The formation of a new Russian statehood during the Yeltsin period. The formation of a new Russian statehood

The RSFSR was the largest union republic of the USSR and occupied over 3/4 of the country's territory, more than half of its population lived in it. Like other union republics, the RSFSR had its own Constitution (the last Constitution of the RSFSR was adopted on April 12, 1978), its own bodies of state power and administration - the Supreme Council of the RSFSR, the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR, the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR, ministries and departments. At the same time, the statehood of the RSFSR was largely nominal. Unlike other republics, its state structures did not complement the pyramid of power and were often an extra link that could easily be dispensed with, therefore, many bodies that existed in other union republics were not created in the RSFSR.

The political processes of late perestroika and the decentralization of public administration directly affected the RSFSR. In the spring of 1990, new government bodies were formed in the RSFSR - the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR and the permanent Supreme Council of the RSFSR. On June 12, 1990, at the First Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR, the Declaration of State Sovereignty of the RSFSR was adopted by a majority vote. Although the choice of Russian deputies was largely determined by the behavior of other republics, the adoption of this act pushed already strong separatist tendencies in various regions of the USSR.

On March 17, 1991, at a republican referendum, the majority of Russians were in favor of introducing the post of president into the RSFSR. On June 12, 1991, on the anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of State Sovereignty of the RSFSR, the first presidential elections were held, which brought victory to B. N. Yeltsin.

After the failure of the coup attempt in August 1991, the real levers of state power ended up in the hands of the republics, including the RSFSR. Institutions, enterprises and organizations transferred from all-Union to republican subordination.

In December 1991, after the final collapse of the USSR, the RSFSR became an independent state and was recognized by the world community as the legal successor of the USSR. In April 1992, the official name of the republic was changed. The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic was renamed the Russian Federation - Russia. The names “Russian Federation” (RF) and “Russia” were recognized as equivalent.

Federal Treaty of 1992 The leadership of the Russian Federation, busy fighting the union center, encouraged the separatist actions of some leaders of Russian autonomies, rightly believing that this weakens the union center. But after December 1991, it itself faced a serious problem of preserving the state unity of the Russian Federation. There is a real threat of the collapse of the Russian Federation.

The search for an optimal model of the national-state structure of the Russian Federation was difficult. It was conducted in heated discussions and disputes with the separatist-minded political elites of the autonomous entities. Their main result was a new understanding of the principle of federalism, which went beyond the sphere of national politics, acquired a universal character and was extended to relations between the Russian center and regions that were not national entities.

On March 31, 1992, the Federal Treaty was signed. It gave the status of subjects of the Russian Federation not only to the republics within the Russian Federation (as the former autonomous republics and autonomous regions, except for the Jewish Autonomous Region, came to be called), autonomous regions and autonomous districts, which was taken for granted, but also to large administrative-territorial units - territories and regions, as well as Moscow and St. Petersburg, which later received the name of cities of federal significance.

The 1992 Federal Treaty consisted of three separate treaties:

Agreement on the delimitation of jurisdiction and powers between the federal government bodies of the Russian Federation and the government bodies of the sovereign republics within the Russian Federation;

Agreement on the delimitation of jurisdiction and powers between federal government bodies of the Russian Federation and government bodies of territories, regions, cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg of the Russian Federation;

Agreement on the delimitation of jurisdiction and powers between the federal government bodies of the Russian Federation and the government bodies of the autonomous region, autonomous districts within the Russian Federation.

All national and territorial entities, except Tatarstan and Chechnya, signed the Federal Treaty. After settling a number of issues in a bilateral agreement between the Russian Federation and Tatarstan, the latter joined the Federal Agreement (1994).

With the conclusion of the Federal Treaty, it was possible to avoid repeating the scenario with the collapse of the state, this time in Russia. Its state-legal nature as a federation has finally changed. Firstly, it became a “full” federation, i.e. all its national entities are its subjects. Secondly, it turned into a mixed federation, combining both national and territorial principles in its structure. Of its 89 subjects, 32 are built on a national-territorial principle, 57 - on a national one.

State apparatus of the Russian Federation in 1991 -1993. The period from December 1991 to December 1993 turned out to be one of the most dramatic in the history of the formation of the new Russian statehood. State structures that appeared during the era of the USSR slowly and complexly transformed into the authorities of a sovereign state.

The Congress of People's Deputies was considered the highest authority in the Russian Federation. It consisted of 1,068 deputies elected from territorial districts (900), national-state entities (84) and administrative-territorial units (84). The competence of the Congress included determining domestic and foreign policy, adopting and amending the Constitution, and resolving a number of other important state issues. The Supreme Council of the Russian Federation was also elected at the Congress. In order to more quickly implement economic reforms, the Congress of People's Deputies in the fall of 1991 delegated part of its powers to the President of the Russian Federation.

The Supreme Council of the Russian Federation was a permanent legislative, administrative and control body. Each of its two chambers (the Council of the Republic and the Council of Nationalities) had 126 deputies. An annual rotation of some of its members was expected.

The highest official, the head of executive power, was the President of the Russian Federation. He was elected in tandem with the vice president for a five-year term. The Constitution established certain requirements for candidates for both of these positions: they had to be no younger than 35 and no older than 65 years. The same person could not hold the office of president for more than two consecutive terms. The President was vested with significant powers in the sphere of executive power and directed the activities of the government.

The Constitutional Court became a new body in the state system of the Russian Federation, exercising judicial power in the form of constitutional proceedings.

With the collapse of the USSR, executive and administrative power underwent changes. All-Union and Union-Republican ministries and state committees were abolished. All central government bodies of the Russian Federation began to report only to the President or the Government of the Russian Federation. During this reorganization, a number of ministries and departments of the Russian Federation received at their disposal the apparatus of the abolished union structures.

In local government, a departure began from the principle of unity and sovereignty of the Soviets. He expressed that the local administration, although it remained accountable to the Council, ceased to be its executive body. However, until the end of 1993, the process of reorganization of local government was not completed.

The coexistence of old and new governance structures, the varying degrees of their adaptation to new conditions, the complexity of the political and economic situation in the country, the beginning of the redistribution of state property, disagreements over the adoption of a new Constitution became the cause of the crisis of 1993, which resulted in an armed confrontation between supporters of the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Council, on the one hand, and supporters of the president and government, on the other.

Development and adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993 Work on the new Basic Law began in the summer of 1990, when the First Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR adopted the Declaration of State Sovereignty and formed the Constitutional Commission. It included 102 deputies, the commission was headed by B. N. Yeltsin, who at that time was the Chairman of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR.

By the fall of 1990, the draft Constitution was published. The establishment of the post of President of the Russian Federation, the collapse of the USSR and the transformation of the Russian Federation into an independent state, the signing of the Federal Treaty and other changes forced us to constantly refine the draft prepared by the Constitutional Commission. Nevertheless, until the spring of 1993 it remained the official draft of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. In parallel with the preparation of the new Constitution, various changes and amendments were made to the existing Constitution. Between 1990 and 1993, over 600 amendments were adopted.

In May 1993, on behalf of the President of the Russian Federation, an alternative draft of the Basic Law was proposed, which from now on became the official draft of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. He redistributed power in favor of the president. The anti-Yeltsin opposition regarded him as “monarchical” and “authoritarian.” In order to find agreement, a constitutional meeting was convened in June 1993. His work took place in five groups, formed from representatives of federal authorities, regional authorities, local governments, as well as representatives of political parties, trade unions, other public organizations, religious denominations and entrepreneurs. The presidential draft was supplemented with a number of additions taken from the draft of the Constitutional Commission. Although both projects had many common provisions, such as the priority of human rights, separation of powers, pluralism of forms of ownership, and the principle of federalism, it was not possible to reach a compromise. The stumbling block was the dilemma: presidential or parliamentary republic. Another controversial issue remained the problem of the national-state structure of the Russian Federation, only partially regulated by the Federal Treaty.

The question of how to adopt the Constitution also caused no less heated controversy. Several possible options were discussed: adoption of the Constitution by the Congress of People's Deputies (this option did not suit the President, since the opposition was concentrated at the Congress); by a new composition of parliament, specially convened for this purpose by the Constitutional Assembly, and it was not excluded that the constitutional conference could be vested with the powers of such an assembly; finally, through a referendum.

The confrontation between the legislative and executive powers gave rise to an acute constitutional crisis. The President of the Russian Federation took the initiative in resolving it, thereby amending the current Constitution. On September 21, 1993, B.N. Yeltsin issued decree No. 1400 “On phased constitutional reform in Russia.” According to this decree, the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Council were dissolved. At the same time, elections to a new parliament and a constitutional referendum were announced.

After October 1993, work on the text of the Constitution entered its final phase. The draft was finalized by the constitutional meeting, taking into account amendments proposed by the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, public organizations, and specialists. Controversial issues, including those affecting the theory of constitutional law, were referred to the Constitutional Arbitration Commission, formed of highly qualified lawyers.

In November 1993, the draft Basic Law was published. The referendum, held on December 12, 1993, was attended by 54.8% of citizens of the Russian Federation with the right to vote; 58.4% of them voted for the new Constitution of the country. For the first time in the history of Russia, the Basic Law was adopted by the people, although it must be noted that the Constitution was actually approved by only a third of the country's population. The adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation completed the process of formalizing the new Russian statehood.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Introduction

2. Economic indicators

2.2 Privatization of the 90s

2.3 1996 crisis

3.1 Development prospects for the coming years

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

By the fall of 1990, it was already obvious that after five and a half years of perestroika, the Soviet Union had entered a new stage in its history, both in terms of domestic politics and in the development of relations with the whole world. A genuine revolution of minds took place, making it impossible to return to the previous state. However, and this was a grave danger for the future of the experiment undertaken by Gorbachev and his team to modernize the country, none of the three key problems that arose after 1985 were resolved:

the problem of political pluralism, an organic component of any process of democratization;

the problem of creating a market economy. The main provisions of the program adopted by the Russian government, dubbed the “500-day Trust Mandate” and providing for the privatization of state property and freeing prices, were published in the press. This "Yeltsin Plan" was presented as an alternative program to Ryzhkov's more cautious plan. Be that as it may, this program turned out to be stillborn;

the problem of the federal contract. The initial draft of the new union treaty was presented in the press, which was supposed to be presented to the plenipotentiary delegations of the republics for discussion in the fall. Closely related to the transition to a market economy, the new federal agreement was supposed to expand the rights of the republics, first of all, replacing the existing central structures and vertical connections with direct horizontal relations between the republics without the mediation of the center. But here, too, events were destined to get ahead of legislators.

