In early 2014, eight more amendments were ratified and one repealed, which resulted in the abolition of the High Court of Arbitration and the adjustment of prosecutor assignments.
[3] The amendments were prepared by a commission appointed by Putin, headed by academician Taliya Habrieva, Senator Andrey Klishas, and MP Pavel Krasheninnikov.
[18] Focus group participants gathered by the Levada Center identified two main solutions: preservation of presidential powers by Vladimir Putin and the appointment of a successor.
[21] Sergei Markov said that Putin repeatedly ruling out the abolition of term limits led to discussions of possible scenarios for 2024 to a standstill.
[23] According to political analyst Kirill Rogov, the constitutional design of Russian statehood remained unclear due to the unsuccessful experience of the "tandem" and the lack of institutions of distributed power.
The main amendments focus on how power is distributed between the branches of government: moving away from the super-presidential system that was established in 1993 and simultaneously creating a new one based on the principle of checks and balances.
Specifically, Putin has suggested to require the minimum wage to be above the poverty line and to guarantee an annual increase in pension payments.
[2] Some consider the introduction and adoption of the amendments as being a form of self-coup or autocoup as it removed term limits on the Presidency and grants Putin more authority.
[36] The New York Times wrote that the proposed prohibition of same-sex marriage was "an effort to raise turnout for a constitutional referendum that could keep him in power and has stirred big enthusiasm among Russians".
[30] The Guardian wrote that "[t]he move, announced by Putin in January, was initially seen as a way for him to hold on to power after 2024, when as things stand he will no longer be able to serve as president because of term limits.
[37] On 16 March 2020, 128 Russian lawyers, political scientists and human rights defenders, including the member of the Constitutional Conference of the Russian Federation Georgy Satarov, the professor of the Higher School of Economics, doctor of sciences in jurisprudence Irina Alebastrova, the professor of the Institute of Political Studies Sergei Guriev, and human rights defender Lev Ponomaryov, addressed to the Council of Europe with the petition requesting a legal assessment to the amendments to the Constitution.
The Commission should check for compliance with European and international standards of democracy and the rule of law, as well as with Russia's legal obligations as a member of the Council of Europe.
[41] The Commission welcomed that the amendments bring about several positive changes (the increased protection of social rights, the two-term limitation of the mandate of the President, the possibility for the President to refer to the Constitutional Court the use of a presidential veto, the constitutionalisation of the State Council, which has, already for two decades, operated based solely on an executive legal act, the extension of parliamentary control, including the possibility of carrying out inquiries into the heads of state bodies and the competence to "hear" the annual report of the Prosecutor of the Russian Federation, the introduction of a fixed six-year term for most of the Senators of the Federation Council).
[43] The Commission indicated that on a general note raising to the constitutional level (constitutionalising) existing provisions of ordinary law creates a risk of excluding the issues in question from open debate and thus restricts democracy.
The Commission concluded that the amendments disproportionately strengthened the position of the President of the Russian Federation and have done away with some of the checks and balances originally foreseen in the Constitution.
The increase in the number of Senators appointed by the President may give the latter additional leverage, thus raising doubts as to whether the Federation Council will be independent enough from the executive to be able to exercise the monitoring functions entrusted to it by the Constitution.
This speed resulted in a lack of time for a proper period of consultation with civil society prior to the adoption of the amendments by parliament.
A negative outcome of the additional steps which were introduced ad hoc, i.e. the review by the Constitutional Court and the all-Russian vote, could not have prevented the entry into force of the amendments.