Constitutional amendments as a mechanism to pursue different goals in the context of internal and external challenges / Изменение конституции как механизм государства для достижения различных целей в контексте внутренних и внешних вызовов

Брамбила Мартинес Франсиско Хавьер аспирант, Институт государственной службы и управления, Российская академия народного хозяйства и государственной службы 119571, Россия, г. Москва, Проспект Вернадского, 82 Brambila Martinez Francisco Javier Postgraduate student, Institute of Civil Service and Administration, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration 119571, Russia, Moscow, Prospekt Vernadskogo, 82 francisco.brambila@mail.ru Другие публикации этого автора

This essay analyses the evolution of constitutional amendments to determine a typology of goals and instruments of both states during different episodes. In this manner, this essay aims to determine the original purpose and expectations behind transferred policies as well as to assess the goals, means and causes for their modification throughout their implementation.

This methodology is favored over the review of socio-political movements in determining the policies of the state for its lack of objectivity. For instance, outside of the context of national referendums, the interactions between the state and non-state actors should take place within the framework of direct democracy that is not universally available nor implemented. Additionally, socio-political movements should materialize their demands into tangible proposals, conveyed by an organization with sufficient influence and legitimacy to be considered by the State. Lastly, there are no guarantees that constitutional amendments adopted by the state will actually respond to the demands of non-state actors in their formulation and implementation. Instead, assessing the focus and priorities of the state through constitutional amendments is more objective due to the large amount of institutional and political power required, particularly when facing political opposition.

To support this hypothesis, Russia and Mexico are studied as examples of nations that despite their different evolution, underwent similar periods of political and economic liberalization simultaneously. In the same manner, the main theories behind state policies according leading authors as well as speeches from public figures are compared with the number and type of constitutional amendments accordingly in order to determine the core reasons and roles behind constitutional amendments in both countries.

General considerations

The Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted by a national referendum on December 12 and entered into force on December 25, 1993. It replaced the previous Constitution of the Soviet-era Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic of April 12, 1978 after the Russian constitutional crisis of 1993, thus abolishing the Soviet system of government and proclaiming the Russian Federation as a democratic federal state with a republican form of government.

The document consists of a preamble and two sections - the preamble proclaims that the people of Russia approve this Constitution, defines democratic and humanistic values, defines Russia's place in the modern world. The first section consists of 9 chapters and 137 articles that consolidate the foundations of the political, social, legal, economic and social systems of the Russian Federation, the basic rights and freedoms of the individual, the federal structure of the Russian Federation, the status of state authorities, the procedure for revising the Constitution and making amendments to it. The second section defines the final and transitional provisions and serves as the basis for continuity and stability of constitutional and legal norms.

The process of creating the Constitution of Mexico began a little earlier. The United Mexican States was created as a representative Federal Republic by the Federal Constitution of 1824 after the collapse of the Mexican Empire. The Constitution was modified until it was recognized as abolished and replaced by the Constitution of 1917. The document was adopted the 5 of February of 1917 in the aftermath of the Mexican Revolution that lasted from November 1910 to January 1917, thus effectively ending the Presidency of Porfirio Diaz that spanned over 30 years. The document is separated in two sections. The “dogmatic section” contains 38 articles distributed in 4 chapters under one subsection (hereto defined as “title”) that define the rights and freedoms of the population. The “organic section” contains 98 articles under 8 titles that establish the system of government, tasks and functioning of the institutions of the state, the concept of national sovereignty and the framework for constitutional reforms.

The initial context of the Russian and Mexican constitutions

Despite their distant period of implementation, both constitutions established new political episodes with emphasis on democratic rule, territorial autonomy and a balance of powers. Notwithstanding, despite their similarities, the focus and evolution of both documents were influenced by a set of internal and external conditions relative to their different contexts.

For instance, the Russian Constitution was adopted once the constitutional crisis concluded less than one month earlier, by contrast, the Mexican Constitution in 1917 was established three years before the Mexican revolution ended the first of December of 1929. Thereafter preceding the assassination of the President Venustiano Carranza and president-elect Alvaro Obregon in 1920 and 1928 respectively, as well as periods of contested elections until the election of Lazaro Cardenas the first of December of 1934 in a democratic way.