These issues dominated the political debate in the last year of the Soviet Union. It was they who served as the catalyst for the political crisis, which in December 1991 led to the collapse of the USSR and the resignation of Gorbachev.

From the point of view of political analysis, the year from the autumn of 1990 to the winter of 1991 is divided into three parts:

the period before Gorbachev, representing the union center, and the leaders of the nine republics signed a document known as the “9 + 1 Statement”, which declared the principles of the new union treaty. The agreement in principle was the most important condition for ending the increasingly escalating conflict between Yeltsin, the undisputed leader in the camp of those who supported the decisive continuation of reforms, and Gorbachev, who wanted to maintain a fragile balance between reformers and conservatives and preserve the interests of the center in the face of increasing demands from the republics seeking independence and sovereignty and even complete independence. Against the background of this confrontation, and fueled by it, a real “war of laws” unfolded between the parliaments of Russia and the Union, paralyzing all constructive activity, every day aggravating the economic crisis, the ineffectiveness of government bodies, especially in the localities, giving rise to an increasingly obvious “power vacuum”;

a period marked by a kind of “truce” seemed to be established in the relationship between Yeltsin and Gorbachev, who were mutually concerned about the decline in the authority of any state power. Gorbachev played a more subtle game, ceasing to systematically resort, as was evident during the January events in Vilnius, to using conservative forces to create a counterweight to Yeltsin. Meanwhile, the political and economic situation in the country deteriorated so much that in August an attempt by conservative forces to carry out a coup d'état became possible;

the period after the failure of the putsch, when the defeat inflicted on the conservative camp catastrophically accelerated the collapse of the Union, led to the abolition of previous government structures, including the KGB, the suspension of activities and the subsequent ban of the CPSU.

In December 1991, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus signed a statement in Belovezhskaya Pushcha on the liquidation of the USSR and the creation of a special interstate alliance - the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Thus, in 1991 The history of Soviet statehood ended. However, this did not mark the end of Russian statehood. On the contrary, it has entered a completely new stage. In fact, the defeat of the putschists meant the failure of the conservative version of reforms, while at the same time clearing the way for a radical model of reforms.

1. Formation of a new Russian statehood

The independence of Russia was proclaimed by the Declaration on June 12, 1990. at the 1st Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR. But within the USSR, Russia's independence could only be nominal. The Russian authorities, the Supreme Council of the RSFSR and its Chairman, began to fight the allied authorities. The confrontation between two centers of power was personified in the struggle of two presidents - President of the USSR M. Gorbachev, elected on March 15, 1990 at the Union Congress of People's Deputies, and President of Russia B. Yeltsin, elected on June 12, 1991 by popular vote.

The confrontation between the Russian and allied authorities had a destabilizing effect on the socio-political and socio-economic life of the country. Russia made one of the main methods of crushing the Union center the worldwide support of national sovereignties and awakened national movements on the outskirts of the Union. The Union leadership, in an effort to preserve everything to its heart's content, was increasingly inclined to use force.

The culmination of the confrontation between the two authorities was the events of August 19 - 21, 1991, known as the August putsch of the State Emergency Committee. The Russian leadership, which led the fight against the putschists, who acted, in all likelihood, with the tacit approval of Gorbachev, crushed not only the Emergency Committee, but also ensured the victory of Russia and its supreme bodies over the allied Center. Since the fall of 1991, the Constitution and laws of the RSFSR, the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Council of the RSFSR, the President of the RSFSR received full supremacy on the territory of Russia. The independence of the Russian Federation has become real. Afanasyev Yu.K. “Rising Russia” // Obshchaya Gazeta 1998. No. 37 p. 6

The newly independent Russia faced very difficult and large-scale tasks. And Russia’s achievements in foreign policy became the most noticeable and conscious. The state of the “Cold War” was effectively ended, and the threat of a global military conflict between the socialist East and the capitalist West was removed. The ideologization of foreign policy stopped, and with it the support of anti-American regimes in the “third world” and the inspiration of regional conflicts. But military-political concessions were often made unilaterally and were not accompanied by real integration of the Soviet Union into world communities. The USSR was gradually losing its position as a world power, and this foreshadowed serious foreign policy problems for the new Russia. Namely, foreign policy was divided into two directions: relations with independent states, formerly union republics - “near abroad”, and relations with states that were previously “external” to the USSR - “far abroad”.

After the collapse of the USSR, Russia shrank not only geographically, but also politically. It lost a number of important seaports, military bases, resorts, and the Kaliningrad region appeared, separated from Russia by Belarus and Lithuania. It not only lost its traditional allies in Eastern and Central Europe (the socialist camp collapsed), but also received a number of states with unfriendly leadership along its “transparent” borders (especially in the Baltic states). Russia seemed to move away from Europe and became an even more northern and continental country.

The defense capability suffered significantly; there were practically no borders with the former republics. The Russian fleet lost its bases in the Baltic Sea, and the Black Sea fleet had to be divided with Ukraine. The former republics nationalized the most powerful military groups on their territories. It was necessary to withdraw troops from Germany, Poland, Hungary, and the Baltic states. The unified air defense system collapsed. The former influence on the countries of Central and Eastern Europe was lost. Former partners in CMEA and the Warsaw Pact linked their plans for the future with the European Union and NATO.

The problems of Russians in the near abroad and refugees from neighboring countries to Russia have worsened. Military conflicts grew near its borders (Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan, Abkhazia in Georgia, Tajikistan). All this raised fundamentally new foreign policy questions. Relations with neighboring countries became a priority, but management did not immediately realize this. Bokhanov A.N., Gorinov M.M. History of Russia 20th century. October 1996 from 56

At the end of 1991 and beginning of 1992, the President of Russia spoke for the first time on foreign policy issues. He officially stated that nuclear missiles are not aimed at US territory. The 1992 Camp David Declaration, signed during President Yeltsin’s visit with the United States, recorded the end of the Cold War and stated that “Russia and the United States do not consider each other as potential adversaries. Their relations are now characterized by friendship and partnership based on mutual trust, respect and a shared commitment to democracy and economic freedom." The desire of foreign policy departments to strengthen ties with the West at any cost led to the fact that Russia in those years followed in the wake of the United States. Borisov N.S. “The key to the history of the fatherland.” February 1997 from 35

Formally, the Russian Federation was sovereign, although part of the CIS, but the country had no borders, no army, no customs, no concept of citizenship, no economic management system. In relations with its CIS partners, Russia has moved away from two extreme positions - imperial attempts to forcefully restore the union state and self-elimination from the problems of the former Union. It was thanks to this that a serious conflict within the CIS was avoided. All former republics of the USSR, having become members of the UN, somewhat “distanced themselves” from Russia. However, this did not last long; each of these countries had many problems that they were unable to solve. Armed conflicts arose and escalated in Tajikistan, Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Moldova.

Under these conditions, there was no other way out than strengthening the CIS. In 1992, over 250 documents were adopted regulating relations within the Commonwealth. At the same time, the Collective Security Treaty was signed by 6 out of 11 countries (Armenia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan).

But with the beginning of economic reforms in Russia, the Commonwealth experienced its first serious crisis in 1992. Russian oil exports fell by half (while to other countries increased by a third). The CIS countries have begun to leave the ruble zone. Danilov A.A., Kosulina A.G. History of Russia 20th century. May 1996 from 13

The failure of the Emergency Committee and the collapse of perestroika meant not only the end of socialist economic reform, but also the victory of supporters of liberal reforms. The Russian leadership chose the liberal path, proclaiming in October 1991 the transition to market relations and then to a liberal political model. In world practice, there are 2 models of transition from a command-administrative to a market economy: gradual and “shock therapy”.

1.1 Russian Constitution of 1993

On December 12, 1993, the Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted by popular vote. Russia declared itself a democratic federal legal state with a republican form of government. The head of state was the president, elected by popular vote. The Russian Federation included 21 republics and 6 territories, 1 autonomous region and 10 autonomous districts, 2 federal cities (Moscow and St. Petersburg) and 49 regions. The principles for constructing the highest bodies of state power and administration were determined. The bicameral structure of the Federal Assembly, the permanent legislative body of the Russian Federation, was legislated. The independence of the bodies of the three branches of government - legislative, executive and judicial - was emphasized.

The Constitution delimited the powers between the authorities of the Russian Federation and its subjects.

The most important national issues were included in the competence of the highest authorities of Russia: the adoption of laws and control over their implementation, management of federal state property, the financial system, the basics of pricing policy, the federal budget. They were responsible for resolving issues of foreign policy and international relations, declaring wars and concluding peace, and managing foreign economic relations. The federal civil service was also subordinate to the federal government. Issues of environmental management, protection of historical and cultural monuments, education, and science were under the joint jurisdiction of the authorities of the Federation and its constituent entities.

Political multi-party system, the right to freedom of labor and the right to private property were legally enshrined. The Constitution created the conditions for achieving political stability in society.

After the collapse of the USSR, relations between the federal authorities and individual constituent entities of the Russian Federation were not easy.

