Apart from the widely publicized expressions of approval in the Soviet press — some containing corrections and additions (mostly of a minor nature) — the proposed Constitution has given rise to a number of letters containing serious comments and well-argued proposals.
These letters were sent to the Constitution Commission, but not one of them has been mentioned in Soviet newspapers or the official media [1].
*
The following letters are known to the Chronicle:
- The “Letter of the Twelve” to the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee — from Vyacheslav Bakhmin, Tatyana Velikanova, Rostislav Galetsky, Zinaida Grigorenko, Petro Grigorenko, Irina Kaplun, Orion Kvachevsky, Alexander Lavut, Raissa Lert, Larissa Poluektova, Valentin Turchin and Father Gleb Yakunin;
- individual letters from Sophia Kalistratova, Kronid Lyubarsky, Mark Popovsky, Gely Snegiryov and Leonard Ternovsky;
- a letter from the members of the “Christian Committee“, addressed to Leonid Brezhnev;
- three letters from Adventists.
The most detailed and many-sided criticism of the proposed Constitution is to be found in the “Letter of the Twelve” and the individual letters from Kalistratova and Lyubarsky.
The authors refer: (a) to the Constitution’s declamatory form; (b) the imprecision of its formulae, making it difficult (if not impossible) to ensure that the provisions in the Constitution are actually fulfilled; and (c) the inadmissible way that the Constitution has drawn closer to the Programme of the Soviet Communist Party (CPSU).
*
ARTICLE 6
Serious objections were aroused by Article 6 of the draft Constitution. It declares the CPSU to be the leading and directing force of Soviet society.
The authors find that this contradicts Article 2, according to which “all Power in the USSR belongs to the People”. This contradiction is, in the opinion of Sophia Kalistratova [2], the basic defect of the draft Constitution.
*
“If supreme power in this country has been legally given to the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, let that be stated in the Constitution, without any attempt to hide the ‘Partocratic’ nature of that power by referring to ‘the Power of the People’.
“There are in this world monarchies, one-man dictatorships and theocratic States: why should there not be a State where supreme authority is held by a group of Party leaders?
“In that case, however, it should not be called a democracy.”
“Letter of the Twelve”
*
“The constitutional consolidation of a special role for one party — moreover the only Party — diminishes the sovereignty of the People and will lead to future upheavals for the country.
“The power and influence of a party can justly be based only on the power and conviction of its ideas.”
Leonard Ternovsky
*
“THE STATE AND THE INDIVIDUAL”
The majority of the authors of the letters listed above objected to Article 6.
Section II of the draft Constitution, “The State and the Individual”, was criticised in all the letters referred to. Most of the authors considered that the draft Constitution does not broaden democracy but narrows it even by comparison with the existing 1936 Constitution (Kalistratova).
*
Many people regard the condition made in Article 39 to be completely inadmissible: “the exercise by citizens of their rights and freedoms should harm neither the interests of society nor those of the State”.
“Experience shows that the authorities are always inclined to identify their own interests with the interests of society and the State” (Leonard Ternovsky).
*
There are many objections to the formulation of Article 52, which allows only anti-religious propaganda. The authors consider that this does not guarantee freedom of conscience.
The “Letter of the Twelve” and the letters of Sophia Kalistratova and Kronid Lyubarsky propose that: [1] citizens should have the right to put up candidates for election as representatives of an independent group of citizens, [2] the judicial system should be reorganized on the lines of a jury system, and [3] they speak of the necessity of real guarantees that courts are independent and public and that the right to a defence exists.
*
A number of authors propose important additions:
- 1. Kronid Lyubarsky insists on the necessity of abolishing the death penalty and constitutionally forbidding torture;
- 2. The absence in the draft Constitution of the right to strike, generally accepted in democratic countries, is pointed out both in the “Letter of the Twelve” and the letters from Kalistratova and Lyubarsky;
- 3. The authors of the “Letter of the Twelve”, Kalistratova and Lyubarsky, consider it necessary to include in the Constitution the right to choose one’s place of residence and the right to emigration;
- 4. The same authors consider it necessary to set up a Constitutional Court, which would determine how far laws were in accordance with the Constitution.
Many authors justify their proposals by reference to corresponding articles in international agreements signed or ratified by the USSR.
*
NEWSLETTER
A newsletter Concerning the Draft Constitution of the USSR under the rubric “Voices of opponents, critics and challengers”, has started to appear in samizdat [3].
Already two issues have gone into circulation.
The authors of the letters it has published, besides those mentioned above, include: M. Debets, Victor Sokirko, Z. Filippov, ‘R.’, and “The Action Group of the Union of Victims of Stalinism”.
=========================================
NOTES
- Letters about the Constitution were probably kept and recorded, and not just to monitor amd pursue their authors.
In pre-1985 official periodicals, the Letters Department was the largest section in Soviet newspapers and journals. In the absence of a free press and democracy, it was one way to monitor public opinion: see Nicholas Lampert, Whistle-blowing in the Soviet Union: Complants and Abuses under State Socialism (Macmillan: London, 1985).
Inside information revealed (CCE 47.16-2), for example, that Pravda received 30,000 letters about the new Constitution.
↩︎ - Sophia Kalistratova (1907-1989) was a veteran defence lawyer (see Name Index).
She was also a key member of the Moscow Helsinki Group in the 1970s and early 1980s. Indeed, it ceased its activities in September 1982 because Kalistratova was being threatened with prosecution and imprisonment (MHG Document 195, CCE 65.20-2).
↩︎ - See “Discussion of the 1977 draft Constitution (concluded)” in the next issue (CCE 47.16-2) of the Chronicle.
↩︎
===========================
A Chronicle of Current Events 