Furthermore, the period around the implementation of the Mexican Constitution in 1917 was characterized by an intense competition among nations for power. This is evident in the changing preferences of the Mexican leadership towards different states in the context of political and economic cooperation. For instance, the relations between the United States and Mexico shifted from the visit of the US President William Howard Taft to Mexico in 1910 to support the reelection of Porfirio Diaz, to the neutral status of Mexico during the first world war as an outcome of the Zimmermann Telegram scandal that showed secret relations between the President of Mexico Venustiano Carranza and Germany. Later, to the signing of the Bucareli Treaty of 1923 between the former revolutionary general President Alvaro Obregon and the US President Calvin Coolidge to sporadic periods of deterioration and improvement until the Presidency of Manuel Avila Camacho in 1940 during which the country was allied to the United States in the Second World War. Lastly, to a period of neutrality during the cold war that included visits of the Mexican Presidents Luis Echeverria and Jose Lopez Portillo to the Soviet Union in 1973 and 1978 respectively.

Is possible to claim that the Mexican Constitution set an ideological framework with specific institutional mechanisms contrary to the principles of free trade and international cooperation, as is evident in the prohibition of foreigners in owning shares in the Mexican oil and agricultural industry according to the article 27. Despite this, the constitution was enforced differently regarding the political agenda of each President, for instance at the beginning of the Cardenas Presidency (1934 to 1940), the Mexican Eagle Petroleum Company (owned by American, British and Dutch investors) was nationalized, additionally, several millions of acres of agricultural lands were expropriated form American citizens. However, in anticipation of the Second World War, informal agreements among the governments of Mexico, the United States and the United Kingdom in 1938, led to the full restoration of diplomatic relations, thus the selective implementation of the Constitution in the absence of trade regulations and other forms of cooperation enforced and supervised by international organizations. By contrast, nearly 75 years later, the Russian constitution was established in a period shaped by specific rules and roadmaps for development derived from a unipolar sociopolitical system in the aftermath of the Cold War.

In order to determine the different focus and performance of constitutional amendments in both countries, this exercise compares both documents from the creation of the Russian constitution in 1993 as well as the constitutional reforms made to the article 27 of the Mexican constitution in the year in 1992. This decision is justified by the common intention behind the creation and amendment of both constitutions in anticipation of standards and rules required to access the global market until the accession of both countries to the World Trade Organization in 2012 and 1995 respectively.

The evolution of Russian constitutional amendments

Since the establishment of the Russian Constitution in 1993, various articles and sections have been modified at once in 4 constitutional amendments. In the same manner, the article 65 has been modified 11 times regarding alterations to the federal subjects.

The constitution was amended the 30 of December of 2008 in order to increase the term office of the President of Russia from 4 to 6 years and the members of the State Duma from 4 to 5 years. For the second and third amendments, at the beginning of 2014, eight more amendments were ratified, and one of them was canceled, which led to the abolition of the Supreme Arbitration Court. In the summer of 2014, two more articles were changed, allowing the President to choose up to 10% (17 members) of the Federation Council members.

The most significant amendment was made the 4 of July of 2020 after a nationwide referendum. The 2020 amendments exclude the "consecutive" clause from the article regulating the maximum number of presidential terms, zeroing out the previous presidential terms before the amendments come into force. Other changes are the recognition of Russia as the legal successor of the Soviet Union in respect of international organizations, treaties and property of the USSR provided for by international treaties outside the territory of the Russian Federation.

The main purposes behind Russian constitutional amendments can be identified as follows:

1. To increase the powers of the President. According to the last amendment, the President can dismiss the Prime Minister (Article 83) and reject his resignation (Article 117). Additionally, the President appoints and dismisses federal ministers (article 112) and maintains immunity after his term (article 92).