One of the hotbeds of interethnic conflicts was in the North Caucasus. Only with the help of the Russian army was it possible to stop the armed clashes that arose due to territorial disputes between the Ingush and Ossetians. In 1992, Checheno-Ingushetia was divided into two independent republics.

On March 31, 1992, a Federative Treaty was signed between the autonomous republics of Russia. It provided for the division of powers between federal and republican authorities. The agreement recorded the refusal of the federal government to seek dictatorship. The document became the basis for the state unity of the country, the development of subsequent relationships between the center and the national-state formations of the Russian Federation. Tatarstan joined the treaty in 1994, stipulating special conditions that do not contradict the fact that it remains a full-fledged subject of the Federation. Specific relations developed with the leadership of the Republic of Ichkeria (Chechnya), which not only did not sign the Federative Treaty, but persistently sought to secede from Russia.

The adoption of the 1993 Constitution was an important step in strengthening the unity of the Russian state. At the same time, tensions remained in relations with individual constituent entities of the Federation. The development of the separatist movement in Chechnya led to a split in the leadership of the republic and armed conflicts between the separatists and the official authorities. In December 1994, the Russian Armed Forces were introduced into the territory of Chechnya with the aim of restoring constitutional order there. This marked the beginning of a protracted and bloody Chechen war, which ended only in August 1996. The Peace Agreement signed in November 1996 in Khasavyurt between the Russian and Chechen leadership provided for the withdrawal of federal armed forces from Chechnya and the holding of presidential elections in the republic. The agreement and the cessation of hostilities did not eliminate the separatist aspirations of the Chechen leadership. The situation in the republic remained extremely tense and explosive. Encyclopedia. Volume 5, part 3. History of Russia. XX century; compiled by Ismailova S. T. - Moscow: Avanta+, 1996 p. 165

2. Economic indicators

The main architect of the “shock therapy” was the Deputy Prime Minister of the government Gaidar with his like-minded young economists, supporters of monetarist methods of economic management Chubais, Shokhin and others. Their program of economic reforms included 3 main directions: price liberalization, free trade, privatization. As a result of the release of prices from January 1, 1992, the population's funds practically depreciated, as a result, it turned out that there was no longer anything to buy shares of privatized enterprises with. On October 1, 1992, the issuance of vouchers to the entire population began (privatization checks, which can then be used to buy shares of enterprises).

Uncontrolled purchasing of vouchers from the population by new entrepreneurs and bankers began. With the help of vouchers, initial capital was made, and many huge fortunes were created in the process of privatization. Simultaneously with the liberation of prices, the system of centralized distribution of resources was abolished. The government tried to achieve stabilization primarily at the macroeconomic level (i.e., stabilize the economic performance of the entire country by controlling the main indicators - GDP, budget deficit, inflation, production volumes). Utkin A.G. “The crisis of reform, different views on why monetarism in Russian conditions turned out to be an abstraction” // Nezavisimaya Gazeta, September 18, 1998. from 10

Microeconomic indicators (at the enterprise level) fell out of sight of the government and enterprises, in conditions of free prices that soared hundreds of times, experienced enormous difficulties - they could not purchase raw materials and components or sell goods. There were huge distortions in the Russian economy: raw materials industries and the military-industrial complex (military-industrial complex) dominated, monopolies flourished, many outdated industries produced unnecessary products, and the consumer market was empty. After the collapse of the USSR, Russia suffered not only its problems, but also problems associated with its collapse: a huge external and internal debt remained, enterprises previously connected by the production cycle ended up in different countries, markets for many goods disappeared.

As a result, the economic situation worsened. Industrial production fell by 35% in 1992. This trend continued until 1996.

With a high degree of monopolization of production, producers dictated their prices, which led to their increase by 100-150 times, with an increase in average wages by 10-15 times. Public sector employees suffered the most; the outflow of scientific personnel and military-industrial complex specialists to commercial structures and abroad began. The privatization of state property and its decentralization unfolded slowly, in contrast to the privatization of the trade sector.

The conditions were such that a significant share of state property in enterprises went to the management apparatus, and the labor collectives who were given advantages were unable to take advantage of them. Shares of many promising enterprises were bought up by new entrepreneurs and bankers.

The standard of living of the population has decreased (consumption has decreased, the nutritional structure has deteriorated, and the poor are unable to receive qualified medical care and medicine), which has led to a reduction in life expectancy. Unemployment is rising.

Results of the first (92) year of reforms:

decline in industrial production - 35%, mutual non-payments of enterprises reached 3.5 trillion. rubles;

it was not possible to achieve success in financial reform - a tough credit policy, under pressure from the directors, deputies, and trade unions, was replaced by a policy of concessions (new loans were given to unprofitable enterprises, the money supply increased 4 times);

the increase in the money supply led to a new wave of inflation;

external debt grew, servicing it took a third of the country’s annual income;

declining living standards, rising social tension, rising unemployment, strikes. . Seleznev G.K. Contemporary history of Russia and the West. October 1998 from 25

By the summer, dozens of subjects of the Federation - Tatarstan, Bashkorstan, Yakutia (Sakha), Udmurtia, Novosibirsk, Tyumen regions - delayed or stopped transferring taxes to the federal budget. Moreover, they began to set their own prices for goods produced on their territory.

Individual subjects of the Federation increasingly insistently proposed transforming it into a confederation. The situation was complicated by the inconsistency of the government itself. Advisor on Interethnic Relations G.V. Starovoitova, for example, believed that the full sovereignty of all the peoples of the former USSR is an inevitable stage in the formation of the state, and in the future the Russian Federation will turn into one of the forms of confederation (the unification of states with their complete political and legal independence, the absence of central authority, and general legislation). But this point of view did not find support in the government. During 1992, financial subsidies to the republics that set a course for secession continued, despite the refusal to pay taxes to the federal budget.

At the heart of separatism was the desire of the republics to independently dispose of the fruits of their labor. And that is why it was so painfully perceived that, for example, oil was pumped almost free of charge in Tatarstan, and diamonds were pumped in Yakutia. The region, which provides more than 80% of Russia's diamond revenues, was not able to feed itself.

The first serious step towards preserving the unity of Russia was the Federative Treaty, which included three similar agreements on the division of powers between federal government bodies and bodies of the subjects of the Federation of all three types (republics, territories, regions, autonomous regions and districts, the cities of Moscow and Saint Petersburg). Work on this agreement began back in 1990, but progressed very slowly. Nevertheless, in 1992, a Federal Agreement was signed between the subjects of the Federation (89 subjects).

Agreements were later signed with some entities on special conditions that expanded their rights; this began with Tatarstan.

Interethnic relations are aggravated in some regions - the conflict between Ossetians and Ingush in 1992. First, the Chechen-Ingush Republic was divided into two parts, then bloody clashes occurred between the Ingush and North Ossetians. Particularly tense relations developed between the federal center and Chechnya, which subsequently led to a protracted military conflict “to establish constitutional order,” notable for heavy casualties on both sides and the death of civilians under bombing. A stream of refugees from the North Caucasus, Transcaucasia and Central Asia has poured into Russia (since 1991, their total number has reached 1 million people). Two thirds of them are Russian by nationality.

An important issue for Russia in the early 90s was the choice of form of government: a presidential republic (a strong president who forms the government and has the right to dissolve parliament under certain conditions) or a parliamentary republic (a strong parliament that appoints the government) or a mixed form - presidential-parliamentary republic. Throughout 1992, there was a struggle between the legislative and executive branches of government. Disappointment with the progress of radical reforms among a significant part of society and economic difficulties deprived the reform forces of support from many segments of the population and strengthened the bloc of the old nomenklatura. In conditions when power continued to be the main source of property, the opposition's strategy changed. She was no longer satisfied with the opportunity to influence the executive branch through numerical dominance in parliament. The goal became power and the ability to control the government. It was this goal that was reflected in the slogan of the rallies of “Working Russia” and the National Salvation Front - “All power to the Soviets.” In turn, by the spring of 1992, hardliners surrounded by the President headed for the dissolution of parliament.

2.1 Political situation at the end of the 90s

In December 1993, elections were held to a new government body - the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, consisting of two chambers: the Federation Council and the State Duma. On the eve of the elections, several political blocs and coalitions emerged. The blocs “Russia’s Choice” and “Yavlinsky, Boldyrev, Lukin” (“Yabloko”), the Russian Movement of Democratic Reforms, and the election association “Fatherland” have become widely known. Most associations and parties advocated for a variety of forms of ownership, strengthening social protection of the population, and for the unity and integrity of Russia. However, on issues of nation-state building, their positions fundamentally diverged. The Yabloko bloc defended the idea of ​​a constitutional federation, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation - the restoration of the union state on a new basis, the Liberal Democratic Party - the revival of the Russian state within the pre-1977 framework.

As a result of elections held on a multi-party basis, representatives of 8 parties entered parliament. The largest number of seats went to Russia's Choice, LDPR, Agrarian Party and Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

The first chairman of the Federation Council was V. Yu. Shumeiko, former director of one of the country's large industrial enterprises. The State Duma was headed by I.P. Rybkin. From the first days of the work of the State Duma, several party factions arose within its composition. The most numerous among them was the “Choice of Russia” faction, headed by E. T. Gaidar.

Issues of economic and national policy, social security and international relations occupied a central place in the work of the State Duma of the first convocation. During 1993-1995 Deputies adopted over 320 laws, the vast majority of which were signed by the president. These include laws on the government and the constitutional system, on new forms of property, on peasant and farm enterprises, on joint-stock companies, and on free economic zones.

In the elections to the State Duma of 1995, public associations and parties came with clear demands in the economic and political fields. The central place in the election platform of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation - G. A. Zyuganov) was occupied by demands for the peaceful restoration of the Soviet system in Russia, the cessation of the process of denationalization and nationalization of the means of production. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation advocated the termination of foreign policy treaties that “infringed” on the interests of the country.

