions whether 'the current constitutional cycle, like other ones, [will] end up reproducing the authoritarian phase in one of its numerous forms?' (p. 17). Theoretically, Medushevsky argues that by treating constitution making as a cyclical process it can be analysed like any social or economic phenomenon; analytically, his approach allows for the separation of the static and dynam ic elements of each phase of Russia's constitutional development, which in turn provides a comparative method for analysing constitutional processes in societies affected by the periodic crisis of their fundamental rules. The dynamic element that he identifies ? the ongoing conflict between law and social reality ? is found to be a common feature in many modernizing societies. For example, Medushevsky draws similarities between the French and Russian cases, as well as highlighting key differenceswith themore stable, 'linear' experience of constitutional reform in Anglo-American societies. 584 SEER, 86, 3, JULY 2008 There ismuch that is new and interesting in this book. The author in corporates a broad knowledge of the comparative research on constitution making, and his approach is creative and ambitious. Unfortunately, the cen tral thrust of the argument is often hidden by over-elaborate comparative examples, and many of the subtleties of the argument are lost in the English translation of the text. Most surprisingwas the limited use made of the con siderable documentary, stenographic and interview evidence that is available on the post-Soviet period. This may lead the reader to question some of Medushevsky's empirical claims, as well as his assertion that 'since informa tion on the constitution drafting is restricted,we stilldo not know much about the motives and nature of major borrowings in the Russian Constitution' (p. 203). Yet, as an interpretive analysis of Russian constitutionalism from a Russian perspective, it isan important contribution to scholarship in this field. For Western students and scholars who are not familiar with Russian political science, itwill provide an insight into the tools of analysis used by one of the leading Russian authorities in this field. StAntony'sCollege Paul Chaisty UniversityofOxford Domrin, Alexander. The Limits ofRussian Democratisation: EmergencyPowers...