The reasons behind the extension of presidential powers can be noted in various speeches of the Russian President at the Federal Assembly in different years, for instance in 2019, he stated that the development of the state requires the participation of all state institutions (beyond specific ministries and agencies), however as noted the next year, that due to the vast territory, complex federal and administrative divisions, the country wasn’t able to advance and even exist as a parliamentary republic. To strengthen the country, a strong presidential republic was needed to create a unified system of government that would increase the cooperation of federal and municipal authorities within a constitutional framework (2020). In the same manner in 2021, the President noted that increased power was needed to solve geopolitical issues (that respond to the context) by implementing practical instruments for resolving national development tasks.

2. To selectively implement international mechanisms and treaties while avoiding isolation. This is evident in the amendments to the article 79 according to the selective implementation of court decisions. Thus, remaining in international treaties to guarantee free trade and cooperation agreements while shielding the institutions of the state, its assets and citizens from hostile resolutions.

The concepts of international cooperation and the protection of national interests in the country were slowly connected through time, for instance, the Russian President Dmitri Medvedev acknowledged the benefits and responsibilities of the country regarding its integration to the global economy, while describing multiple economic and political threats derived from globalization at the Federal Assembly in 2008.

At the same event in 2014, President Vladimir Putin described the nation’s readiness to continue attracting foreign investment as well as trading with different nations, however it noted new efforts in reducing the dependence on foreign technologies by developing several sectors against the background of international sanctions. On year later, the President noted an increased competition among nations in the context of technological development and the need for the country to develop its competitive advantages and become a global leader (2015). To achieve this, he introduced in 2016, a new economic strategy to systematically develop specific sectors to access external markets.

Continuing the lines of increased state involvement in the key economic sectors of the country, during the Federal Assembly in 2020, the President proposed that the requirements of international law and treaties as well as decisions of international bodies can be valid on the Russian territory only to the point that they do not restrict the rights and freedoms of the population and that they do not contradict the constitution. This was later justified by external pressure that threatens the development of the country in new forms (2023).

3. To diminish the influence of internal and external political threats. On an internal level, within the tasks of the Security Council to combat “internal threats” according to the last amendment to the article 83 as well as the concept of a unified state policy in preserving traditional values (article 114).

The importance of national values in the development of the country as well as in protecting it from external threats can be first noted during the Federal Assembly in 2016, where the President mentioned that patriotic values within civic and political movements in identifying problems and difficulties were an important part in the development of the country. Finally, during the Presidential speech announcing the Special Military Operation in 2022, traditional values were referred to as key elements in forming the national identity, thus shielding the country from foreign attitudes and ideas that divided the society.

4. On an internal and external level, as a legal successor of the USSR on its territory (article 67) thus, facilitating the introduction of federal subjects into the country (article 65).

This corresponds to the statements of the President during the Federal Assembly in 2023, regarding the integration of historical lands as a key step in ensuring the security of the country as well as increasing its overall development due to geographic advantages of new regions and diverse investment opportunities

The evolution of Mexican constitutional amendments

Since its introduction, 251 constitutional amendments have been made to the Mexican Constitution in 106 years. This is a strong contrast with other countries in the American Continent, for instance, the Constitution of the United States has been modified 27 times in 231 years and the Constitution of Brazil 70 times in 45 years. To understand why the country relies on continuous constitutional amendments on a wide number of articles rather than on a comprehensive constitutional reform, the articles with the largest number of changes are reviewed as well as the articles considered key in shaping the policy of the country according to a number of authors.

The articles with the largest number of changes are the 73, 89 and 123 with 83, 19 and 27 amendments respectively. The article 73 describes the functions of the Mexican Congress in 31 sections, ranging from the procedures to create new federal subjects, establishment of a federal budget to the creation of laws in all areas. In the same manner, the article 89 established in 20 sections the powers of the President spanning from naming the heads of ministries to determine the foreign policy of the country. Lastly, the article 123 refers to the right of and appropriate working conditions in 14 sections, ranging from the creation of social security system to the description of economic sectors in the country.

By contrast, the article 3 and 5 regarding non-religious education and labor are often considered key in shaping the future of the country by several authors despite being amended only 11 and 5 changes respectively. The article 3 receives special attention and is often studied together with the articles 24 and 140 regarding the freedom of religion and the powers of the state over religious institutions in the context of limiting the influence of the Catholic Church.