Formed on the eve of the elections, the all-Russian socio-political movement “Russia is Our Home” united representatives of the executive structures of government, economic and business strata. Participants in the movement saw the main economic task in the formation of a mixed economic system on the principles inherent in a market economy. The role of the state was to create favorable conditions for the development of small and medium-sized businesses and business activity of the population.

450 deputies were elected to the State Duma of the second convocation. The overwhelming majority of them were employees of legislative and executive authorities, many of them were members of the previous deputy corps, 36% of the total number of seats in the Duma was received by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, 12% - “Our Home is Russia”, 11% - LDPR, 10% - Bloc G A. Yavlinsky (“Yabloko”), 17% - independent and 14% - other electoral associations.

The composition of the State Duma predetermined the acute nature of the inter-party struggle on all domestic political issues considered in it. The main struggle unfolded between supporters of the chosen path of economic and political reform and the opposition, in whose ranks were the factions of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Liberal Democratic Party and the bloc of G. A. Yavlinsky. In fierce confrontation, decisions were discussed and made on issues related to the regulation of new socio-economic relations. A significant portion of the deputies were rejected by the government policy in Chechnya and foreign policy actions aimed at rapprochement with NATO. The position of the parliamentarians was supported by some sections of the Russian population.

The forces opposing the government tried to present a united front in the presidential elections in the summer of 1996. 11 people ran for the presidency, including B. N. Yeltsin, G. A. Zyuganov, V. V. Zhirinovsky, M. S. Gorbachev, G. A. Yavlinsky. As a result of two rounds of elections, B. N. Yeltsin again became the President of Russia. 55% of the total number of voters voted for him. G. A. Zyuganov, the main competitor of B. N. Yeltsin, received 40% of the votes. The results of the presidential elections showed that the overwhelming majority of citizens supported the president’s course towards creating a market economy and a democratic state. Tonkikh V. A., Yaretsky Yu. L. History of political and legal thought in Russia. - Moscow, 1999.p.66

2.2 Privatization of the 90s

At the end of 1992, the Congress of People's Deputies replaced the head of government, and V. Chernomyrdin replaced E. Gaidar. With his arrival, an adjustment to the course of reforms began, or rather, the course remained (market economy), but the emphasis was placed on supporting state-owned (including unprofitable) industries. Particular attention was paid to the fuel and energy (gas, oil, coal, electricity) and military-industrial (MIC) complexes, i.e. a policy of protectionism was pursued. A unified tariff system of remuneration was adopted, which softened the situation in the budgetary sphere. All this required new funds, offsets of enterprise debts and, as a result, a new round of inflation. Only by tightening financial and credit policy by the end of 1993 was it possible to reduce the growth rate.

But inconsistency in decision-making in the financial sector and protectionism were characteristic of the government in subsequent years.

In 1993, voucher privatization continued, the number of commercial banks grew, no more than 15% of collective farms remained state-owned in agriculture, but farmers went bankrupt without state support. The decline in industrial production (16%) and agriculture (4%) continued, and freight transportation decreased. The non-state sector already employed 40% of workers. Budget deficit - 12 trillion. rub. Prices have increased 9 times, the population is stratified into rich and poor, 10% of the rich have incomes 11 times higher than the rest. But the number of strikes is gradually decreasing. Although the official number of unemployed is not large, hidden unemployment (part-time work, forced leaves) is growing.

By the end of 1993, the first stage of privatization (“voucher”) was completed, as a result, private property actually appeared, and economic methods of regulation emerged. There was a partial adaptation of producers and consumers to the market, and the consumer market began to work. The center of business activity has moved to the non-state sector. It was possible to ensure the convertibility of the ruble and replenish the gold and foreign exchange reserves. Russia gradually integrated into the world economy.

In 1994, the government focused its efforts on stabilizing the standard of living of the population, encouraging entrepreneurship, targeted support for the most vulnerable segments of the population, and obtaining Western loans and investments.

In 1995, the priority was tight fiscal policy to curb inflation.

In 1996, the decline in production ceased and the economy stabilized. The inflation rate was reduced, but the associated hopes for investment and an increase in production were not justified. The unstable political situation (elections to the State Duma in 1995 and the President in 1996), inconsistent financial and credit policies did not help stabilize the economy and scared off Western investors.

The ongoing 2nd stage of privatization (monetary) revealed contradictions in the political and industrial-financial elite, scandals broke out over the conditions of privatization and its results. Against the backdrop of a decline in production (many industries with a high level of technology were dying out), the bias towards the production of raw materials became more and more noticeable. For example, the share of contributions to the budget of such a monopolist as Gazprom is 25%. The share of imports, especially food, increased against the backdrop of a decline in food production.

In 1997, it was possible to stop the decline in production, but investments were not enough to recover. The high energy intensity of Russian industry and outdated equipment made products uncompetitive. Exports, the only thing that grew during the years of reform, are now declining; in 1997, exports fell by 2%. The budget deficit in 1997 was 6.8%.

The drop in production over all previous years reached 50%, 45% of enterprises became unprofitable, mutual non-payments between enterprises and non-payment of taxes to the budget, in the absence of investment in production, replacement and renewal of equipment. Inflation was not high, the dollar exchange rate was largely stable thanks to the Central Bank's sufficient gold and foreign exchange reserves, but 30% of revenues were spent on servicing internal and external debt. High social tension remained, caused by hidden unemployment and non-payment of wages, pensions and social benefits. From 30 to 40 million people fell below the poverty line (according to various estimates), strikes, hunger strikes, and blocking of railways.

The costs of reforms can be explained as follows:

Poor starting conditions for reforms, the economy was on the verge of collapse, with the collapse of the USSR, economic ties fell apart, the previous management mechanism collapsed and it was necessary to create a new one. A depreciated ruble, lack of gold and foreign exchange reserves, debts of the USSR, lack of food reserves in the country, high social tension, disproportion in industry with a bias towards the military-industrial complex and the mining and heavy industries.

Political instability, struggle between the legislative and executive powers, and then between financial and industrial groups.

Mistakes of the theorists and implementers of reforms in choosing a strategy and in assessing the situation and the consequences of decisions made (“they wanted the best, but it turned out as always”). For example, calculations for an influx of investment and an increase in production after the stabilization of the ruble exchange rate and victory over inflation did not come true.

It cannot be said that this course did not give society any positive impulses. Perhaps the most significant shift was the overcoming of the difficult psychological barrier of transition to the market, the emergence of entrepreneurs and the emergence of market mechanisms.

2.3 1996 crisis

In 1996, for the first time in the last three years, we felt what it was like to see prices rise by 10-100% per week, buying food in reserve, queues in stores, depreciation of bank deposits, bankruptcy of the banks themselves. The unfamiliar word “default” has become quite understandable and familiar. There was talk about the nationalization of banking institutions, large firms, almost about dictatorship.

But most analysts say something else: on August 17, an abscess that had been brewing for a very long time just opened, and information that had been known to selected figures in politics and economics for quite some time became public.

So, 1996. “Black Tuesday” was safely forgotten. The dollar is taken into the corridor, and the currency is quietly sold on every corner at a price of about 6 rubles per one conventional unit. The campaign for the State Duma elections has just ended, and preparations for the presidential elections are in full swing. The standard of living is gradually improving, salaries are paid on time, trade is booming. But at the same time, production volumes at domestic enterprises continue to fall, which is not surprising - due to the low value of the dollar, imports are quite accessible to the masses, and it cannot be said that they are almost always more beautiful and better quality than our goods. Business debt also continues to rise, and no one seems to be worried about it. And loans continue to come from abroad, because frightened foreigners do not want to see the “Russian Ivan” with a red star on his forehead and a nuclear missile behind his back hungry - it’s better to feed him so that God forbid he doesn’t want to fight. With these loans, the sources of repayment of which no one seems to even think about, the state maintains the appearance of stability and even some recovery.

The first bell should have rung for everyone back in the fall of 1996. Boris Yeltsin announced with difficulty that he was very seriously ill and was undergoing a complex operation. The opposition is happily preparing for early elections. And there is complete calm on the stock exchanges. The ruble is not depreciating, the value of enterprise shares remains stable. But in the West, where the economy is much more stable than ours, serious fluctuations in stock prices occur even when it turns out that the US President is also a man during working hours. The Dow Johnson Index immediately falls, and everyone is talking about a crisis. In our country, the news of the President’s illness does not affect the economy at all. Strange? Certainly! But why didn’t any of the economists ask the question - why is all this happening? Why is our economy so resilient? Now we can answer this question: but because it was FULLY regulated, but not by administrative, but by pseudo-economic methods, when colossal funds received from foreign loans were spent to support the stock price and the national currency.

In 1997, the President seemed to be recovering. Young reformers come to the government and begin to reform Russia in all serious ways. Either we transfer officials to Volgas, assembled from imported components, and are more expensive than Mercedes, then we collect pop stars and persuade them to pay taxes, then we carry out denomination, because growth has begun in Russia, and old money with such growth didn't fit.

And it’s true - growth begins. It manifests itself in a very strange way - for some reason the value of shares of a number of Russian enterprises is increasing, mainly, of course, in the extractive industries. Again, no one has any questions - why, say, Gazprom shares are rising in price so much when oil prices continue to fall on the world market? But oil is, perhaps, the only commodity whose trade brought real profits to Russia (there is no point in talking about the arms trade, because, as it turned out quite recently, the treasury from this business suffered only losses, and all the profits went to anyone, but not state), and the decrease in budget revenues from the sale of “black gold” clearly had to make a serious hole in it. But the government continues to say that difficult times are over and we are entering an era of prosperity in Russia. But for some reason, delays in salaries and pensions are resuming with renewed vigor. And the population, which only recently “chose with their hearts,” begins to grumble again. Industrial activities have not started working, they prefer not to pay workers salaries, but no one is going to go bankrupt. It turns out a strange picture: nothing is working, but the citizens of the country live, on the whole, quite well, and there has been growth.

