From “perestroika” to “new constitutionalism”: travel notes

Abstract

Using examples of understanding the nature of constitutional principles and the application of the comparative legal method to the study of constitutionalism in the states of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), the article shows the possibilities of the methodology of combining the techniques of “calculating” thinking and “comprehending reflection” proposed by M. Heidegger in research activities. In particular, the structure of the content of constitutional and legal principles (semantic core and periphery) and their dual regulatory impact on social relations (as basic guidelines for the activities of public authorities and additional tools for the protection of rights — along with detailed norms) is considered. The importance of conscious perception of the national experience of constitutional and legal construction as a basis for a more accurate choice of the direction of comparative legal research is shown by the example of the approach of Chinese authors. The nature of the “trap of simple choice” is revealed in relation to constitutional and legal values and paradigms of the development of constitutionalism. In particular, by limiting oneself to the ideological alternative of choosing between socialist and liberal values, the researcher can avoid understanding the true nature of constitutionalism. The main aspects of the movement of the CEE countries towards “new constitutionalism”, significant for the national doctrine and practice, are presented. The commentary and assessment of the transformation of attitudes towards liberal constitutional values in CEE (from full acceptance to selective rejection) are given, which should be taken into account in connection with the transformations of Russian constitutional law.

References

1. Borokh, O.N. (2019). Contemporary Chinese Perspective on the History of Economic Thought. Social Sciences and Modernity, 2, pp. 91–103 (in Russ.).
2. Vdovichenko, L.N. (2018). Reformatting Europe: a sociological perspective. Sociological research, 2, pp. 9–17 (in Russ.).
3. Dzhilas, M. (1992). The face of totalitarianism. Moscow (in Russ.).
4. Zhizhek, S. (2002). Welcome to the desert of the Real. Moscow (in Russ.).
5. Kenenova, I. (2018). Constitutionalism and political leadership in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe: problems and prospects. Comparative Constitutional Review, 5(126), pp. 11–41 (in Russ.).
6. Korovitsyna N.V. (2002). Comparative experience of social transformations in post-socialist countries. Sociological research, 5, pp. 9–18 (in Russ.).
7. Markova, E. (2009). The Concept of Central and Eastern Europe: Problems of Identification of a Group of States for the Purposes of Comparative Law. Comparative constitutional review, 5(72) pp. 5–15 (in Russ.).
8. Rulan, N. (1999). Legal Anthropology. Moscow (in Russ.).
9. Uitts, R. (2015). How to detect the development of illiberal democracy? New questions posed to comparative constitutional law by Hungary. Comparative Constitutional Review, 5(108), pp. 38–57 (in Russ.).
10. Khaidegger, M. (1991). Conversation on a country road. Moscow (in Russ.).
11. Krastev, I. and Holmes, S. (2018). Imitation and Its Discontents. Journal of Democracy, Vol. 29, 3, pp. 117–128.