This assessment follows a general belief that the secularization of the country is the main contribution of the Constitution of 1917, thus determining the characteristics and outcomes of the country to this day. For instance, Blancarte (2001) states that the Mexican state can function today due to the impact of secularism in certain political groups, furthermore, in the context of national unity, Durand Ponte and Smith Matins, (1997) state that non-religious education was the mean of the post-revolutionary government to integrate the society. Chilcote (1967) famously claimed that the Mexican revolution severed all links to the past and initiated a new sociopolitical development of the country according to a nationalist constitutional framework that remains today, thus according to Hernandez Rodrigues et al. (2020), establishes the basis for institutional development from which programs and the image of the state are determined to this date.

However, the attribution of these articles as defining elements in their political period and the overall future of the country fail to distinguish their evolution regarding constitutional amendments throughout various presidential terms as well as ignore their selective implementation. For instance, before the amendments of 1992, the article 3 stated that only the state can provide education and educational programs will lack any religious doctrine, in the same manner, the article 24 sanctioned the religious acts outside of religious buildings. Notwithstanding, the articles were largely ignored as religious education within private institutions continued as well as the celebration of public religious events that range from local festivities to nationwide events, as seen during the visits of Pope John Paul II in 1979 and 1990.

The selective implementation of the Constitution throughout different presidencies is explained by different authors, for instance, Marvan Laborde (2007) states that despite the anticlerical nature of the Constitution, there was an absence of ideological reasons or hidden political interests among its creators of the Constitution based on strict controls to guarantee ideological diversity. Thus, the Constitution was in fact implemented in a selective form according to external challenges and opportunities rather than by rigid ideological foundations. This is particularly evident in the relationship between the state and the Church, for example, Loaeza (1985) claimed that during the thirties, the Catholic Church agreed to be integrated to the power structure as a subordinate to the State if the antireligious articles of the Constitution were not implemented. This assessment is confirmed by Perez Sanchez (2012), claiming that the Mexican state implemented minimal actions in establishing a secular country during its efforts in obtaining a power monopoly despite having all the legal means to disarticulate the Catholic Church.

Is possible to claim that despite enjoying large power, the Mexican state failed to secure an absolute influence over all political groups, as well as all civil and religious institutions of the country for a wide array of reasons, such as culture - in this regard, Meyer (1993) claims that Catholicism is an element of ethnical and national identity that allowed the Catholic Church adapt to the period of secularization. Thus, is possible to conclude that the Mexican Constitution is an instrument implemented according and in consideration of the distribution of power in the country.

To assess the overall impact and intentions behind constitutional amendments, this exercise begins by classifying their changes according to episodes determined by the political context of the nation: First, post-revolutionary period starting from the first amendment made to the Constitution in 1921 until the last change made during the Presidency of Abelardo Rodriguez in 1934. Second, a period of stability starting from the election of President Lazaro Cardenas in 1934, thus putting an end to a period of contested elections. Third, a period of internationalization, starting from Presidency of Carlos Salinas in 1988 amid constitutional changes made in anticipation and as a requisite to the participation of the country in international trade treaties and organizations.

At first glance, is possible to observe a higher tendency for constitutional amendments in the third period, with over 134 changes made by six presidents in only 31 years. By contrast, 98 amendments were made during 9 presidencies in a period of 54 years and only 19 changes during 5 presidential terms in 13 years in the second and first period respectively. Thus, the total share of amendments for the first period is 7.56%, for the second 39.04% and third 53.38%.

Is possible to assume that the increasing number of amendments respond to the growing complexity of the state, however this exercises continues by analyzing the frequency of certain constitutional amendments according to each episode to increase our understanding regarding their impact and purpose and find conclusive results.