Perhaps the last broad gesture by the government during the “new stagnation” era was the campaign to repay pension debts at the end of 1997. It looked quite convincing: they found reserves and were able to give everything away at once. Officially. In practice, not everything and not everyone. As it turned out, money to pay off debts was simply PRINTED, and the issue of fiat money only significantly increased pressure on the stability of the ruble, but did not solve macroeconomic problems.

So, let's summarize the period of relative stability of 1996 - 1997. The term “virtual economy” suits this time like no other. Indeed, the Russian economy turned into a kind of artificial reality that had little in common with the true state of affairs. It cannot be said that the creation of such an economy had only negative aspects. After all, jobs were preserved, albeit at minimum wages. As a result, we had social stability, which would have been difficult to achieve in the event of mass bankruptcies, mass and free sale of enterprises into private hands, etc. But, unfortunately, the peaceful coexistence of socialist and capitalist economic models within one society is impossible, which led to the imbalance that caused the current global crisis. The state, collecting huge loans all over the world, spent them on maintaining the remnants of the old, expecting that they would give new, viable shoots. Alas, the miracle did not happen, and today we have to start almost all over again, but in much more difficult conditions. Yaretsky Yu. L. Russian civilization: past and present. - Moscow, 2008. p.18

The events of 1998 can be perceived as the last attempts to keep the economic situation on track. Despite the fact that the stock price of Russian enterprises began to fall catastrophically, the ruble continued to be kept at the same, unrealistic, but so desirable level - about 6 rubles per dollar. A change of government, negotiations to obtain new loans, the writing of a new beautiful program, which, after being demonstrated to Western creditors, clearly no one was going to implement - we know what this led to. And the President’s statement the day before the announcement of the devaluation of the ruble, that devaluation was impossible in principle, finally deprived him of the trust of even those who continued to harbor some illusions about his competence.

The rise in the dollar exchange rate, which led to a sharp rise in the price of goods, both imported and domestically produced. Complete distrust of Russia as a partner in the global arena. Real prospects for the country's bankruptcy. A serious crisis in the banking system and the collapse of the most seemingly unshakable monsters, like Inkombank and others. And most importantly, it is impossible to try to correct the situation using the PREVIOUS methods. After all, the West was very afraid that if Russia was left completely without a livelihood, it would drag down the entire world economy with it. But that did not happen. Yes, there are some unpleasant nuances from our troubles, but in general, nothing major or irreparable has happened. And now it won’t be possible to get loans by scaring the West with spells like “Better give, otherwise it will be bad for everyone!” We have never fit into the world economy, and all our troubles concern only ourselves.

On December 31, 1999, Russian President Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin relieves himself of his duties as head of state and, as he himself says, leaves a worthy replacement. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin is a new figure in the government. The country recognized him literally half a year ago, but the masses believe him, which seems to me unreasonable. Are there any guarantees that the new one will be better than the old one? Putin wins the wrong elections only because the country has long known about all the disadvantages of other candidates besides him.

3. Socio-economic development of Russia at the present stage

Our country entered the beginning of the 21st century with a difficult economic legacy, which was aggravated by acute social and political contradictions and a decline in the country’s prestige on the world stage. In this situation, the new leadership had to choose the optimal path of socio-economic and political development. Many experts note that the evolutionary, initially quite conservative path chosen by President V.V. Putin, in fact, there was no alternative: in the current conditions, Russia could progressively move forward only within a very narrow corridor, and any deviation from this path would lead to social upheaval and destructive consequences for society. The consistent implementation of this evolutionary course made it possible to solve two major problems in a few years: first, to bring Russia out of the depths of the socio-economic crisis; secondly, to ensure political stability.

The following facts indicate the real successes of socio-economic development over the past seven years:

The decline in production has been overcome and its steady growth is observed.

Over the past five years, Russia's GDP growth has averaged 7% per year (2003 - 7.3%, 2004 -7.1%; 2005 - 6.4%; 2006 - 6.6%; forecast 2007 .- 7.6%). This is a high figure, typical for countries with dynamically developing economies (China, India). Such growth rates significantly exceed those of the United States or Western Europe.

Federal budget expenditures on solving problems that are significant for society have increased 5 times.

Russia has firmly taken its place in the top ten largest national economies in the world. In the 90s, this position was under threat, being inferior in terms of GDP by 5 times to China and 10 times to the USA, Russia had every chance of losing it.

Russia has almost completely paid off its foreign debts.

There has been an increase in investment in the economy. In 2007, in the economy as a whole it was about 20%, and in certain industries, for example, the production of vehicles, it reached 40-60%. A significant part of investments in recent years has begun to be directed to the non-resource sector of the economy: mechanical engineering, processing industry, and services.

Since 2001, household incomes have increased faster than the cost of living. From 2000 to 2007, real incomes of the population doubled.

The basis for successful economic development was a doctrine that combines the ideas of a market economy and effective government regulation. It was associated with structural changes. Several large companies with large capital were created that could serve as the “locomotives” of the Russian economy and were competitive within the global world economy (examples include Rosneft or Gazprom). The state initiated mergers in a number of other industries - in the defense and automotive industries. At the same time, this made it possible to strengthen the state presence in strategic sectors. At the same time, from the first years of V.V. Putin began to take measures to combat some oligarchs who sought to exert unacceptable pressure on the implementation of state policy.

Characterizing the state of the Russian economy at the beginning of the 21st century, one cannot help but note its inherent contradictory features. On the one hand, we can talk about a number of features that bring Russia closer to underdeveloped countries:

Economic production and exports in Russia are predominantly of a raw materials nature. The economic successes of recent years have been achieved by our country largely due to the favorable situation in world oil and gas prices. Unique fuel and energy resources make it one of the key players in the geopolitical arena. However, the focus on raw material exports makes the country's development strictly dependent on jumps in world energy prices. The development of the raw materials sector is not enough for Russia to rank with the G8 countries, rapidly developing China and India, which represent the forefront of the modern economy. This requires economic diversification.

Indicators of quality and life expectancy in Russia are not yet comparable with the level of highly developed countries. In terms of GDP per capita ($885), Russia in 2005 ranked approximately 40th in the world, following countries such as South Africa and Chile in this ranking, and slightly ahead of Mexico.

One of the most pressing problems in Russia is the sharp stratification of society in terms of income level and quality of life. To characterize such stratification in economics, the so-called “Ginny index” is used. It is the ratio of the total income of the richest 10% of people in a country to the total income of the poorest 10% of citizens. In Russia, these indicators differ by 14 times (and in Moscow - by 41 times). For developed countries, a discrepancy of 4-6 times is common. Such deep social stratification is rather characteristic of some countries in Latin America and Africa. For developed countries, the usual difference in income is only 4-6 times. The prototype of the middle stratum in Russia does not exceed 20-25% of the population, and the gap in the incomes of the rich elite and the bulk of society, despite the general increase in real incomes of the population, does not show a tendency to decrease.

Russia entered the beginning of the 21st century as a country with a criminalized economy and a high level of corruption.

On the other hand, the Russian economy has a number of features characteristic of highly developed countries:

There are high-tech industries that in the past worked primarily for defense.

A highly qualified workforce has been preserved.

The level of science, special and general education is relatively high.

A number of high technologies and advanced developments that are competitive and in demand on the world market are being created in Russia.

Thus, our country, despite the significant losses of the 1990s, has significant potential for implementing an innovative path of development.

Thanks to the results achieved since 2000, the possibilities for maneuver, the “corridor” in which Russia can really develop, have today expanded noticeably. There is an opportunity to build strategic plans that are not bound by the strict need to use all resources to urgently solve the most pressing and pressing problems. This kind of strategic plan is contained in the annual Address of the President to the Federal Assembly, which he delivered on April 26, 2007. It absorbed in a concentrated form the key points that were expressed in previous Messages and supplemented them with a number of new provisions. It contains a sober assessment of the current situation in Russia with all its pros and cons. On the other hand, the key ideas of the Message have actually turned into directives that are actively being implemented in practice.

The socio-economic development strategy of the current Russian leadership is aimed, first of all, at ensuring the country's competitiveness and strengthening its position on the world stage. The Development Bank was created to finance projects directly related to increasing competitiveness.

The changing nature of the economic tasks facing the state led to a change in the functions of the Stabilization Fund. Its main source of income is oil and gas revenues. In accordance with the new approach, they will now be divided into three parts:

Part 1 - reserve fund. It is designed to reduce the risks of the Russian economy in the event of a sharp drop in world energy prices, and is also intended to maintain macroeconomic stability and combat inflation.

The second part of oil and gas revenues is sent to the federal budget to implement, first of all, large social programs.

The third part is those oil and gas revenues that go to the National Welfare Fund. The funds from this fund should be used to broadly improve the quality of life of people and to develop the economy, ultimately creating conditions for improving the well-being of current and future generations. In particular, we are talking about co-financing voluntary pension savings and covering the deficit of the pension system, creating conditions for more efficient use of natural resources, eliminating infrastructure restrictions in the economy, and modernizing and developing high-tech industries.

The creation of an innovative economy is considered today as the most important goal for improving the economy. In modern post-industrial society, it is this path that determines the main vector of movement of advanced countries. The transition to an innovative development model must be quite dynamic - otherwise Russia will remain outside the threshold of that group of countries that have today reached the indicators of a post-industrial society or are very close to it. At the same time, general economic growth should not have a painful impact on the social status of the population or its individual groups. On the contrary, the most important task is to use the results of economic development to ensure a new, higher quality of life for people.

