What political and legal criteria can be used to measure the level and quality of Russian democracy? How are political and constitutional frameworks related in the functioning of Russian democracy? What are the formal and informal parameters of its institutionalization? What recommendations should be developed to effectively address the difficulties? These and other topics were discussed at the roundtable organized by the Institute of Law and Public Policy on 7 October 2011. The expert meeting opened a series of events dedicated to the problems of implementation of the modern Russian Constitution.

The discussion was based on three problem blocks connected with a rethinking of the key concept of national sovereignty, the basics of pluralism, and political competition.

Opening the discussion, O. Sidorovich, Director of the Institute of Law and Public Policy, emphasized that today the text of the Russian Constitution is read and perceived differently than 18 years ago. Looking at the Constitution through the prism of reality, we can conclude that there is a need to audit the state of the constitutional order which, concentrating on monitoring the implementation of certain constitutional principles proclaimed by Chapter 1 of the Constitution of Russia.

S. Vasilyeva, an expert of the project, noted that democracy in its broadest sense includes all principles regarded as the basics of the constitutional system. In a narrow sense, the same principle of a democratic state includes the principle of democracy, national sovereignty, multi-party system, but these three pillars do not cover all problems that arise in connection with the construction of a democratic state in Russia. Accordingly, the choice of the research methodology of this principle is dictated by the particular approach to the understanding of democracy chosen. S. Vasilyeva questioned the possibility of using the degree of development of the principle of a multiparty system in legislation for the estimation of democracy in Russia, because, in practice, the multi-party system is artificial. Therefore, we should look to a more realistic indicator of democracy, such as political competition (though it is not enshrined in the Constitution and laws). She also stressed that political pluralism, proclaimed by Article 13 of the Constitution, is not the same thing as political competition, which is a more "technical" institution, assuming the existence of the rules of conduct and conflict resolution mechanisms.

A. Medushevsky, leading expert of the project, supported the idea of S. Vasilyeva about the necessity of a unified approach to the concept of democracy. But, first of all, the common approach to the concept of democracy should be developed. According to the expert, this can be done within the framework of a cognitive theory of law. As for the principle of national sovereignty, Medushevsky argued that the population is not guided by the provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution, neither as a value nor as a principle. The principle of national sovereignty is not challenged as the value nor as a principle, but it does not work.

The key issue for contemporary Russia was identified by Medushevsky in this way: is it possible to keep a proper balance between democracy and authoritarianism, avoiding stagnation of the political system? In his opinion, the political elite should realize the situation and prevent constitutional stagnation that would be the return of nominal constitutionalism of the Soviet type.

The panelists tried to identify approaches, options and tools that can be used for such research. In particular, according to L. Ivanov, member of the Advisory Board of the Institute of Law and Public Policy, it is necessary to make a choice between two basic approaches: social and psychological, or legal. Since the first phase of the study was proposed to be based on analysis of the practice of the three highest courts, he drew the attention of the experts to the fact that the decisions of the Constitutional Court reflect not only the reality of the principles but, generally, the understanding of judges, and also suggested that through the analysis of the practice of the higher courts only a few "hot spots" can be identified. From the point of view of I. Alebastrova, Associate Professor of the Department of Constitutional Law of Foreign Countries of the Moscow State Law Academy named after O.E. Kutafina, the only parameter for measuring constitutionalism is the extent of individual freedom, seen as the degree of the realization of possibilities for realizing human potential. From this position, Russian constitutionalism is only nominal. T. Morshchakova, Judge of the Constitutional Court (retired), drew attention to the fact that it is necessary to look for mechanisms of interaction of a person and the state and the state authorities among themselves. Certain principles that are used by many states can be highlighted from historical experience – for example, the principle of the separation of powers. Exactly these historical principles are the base for setting parameters for measuring the level of democracy in the country. In addition, one principle always acts as a guarantee of another. For example, Morshchakova argued that the achievement of the rule of law is impossible without a developed democratic system. According to O. Zaznaev, Professor of Political Science at Kazan (Privolzhsky) Federal University, the problem of the Russian Constitution is not a legal but a political one. He noted that the analysis of the effectiveness of constitutional mechanisms is required, and an approach to assessing the level of democracy should also be based on an assessment of the mechanisms for its implementation.

The roundtable participants raised also the questions and the concepts of the real content of constitutional principles and related categories. Thus, C. Bechet-Golovko, Doctor of Public Law (France) spoke about the problems of implementation of national sovereignty and the role of civil society, and I. Alebastrova and A. Soboleva, Professor of the Department of Public Policy of the National University "Higher School of Economics" reflected on the social and economic dimensions of democracy, economic freedom, self-regulation of society and the relationship between social and state interests. I. Shablinsky, Professor of the Department of Constitutional and Municipal Law of the National Research University "Higher School of Economics," and K. Kononov, Professor of the Department of Constitutional Law of the Russian Academy of Justice, talked about the importance of the principle of political pluralism for democracy and its realization in Russia.

In summary S. Vasilyeva once again stressed the importance of political competition, the availability of its management as one of the pillars of democracy, and stressed the necessity of the conversion of informal political rules to formal rules to allow their further evaluation.