Similar documents

The collapse of the USSR, economic and political consequences. Adoption of a new constitution of the Russian Federation. Declared goals. Elections to the State Duma in 1993, 1995, 1999. Presidential elections in 1996, 2000 Russian foreign policy in the new geopolitical situation

The formation of Russian statehood after the collapse of the USSR. The Constitution of the Russian Federation and its meaning. Development of the state-political regime of modern Russia. Analysis of the main problems hindering the formation of an effective Russian state.

abstract, added 11/14/2010


Belovezhskaya Agreement between the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus B.N. Yeltsin, L.M. Kravchuk and S.S. Shushkevich December 8, 1991. The main consequences of the collapse of the USSR for Russia and for the former Soviet republics. New geopolitical quality of Russia.

abstract, added 03/25/2014


Characteristics of the political development of the Russian Federation in the 90s. XX century: stages of formation of the new Russian statehood, formation of the state apparatus, development and adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993. System of government bodies.

course work, added 03/23/2010


Chernigov and Smolensk principalities. Features of the social movement in Russia in the 19th century. Socio-economic development of the country in the 20s. XX century Sources of the victory of the USSR during the Great Patriotic War. New political thinking M.S. Gorbachev.

test, added 04/22/2009


Democratic foundations and stages of their formation in the history of Russian statehood. Democratic transit in Russia 80-90. XX century and its features. Analysis of the developmental, participatory and pluralistic form of democracy in modern Russia.

thesis, added 10/01/2014


Development of civil society institutions in Russia. Studying the prerequisites for the formation of civil associations at the stage of “perestroika” and “new” Russia. Stimulating the dialogue of political power between society and the state according to its own rules.

course work, added 11/24/2010


The socio-economic and political situation in the USSR in the late 70s - early 80s. XX century Increasing stagnation in the economy and the preconditions for the socio-economic crisis. Implementation of the perestroika policy in 1985-1991. and its consequences.

thesis, added 09/18/2008


The basis of NATO’s modern anti-crisis strategy, its transformation after the collapse of the USSR. Transformation of a number of provisions of the New Strategic Concept, effective methods of “crisis management”. Features of NATO policy towards Russia, its significance.

abstract, added 09/27/2009


Life in the USSR: geographical location and features, regions of the USSR and life in them. National-state structure. Federal structure. The reasons that pushed the USSR to collapse. Countries of the former Soviet Union after the collapse.

The collapse of the Soviet Union left a very complex legacy for Russia in the form of an economic crisis, general social discontent and, finally, the absence of real Russian statehood. Thus, it was necessary to act simultaneously in several directions.

To achieve success, it was necessary to define both the goals of the changes and the priorities for achieving them, which made the development of a specific reform program extremely urgent. In the context of the collapse of the moderate and conservative models of the perestroika period, the victory of the very radical concept of a democratic liberal market state with an orientation towards Western countries was quite natural for Russia. It was this idea that the leadership circles that came to power tried to implement. The initial steps had to be taken in the economic sphere. The authors and at the same time implementers of economic reforms were a team of reformers under the leadership of E.T. Gaidar, who based his activities on the concept of denationalization of the economy, eliminating the state from direct participation in managing the national economy. In principle, the main directions of reforms by the time they were implemented in Russia had already been tested in a number of Eastern European countries (Poland, Czech Republic, etc.). To increase the efficiency of using production capacity, it was necessary to resolve property problems, which created the need for privatization; the creation of a competitive environment was ensured by demonopolization, and the determination of the market efficiency of the reorganization was achieved using prices free from regulation. However, the emergency situation in the Russian economy, according to Gaidar, required urgent measures, while the implementation of privatization and demonopolization is a long-term process. Hence, the only possible step to reform the economy was price liberalization. The means of limiting excessive price increases in the monopolized Russian national economy was supposed to be a tight monetary policy, defined as “monetarism.” This economic policy meant that the bulk of the burdens from the transition to a market were to fall on the population, but it was assumed that they would be compensated for by the relatively quick filling of shelves with consumer goods and assistance from the state (“shock therapy”). Indeed, the first results of the price release, carried out in January 1992, turned out to be very painful, which caused sharp protest from a number of political forces, although the population itself showed noticeably less activity. Yet fears of growing social instability and insufficient support from the political leadership forced the reformers to retreat from their original line. In addition, the inconsistency in the implementation of reforms was explained by the growing confrontation between economic concepts in the approach to the market in Russia: should it be exclusively liberal or should it be regulated with the help of the state. All this taken together led to the fact that a tough financial policy was actually carried out for no more than two months, after which the state began to actively pump the Russian economy with “empty” money. Voucher privatization also did not achieve the desired results. As a result, radical reforms largely remained only on paper. The victory was won by the line towards a regulated transition to the market, which was implemented by the new Prime Minister V.S. Chernomyrdin. Despite the significant costs of implementing economic policy, the market mechanism, albeit with difficulty, was launched, which by 1995 gave grounds for the Russian leadership to make statements about the beginning of stabilization in the country. Along with economic transformations, the most important task of Russia was the formation of a system of state power. The imperfection of its mechanism, inherited from the USSR, led to the fact that the development of the foundations of the Russian political system took place in a persistent political struggle that unfolded between the executive and legislative branches of government, caused by the lack of a clear distinction between the powers of the president and the Supreme Council. The political confrontation that continued during the second half of 1992 - 1993, through attempts to impeach the president and the declaration of a state of emergency, a referendum on confidence and the Constitutional Conference, ultimately logically ended in an armed conflict between the authorities in Moscow in October 1993. In a power duel The executive branch won, thereby gaining the opportunity to begin reforming the state mechanism. The main direction of this activity was the struggle for holding legislative elections and at the same time a referendum on the adoption of a new Constitution of the Russian Federation. According to the Constitution proposed by the presidential side, the Russian Federation was to become a presidential republic with a bicameral parliament (Federal Assembly, consisting of the Federation Council and the State Duma). The majority in the referendum supported the adoption of a new model of supreme state power in Russia, but the elections also showed general dissatisfaction with the implementation of reforms, which was expressed in the relative success of the Liberal Democratic Party of V.V. Zhirinovsky with her demagogic promises of quick and forceful solutions. The assessment of the elections as a defeat for the Democrats contributed to a revision of the course of the executive branch, in particular, its departure from liberal ideas towards active government intervention in the economy. At the same time, the new system of relations between the legislative and executive authorities, even if they were mutually dissatisfied with each other, excluded the possibility of the political struggle escalating into an armed confrontation. The complex issue of organizing power during 1991 - 1995. There also remained the question of forming a new system of relations between the Russian center and the constituent entities of the federation. Such national republics as Tataria, Chechnya, Bashkiria and others insisted on their special status within the Russian Federation. In general, after a long process of confrontation, it was possible to find relatively acceptable forms of division of powers and conclude agreements with the majority of the republics, but many problems remained unresolved. They manifested themselves most acutely in the Chechen crisis, which turned into a real war in December 1994 - June 1995. However, even the cessation of full-scale military operations did not end the conflict, which developed into a protracted crisis in relations between Chechnya and the Russian center. There was also no strong system of relationships with the regions and territories of the Russian Federation, dissatisfied with their unequal position in the Federation in comparison with the national republics. Thus, during 1992 - 1995. the process of forming a new Russian statehood has acquired greater dynamics in its highest echelons, while the formation of relationships along the “center-regions” line has lagged noticeably behind. The lack of clarity in the internal situation also affected Russia's foreign policy. The uncertainty of the situation after the collapse of the USSR, the inertia of confrontation with the Union center and the vagueness of internal goals made it difficult to determine the national state interests of the country. Therefore, at first, in foreign policy there was a desire to pursue a line of close rapprochement with Western countries. Only gradually is the need to form an independent foreign policy based on a clear understanding of Russia’s place in the world beginning to be realized. The contrast between the interests of Russia and NATO is becoming more and more clear, and the importance of restoring active and strong ties with the republics of the former USSR is becoming more and more clearly realized. At the same time, the process of Russia's self-determination in the world has not received final completion. Thus, Russian statehood in the early 90s. began to take on more and more definite forms, but there still remains a very long process of completing the formation of a new state. On the other hand, apparently, the transformations that have taken place since the beginning of perestroika are so profound that they have become irreversible. Thus, at the end of the twentieth century. Russia has entered a new stage in the development of statehood.

The beginning of the formation of a new Russian statehood is associated with the adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation on December 12, 1993 by popular vote. Russia declared itself a democratic federal state of law with a republican form of government. The principle of separation of powers was established. The head of state is the President, who is elected by popular vote. Executive power - the Government, the head of which is approved by parliament. The legislative power is represented by the Federal Assembly (Parliament of the Russian Federation), which consists of two chambers: the State Duma and the Federation Council. The State Duma was formed through elections, and the Federation Council included the heads of the executive and legislative authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The judicial branch is the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Arbitration Court.

In 1993, the first elections to the State Duma took place. Eight parties passed the 5% threshold into the Duma. The Liberal Democratic Party won them. A larger number of seats were occupied by opposition and patriotic forces.

The State Duma of the first convocation was contradictory from within, but still adopted the most important documents on which the functioning of the state is based (for example, the Civil Code, the law on local self-government, laws regulating elections, etc.). The first State Duma worked for two years. One of the main places in the work of the State Duma was occupied by issues of national and economic policy, and international relations.

In 1994, the majority of parties, at the initiative of the president, signed the Agreement on Social Accord, according to which they pledged not to change the main law of the country (the Constitution) in the direction of destabilizing the situation for two years.

17. Destruction of the public administration system during the Time of Troubles—usurpation of power and imposture.

1. A severe systemic crisis of the Moscow state, largely associated with the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Conflicting domestic and foreign policies have led to the destruction of many

economic structures. Weakened key institutions and led to loss of life.

2. Social conflicts within the Moscow state sharply escalated, affecting all societies (tsarist power and boyar aristocracy, boyars and nobles, feudal lords and peasantry,

church and secular feudal lords, patrimonial aristocracy and service aristocracy, etc.)

1. 1598-1605. The key figure is Boris Godunov. By decision of the Zemsky Sobor, he was elected to the royal throne in 1598. He dramatically changed the nature of domestic and foreign policy

states (development of the southern outskirts, development of Siberia, return of western lands, truce with Poland). Consequently, there is a rise in the economy and an intensification of the political struggle.

In 1601-1603, the harvest failed, famine and food riots began. During this period, the first False Dmitry appeared on the territory of Poland, received the support of the Polish gentry and entered Russian land

in 1604. In April 1605. Godunov died unexpectedly. In June, False Dmitry I entered Moscow. 11 months later, in 1606, he was killed as a result of a conspiracy.

2. 1606-1610. This stage is associated with Vasily Shuisky, the first “boyar tsar”. He ascended the throne immediately after the death of False Dmitry 1 by decision of Red Square, giving the cross

a record of good attitude towards the boyars. In 1610, Polish troops defeated Shuisky's troops and he was overthrown from the throne and the regime of the seven-boyars was established.

3. 1611-1613. Patriarch Hermogenes in 1611 initiated the creation of a zemstvo militia near Ryazan. In March it besieged Moscow and failed due to internal divisions. Second

created in the fall, in Novgorod. It was headed by K. Minin and D. Pozharsky. On October 26, 1612, the militia managed to take the Moscow Kremlin. By decision of the boyar duma, it was dissolved.

The total death toll is equal to one third of the population.

Economic catastrophe, the financial system and transport communications were destroyed, vast territories were taken out of agricultural circulation

Territorial losses (Chernigov land, Smolensk land, Novgorod-Seversk land, Baltic territories).

Weakening of domestic merchants and entrepreneurs and strengthening of foreign merchants.

The emergence of a new royal dynasty - the Romanovs. The first representatives of the dynasty had to solve 3 main problems - restoration of the unity of territories, restoration

state mechanism and economy.

18. Polish occupation and military council of 1611. Their role in changing the political system.

With the death of False Dmitry II, Tsar Vladislav remained in the country, but he lived outside the Russian state. There was growing indignation among the people that an Orthodox country was ruled by a Catholic, that in

Foreigners are rampaging through the capital, the occupying royal troops are shedding innocent blood, burning cities and villages. On September 21, 1610, the Polish gentlemen settled in Moscow. Polish

the government was preparing to destroy the Russian state. But they didn’t talk about this openly; moreover, the propaganda lies reported that the new Tsar Vladislav would soon come to Moscow to be baptized and

that order in the state will be restored. Zholkiewski was smart and cunning, realizing that he couldn’t lie indefinitely, fearing an uprising of the Russian people, he left for Poland, leaving behind

himself Gonsevski. The lords created an occupation government in Moscow, which consisted of a group of traitor boyars, accomplices of the occupiers, and was headed by Gonsevsky. The gentlemen who settled in

Moscow, they mocked the Russian people, their language, faith, and customs. The invaders robbed the population and raped them. Massive indignation grew among the people, because he realized

the growing threat of foreign enslavement.

Already in January 1611, the people began to arm themselves against the invaders. Letters from patriots were sent throughout the country with a call to clear Moscow of “Lithuanian people” and elect a Russian Tsar. On

Many cities rose up to fight. In Ryazan, Prokopiy Lyapunov became the head of the movement.

In March 1611, mercenaries began to prepare the Kremlin for military operations and install cannons on the walls. Their commanders tried to forcefully involve the population in the work. Muscovites refused and

then the mercenaries rushed at them with sabers, and the mass extermination of the Russians began. About 7 thousand unarmed Russian people were killed!

During the days of fighting in the camps of the first militia, a permanent government body arose - the Zemsky Sobor. The decisive vote in it belonged to the provincial nobility and Cossacks.

The verdict of the council of June 30, 1611 determined the direction of all the activities of the Zemstvo government. The “verdict” was drawn up on behalf of the “Moscow state, various lands

princes, boyars, okolnichikhs, nobles and children of boyars, atamans and Cossacks.” The traitors - the boyars and the capital's nobility had to lose all their enormous land wealth. Confiscated

the lands were to be distributed among the poor and ruined nobles. In their appeals to the population of the free outskirts, the authorities called all Cossacks, yesterday’s serfs and

slaves, promising them freedom. “Young Cossacks” were entitled to cash and grain salaries. There was a decision to return the serfs to their former owners. This document reflected the interests of the boyars and

the Cossack elite, which violated the promises made by Lyapunov in his charter when organizing the militia. Why were the Cossacks outraged?

The new government was actually headed by Lyapunov and his comrades: the Cossack leader Ivan Zarutsky and Prince Dmitry Trubetskoy. After the death of Lyapunov, the first zemstvo militia

fell apart.

The fighting went on all over Moscow, with varying degrees of success, and then Gonsevsky gave orders to set the city on fire... And when thousands of Russian people rushed to put out the fire, the invaders and their

accomplices. The vast city turned into ruins in a couple of days. The Seven Boyars and the occupiers held the Kremlin and Kitai-Gorod, where the best part of the Russian artillery was located, in their hands.

The militia did not have sufficient forces and means and, having undertaken a general assault, was not successful.

19 Overcoming the consequences of the Troubles. Proclamation of the beginning of the Romanov dynasty. The role of councils. Cathedral Code of 1649

In 1613, a Zemsky Sobor was held, at which a new tsar was elected. The choice fell on 16-year-old Mikhail Romanov (1613-1645), under whom the Zemsky Sobor constantly met during the first years,

helping him in management. Subsequently, under Mikhail Roma, his father, Patriarch Filaret, gained new significant influence on public policy.

In domestic politics, it was necessary to achieve stabilization, since anti-government serfs and Cossacks continued to roam around Russia. Consequences of the Troubles in rural areas

economy were felt until the middle of the 17th century. Strengthening their power, the Romanovs distributed land to the nobility. The power of feudal lords over peasants increased. The consequences of the Troubles were

most difficult for the development of the country. The funds necessary for the development of the country were withdrawn from the population in the form of heavy taxes. Specifics of the development of economic relations in the 17th century.

was expressed in the increased importance of trade, commodity exchange and fairs. In 1653, the Trade Charter was adopted, regulating trade law in Russia, and in 1667, the New Trade Charter appeared,

raised duties on foreign goods. The significantly increased trade turnover between various regions of Russia made it possible to talk about the formation of a trade union at the end of the 17th century. all-Russian market.

The settlement of foreign policy issues with Poland and Sweden was a priority task of the new government. In 1617, the Peace of Stolbovo was concluded in the village of Stolbovo (shpora.su)

between Russia and Sweden, according to which the Swedes returned the Novgorod land, but retained the Baltic coast; they were also entitled to monetary compensation.

As the state apparatus strengthened, Filaret began to resort to convening Zemsky Sobors less and less often. In the 20-30s. they were already meeting solely on the initiative of the government,

which submitted issues needed by the government for discussion by the elected officials. At the same time, zemstvo sentences were not binding on the government.

Thus, the Zemsky Sobors, after an unusually vigorous activity, for the first time in two decades of the 17th century, when they had to take on legislative and even constituent functions,

appealed to the highest advisory bodies. The process of gradual extinction of zemstvo activity began - evidence of the strengthening of autocracy.

At the end of the Time of Troubles, the government of the new dynasty - the Romanovs - began active legislative activity. As a result, by 1649 in the Russian state there was

a huge number of legislative acts that are not only outdated, but also contradict each other. This chaos was “contributed to” by the scattering of regulations across departments (across

tradition, new laws were issued at the request of one or another sectoral order, and after approval they were “attributed” to the index book of this order). There was also a lack of coordination in

law enforcement activities: often only officials of a specific order knew about a new entry in the decree book. In addition, the casual nature of the legal norms of the previous

period became ineffective. The legislator now sought to regulate the legal framework, that is, to move to a normative interpretation of legal norms. Towards the adoption of the Code

prompted by the Salt Riot that broke out in 1648 in Moscow; One of the demands of the rebels was the convening of the Zemsky Sobor and the development of a new code. The riot gradually died down, but as

One of the concessions to the rebels was the convening of the Zemsky Sobor, which continued its work until the adoption of the Council Code in 1649.

The Council Code only outlines the division of norms into branches of law. However, the tendency towards division into industries, inherent in any modern legislation, has already emerged. IN

The Council Code determined the status of the head of state - the tsar, autocratic and hereditary monarch. The Code contained a set of norms regulating the most important industries

public administration: attachment of peasants to the land, regime of entry and exit from the country, issues related to the status of estates and estates. The punishment system looked like this:

way: death penalty (in 60 cases), corporal punishment, imprisonment, exile, dishonorable punishments, confiscation of property, removal from office, fines. Development

commodity-money relations, the growth of civil transactions, and the increasing role of international trade with Russia contributed to the development of civil law. Subjects of civil

rights were both individuals (private) individuals and collectives (for example, a peasant community). Requirements for individuals - age 15-20 years (from the age of 15 a young person could be awarded

estate, take on an enslaving obligation, etc., from the age of 20 he could testify in court after receiving the kiss of the cross). Increased compared to the previous period

woman's legal capacity. The law of obligations in the 17th century continued to develop along the line of gradual replacement of personal liability (transition to serfs for debts, etc.) under contracts

property liability. The oral form of the contract is increasingly being replaced by a written one. For certain transactions, state registration is mandatory -

“serf” form (purchase and sale and other real estate transactions). Legislators paid special attention to the problem of patrimonial land ownership. The following were legally established:

complicated procedure for alienation and hereditary nature of patrimonial property. In the field of family law, the principles of Domostroy continued to apply - the primacy of the husband over his wife and

children, actual community of property, the obligation of the wife to follow her husband. The legislation allowed one person to enter into no more than three marriages during his life.