On 7 December 2011 the Institute of Law and Public Policy conducted the second round table, ‘The Principle of Federalism in Russia: A Normative Model and the Practice of its Realization’.

Among the participants were legal experts, political specialists and economists, allowing a complex and multi-dimensional consideration of questions.

In the welcoming speech, Director of the Institute of Law and Public Policy, O. Sidorovich, briefly described the project’s goals. The moderator of the round table, expert of the project, A. Troitskaya, greeted guests and outlined the value of discussing the subject.

Head of the Department of Constitutional Law Research of the Russian Academy of Justice, I. Umnova, pointed to dynamics of constructing federalism within the challenges of today’s world, including its evolutional trends. In her report she considered questions of joint competence and residual competence of subjects of the Russian Federation, the choice of the model of the demarcation of competence, prospects of the contractual demarcation of competence between the federation and its subjects, as well as main trends typical for all federative states.

Associate Professor of the Legal Base of Public Administration of the Faculty of Public Administration of Lomonosov Moscow State University, I. Leksin, discussed the problem of legislative guaranties of competence of subjects of the Russian Federation and also the absence of independence in establishing regional bodies of authority in subjects as a result of the realization of the contemporary model of the demarcation of competence.

Chief Researcher of the Department of Constitutional Law of the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation, A. Chertkov, presented a report on the compatibility of federalism and the ‘vertical of power’. In particular, he discussed the issue of responsibility of the heads of federal subjects, the status of the Council of the Federation, and special attention was paid to the place of federal districts in the federative relationships.

Professor of Comparative Political Science of the Faculty of Political Science of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations under the Ministry of International Affairs of Russia, I. Busygina, considered the compatibility of federalism and the ‘vertical of power’. She concluded that there is no theoretical basis for such a ‘vertical’, and it has no right in the practice of nation-building.

A. Avtonomov, Chief Researcher at the Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences, noted that the opacity and the absence of effectiveness in the working of federal ministries (Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Regional Development) are the main problems in inter-regional economic relationship. Today, the federal budget is a fiction, and the state often duns unplanned projects. Moreover, there is an absence of regional business plans, which is a result of the impossibility of forecasts. Finally, A. Avtonomov said that it is necessary to investigate the conception of the development of economic relationships, which is neither at the federal nor at the regional level.

Chief Researcher of the Institute of Systems Analysis of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor of Economic and Social Geography of Lomonosov Moscow State University, O. Kuznetsova, spoke about the economic elements of the federative relationship. She noted the opacity of the transfer system, the suppression of initiatives of the development of subjects, as well as the disparity of economic relationships and political and legal decisions.

Referent of the Legal Department of the President of the Russian Federation, O. Tarasov, noted differences between the constitutional model of federalism and its realization, mainly because of the decisions of the Constitutional Court. He also argued that there are deficiencies in public policy and inconsistencies in the actions of state bodies.

In summary, A. Troitskaya thanked participants for their fruitful and constructive dialogue and pragmatic ideas. She also noted the effectiveness of such forms of discussion which include experts from different spheres of science.

The third expert roundtable within the project took place on 23 December 2011. This roundtable was devoted to the topic ‘Formal and informal systems of social regulation: social state, market economy and freedom of conscience in the context of post-soviet legal development’.

The Deputy Director of the Institute of Law and Public Policy, O. Valueva, opened the meeting by reporting on the aims and missions of the project. The leading expert of the project, A. Medushevsky, Professor of the Faculty of Politics of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, moderated the roundtable discussion.

The expert of the project, K. Koroteev raised the question of the appearance and instantiation of the principle of the social state in the Russian Constitution of 1993, as a result of the agreement between the participants of the Constitutional Conference, who represented different social and politic groups. In his report, ‘Social State: A Dysfunctional Compromise?’, he pointed to the role of this principle as the grounds for the legal limitation of citizens’ rights and the basis for the exemption from the principle of legal equality, as much significance has been given to the principle by the Russian Constitutional Court’s practice.

Another expert of the project, T. Sirynina started the next discussion with her report titled, ‘Market Economy or Social State: Particular Problematic Aspects of the Interrelationship of Constitutional Principles’. The report discussed such problems as the confrontation of these two constitutional principles: the market economy and the social state. The report also touched on the aspiration for winning the elections as the political basis of the social state principle, as well as the Russian Constitutional Court’s approaches to balancing between these two principles.

The speech of the expert E. Markova, titled, ‘Law, Policy and Religion in the Secular State: Problems of Interaction in Today’s Russia’, covered problems of the approaches to the conception of the secular state itself, the relationship of such categories as secularity and neutrality, including the European Court of Human Rights’ practice, the imposition of the basics of religious education in schools, carrying out state religious expertise, the decision of issues connected with the regulation of religious propaganda and the struggle with extremism.

During the discussion, the participants discussed such problems as working out optimal criteria for deciding the balance of the market economy and social state principles, state performance of its social obligations, the relationship between religion and human rights, and the impact of startling artworks on the feelings of believers.

In conclusion, A. Medushevsky thanked the participants for productive work and the constructive ideas expressed, and made special mention of the effectiveness of this particular format of work of specialists in different scientific areas.