The meaning of the Cathedral Code

The Council Code generalized and summarized the main trends in the development of Russian law in the 15th-17th centuries.

It consolidated new features and institutions characteristic of the new era, the era of advancing Russian absolutism.

The Code was the first to systematize domestic legislation; An attempt was made to differentiate the rules of law by industry.

20 State institutions of Russia in the 17th century: characteristics of higher, central and local government bodies.

Troubles of the 17th century strengthened the idea of ​​strong power, therefore, under Mikhail Fedorovich, measures were taken to strengthen the state system. The growth of the king's power was based on strengthening

state apparatus, to acquire the character of a bureaucratic system. So in the 17th century. there were up to 90 orders. In the 17th century remnants of feudal fragmentation still remain,

one of which was localism, in the 17th century. Localism became an obstacle to the strengthening of the autocratic monarchy. The increased importance of the nobility allowed the government in 1682

Abolish it.

The most important state body, sharing supreme power with the tsar, was still the Boyar Duma. The Duma remained the supreme body for legislation, administration and

court. The Tsar consulted with her on all major issues, but the Duma discussed minor issues without the Tsar. For the 17th century. characterized by a closer connection between the Duma and the order system: many members of the Duma were

judges of orders, governors, were in the diplomatic service. On the other hand, decisions of orders were approved at meetings of the Duma.

First half of the 17th century became the heyday of the estate-representative monarchy, when the most important issues of state life were resolved with the help of zemstvo councils. At first

During the reign of Mikhail Fedorovich, the government needed support from all layers of the dominant

class and zemstvo councils met almost continuously; they were mainly engaged in raising funds to replenish the state treasury and foreign policy affairs. Since the 1620s

State power became somewhat stronger and councils began to be convened less frequently to resolve specific matters. After 1653, councils were convened only as meetings of representatives of individual

estates. They contributed to the strengthening of royal power and gradually disappeared. After the end of the Troubles, it was necessary to create a strong local government. The main link of local

management became a governor. He was appointed by the Discharge Order, approved by the Tsar and the Duma, and was subordinate to the order under whose jurisdiction the city was located. Under the governors there were orders or

moving out huts headed by a clerk. Voivodes ruled volosts and settlements through clerks. All local officials, including provincial and zemstvo elders, were subordinate to them. Circle

The activities of the governor were determined by the order of the order. In the 17th century Both forms of “self-government” continued to exist - provincial and zemstvo. The elders conducted virtually all affairs, but were in

complete subordination to the governor. Other elected bodies included customs kissers, circle and tavern heads and kissers, stall elders, household and mill officers

kissers. All of them were under the supervision of the governor. The scope of action of the court has expanded, which has become one of the main links in the punitive policy of the state. Property

punishments finally faded into the background. The death penalty has been carried out.

New trends in socio-economic and other areas of life demanded unlimited autocratic power, a more harmonious and flexible system of the bureaucratic apparatus in the center and

in places. The first sprouts of absolutism in the form of personal decrees, the personal office of the tsar, and bodies of financial control over monastery property appeared in the second half of the 17th century.

21 Development of state and regional administration at the end of the XVII century. Prerequisites for the reforms of Peter I.

In the 17th century the autocratic power of the “sovereign of all Rus'” was finally established. Simultaneously with the growth of the tsar’s power, the state apparatus strengthened, which took on the character of a bureaucratic

building. In the 17th century Localism began to hinder the strengthening of the autocratic monarchy. The increased importance of the nobility allowed the government to abolish localism in 1682. Although

the importance of the nobility increased, the boyars retained their economic and political power. The Boyar Duma was still the most important body of the state, sharing with

the tsar is the prerogative of the supreme power, the organ of the boyar aristocracy. The composition of the Duma has doubled over the century. The Boyar Duma remained the supreme body on issues of legislation, administration and

court. Some of the court cases were considered in the Execution Chamber created under the Duma (1681-1694). The importance of the Boyar Duma fell in the last decade of the century.

Despite the external stability of the position of the Boyar Duma in the system of the apparatus of the Russian state in the second half of the 17th century. there is a process of increasing personal power of the autocratic

monarch, especially in the area of ​​supreme government.

Since the 50-60s, the practice of reports to the Tsar by the heads of the most important orders has been established. This state at the end of 1654 or at the beginning of 1655 received a certain organization of the Order of Secret Affairs

The personal office of the tsar, a body that allows the tsar to resolve the most important state issues without the Boyar Duma.)

XVIII century went down in history as the era of modern times. It meant a civilizational shift: the destruction of the foundations of traditional European civilization and the establishment of a new one. This shift has received

name of modernization. Russia has also embarked on the path of modernization. This process began with the reforms of Peter I, which covered many areas of society. Prerequisites

Peter's reforms:

Activation of foreign policy and diplomatic activities of the Russian state;

Intensive development of domestic and foreign trade - reform and improvement of financial and tax systems;

The transition from craft production to manufacturing using elements of hired labor and simple mechanisms;

The tendency towards the absolutization of supreme power (liquidation of the activities of Zemsky Sobors as estate-representative bodies), inclusion in the royal

title of the word "autocrat";

Registration of national legislation (Conciliar Code 1649) taking into account European legislation, in particular the Lithuanian Statute. Further improvement of the arch

laws related to the adoption of “newly specified” articles (from 1649 to 1690, 1535 decrees were adopted to supplement the Code);

Reorganization and improvement of the armed forces

The demarcation of society under the influence of Western European culture and Nikon’s church reform, the emergence of national-conservative and Westernizing movements.

Despite the emerging trend of Europeanization of Russia in the 17th century, in general it lagged significantly behind the level of development of Western European states. The country needed a strong

a person who would have not only supreme power, but also an understanding of the need for change, courage and determination, intelligence, energy and talent as a transformer. Such a figure

appeared on the historical arena in the person of Peter I.

After the collapse of the USSR, the liquidation of the previous structures of power and management began. Some former union institutions and departments were transferred to the disposal of Russian management structures. The Moscow Kremlin became the residence of the country's president.

On April 21, 1992, the official name of the Russian state was changed. The RSFSR was renamed the Russian Federation - Russia (with both names being equivalent).

With the collapse of the USSR, the nature of the relationship between the President, on the one hand, and the Supreme Council and the Congress of People's Deputies, on the other, did not change. The lack of a clear delineation of powers between them caused an acute confrontation between the two branches of government - legislative and executive. The relationship between them became especially aggravated during the development of the constitutional project of the Russian state. Anti-presidential sentiments have intensified among parliamentarians. Many members of the deputy corps advocated returning the country to the path of previous political development and for the restoration of the USSR.

The opposition sentiments of parliamentarians found support among a significant part of the population. Many Russians were dissatisfied with the continuation of the course towards the development of a market economy, the ongoing economic crisis and the lack of social guarantees. In December 1992, under pressure from the legislative branch, the government of E. T. Gaidar resigned. V.S. Chernomyrdin, who had previously held administrative leadership positions, became the new Prime Minister of the Cabinet of Ministers. But this did not relieve tension in society and in the relationship between President B.N. Yeltsin and parliament.

In April 1993, on the initiative of the Congress of People's Deputies, a referendum was held on confidence in the president, on early elections of the president and people's deputies. The results of the referendum, which meant a victory for the presidential forces, deepened the political crisis.

The confrontation between the branches of power intensified in the fall of 1993. By this time, the president and his advisers had prepared a draft of a new Constitution of the Russian Federation. However, parliamentarians, trying to limit the omnipotence of the president, delayed its adoption. On September 21, 1993, B. N. Yeltsin announced the dissolution of representative bodies of power - the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation and the Congress of People's Deputies. Elections for a new parliament were scheduled for December 12. Some deputies refused to recognize the legality of the president’s actions and announced his removal from power. A new president was sworn in - A.V. Rutskoy, who until that moment held the post of Vice President of the Russian Federation.

In response to the unconstitutional presidential act, opposition forces organized demonstrations in Moscow and made a failed attempt to storm the city hall and the Ostankino television center. The desire to change the course of socio-economic reforms united several tens of thousands of people. A state of emergency was declared in the capital, and troops were sent into the city. During the events, several of its participants died or were injured.

In October 1993, decrees were adopted on the reform of representative bodies of government and local self-government. In accordance with them, the activities of Soviets at all levels were terminated. Their responsibilities were transferred to the hands of local administration and elected councils.

Russian Constitution of 1993

On December 12, 1993, the Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted by popular vote. Russia declared itself a democratic federal legal state with a republican form of government. The head of state was the president, elected by popular vote. The Russian Federation included 21 republics and 6 territories, 1 autonomous region and 10 autonomous districts, 2 federal cities (Moscow and St. Petersburg) and 49 regions. The principles for constructing the highest bodies of state power and administration were determined. The bicameral structure of the Federal Assembly, the permanent legislative body of the Russian Federation, was legislated. The independence of the bodies of the three branches of government - legislative, executive and judicial - was emphasized.

The Constitution delimited the powers between the authorities of the Russian Federation and its subjects.

The most important national issues were included in the competence of the highest authorities of Russia: the adoption of laws and control over their implementation, management of federal state property, the financial system, the basics of pricing policy, the federal budget. They were responsible for resolving issues of foreign policy and international relations, declaring wars and concluding peace, and managing foreign economic relations. The federal civil service was also subordinate to the federal government. Issues of environmental management, protection of historical and cultural monuments, education, and science were under the joint jurisdiction of the authorities of the Federation and its constituent entities.

Political multi-party system, the right to freedom of labor and the right to private property were legally enshrined. The Constitution created the conditions for achieving political stability in society.