1. This work begins by analyzing the distribution of amendments made in each period to the articles 73, 89 and 123 for their frequency. Thus, a correlation is found between the articles relative to the functions of the Mexican Congress (article 73) and the Mexican President (article 89) with 8 (out of 83 or 9.63%) and 2 amendments (out of 19 or 10.52%) in the first episode; 26 (out of 83 or 31.32%) and 7 (out of 19 or 36,84%) in the second episode as well as 49 (out of 83 or 59.03%) and 10 (out of 19 or 52.63%) for the third episode.

By contrast, the article 123 corresponding to the right of labor was amended the least in the first episode at only 2 times (out of 27 or 7.40%), 15 times (out of 27 or 55.55%) in the second episode and 10 times (out of 27 or 37.03%) in the third episode.

From this assessment, we are able to separate a number of articles in two thematic groups, those strengthening the institutions of the state and those responding to the socio-political evolution of the country. Thus, a confirmation of the correlation between an increase or the displacement of existing amendments with the growing complexity of the state.

For instance, the article 73 retains only 2 out of 8 changes made in the first episode its current configuration, 5 out of 26 in the second episode and 46 out of 49 in the third episode. This is more evident in the current composition of the article 89, that retained 2 out of 8 modifications made in the first episode, 2 out of 7 in the third episode and 10 out of 10 in the third. In the same manner, the article 123 in in its present form lacks the amendments introduced in the first episode (0 out of 2), while retains all of the changes made in the second (15 out of 15) and third episode (10 out of 10).

2. Next, this work reviews the number of articles considered key in the evolution of the Mexican constitution and overall political course of the country by different authors. The articles under the thematic group of rights, such as to education (article 3) and labor (article 5) were amended differently in each period.

For instance, the article 3 was changed only one time (out of 11 or 9.09%) in the first episode, two times (out of 11 or 18.18%) in the second episode and 8 times (out of 11 or 72.72%) in the third episode. The article 5 was amended in the second episode 3 times (out of 5 or 60%) and 2 times (out of 5 or 40%) in the third episode.

For instance, the article 3 originally stated “…the obligation of the state to provide non-religious education”. Amendments made in the second episode (between 1934 and 1980), introduced “…the role of universities…” and “The powers of congress in unifying the educational policy of the country…”. Lastly, in the third episode (between 1992 to 2019) “…free education at the expense of the State.” was introduced and a detailed description of tasks and rules that government organs should follow to strengthen the educational and technological development of the country.

In the same manner, the article 5 initially stated the freedom to work in any area desired. Later, amendments were made in the second episode (between 1942 to 1990) stating the “right to a salary except when specified by the Judicial power” as well as the criteria for public service. In the third episode (in 1992 and 2016) “…the protection of workers, relative to the legal limits of contracts…” and the power of “states to evaluate and grant educational degrees”.

Taking into account the limited implementation of these articles, their continued modification in the third episode, disproves their importance in determining the constitutional basis from which the contemporary is established but point out to the increasing complexity of the state and the standardization of processes.

This assessment is sustained by the first amendments made to the article 24 and 130 regarding religious and ethical freedom and the limits of the Mexican Congress over religious institutions in the year 1992. Thus, formally solving the selective implementation of the article 3 almost 100 years after the conflict between the Catholic Church and the Mexican government in the context of the Cristero War (between the years 1926 and 1929). According to the amendment of 1992 “…providing the legal recognition of religious institutions. Ratification of the separation between the State and religious institutions. Allows religions institutions to acquire, poses and administrate properties and goods…” In the absence of a contemporary sociopolitical conflict in the context of the relations between the state and religious organizations, this exercise attributed these changes to a set of intentions and formal requirements set by international organizations in the context of human rights.

Is worth noting however the amendment made to the article 24 almost two decades later: (2013) “…within the concept of freedom of religion, ethics and thoughts. Bans public religious events with political aims.” Thus, effectively uniting religious, ethical and opinion concepts and allowing the state to limit internal or external threats without directly violating human rights.

International standards and perceptions are key to the Mexican state, for instance, Anaya (2010) claims that the consideration of Human Rights in the political and institutional processes are a condition for the country to be part of the international community. Furthermore, Gomez-Mera and Ramos (2015) claim that the complexity and requirements of international institutions ended up having a positive impact in Latin American governments, and as stated by Villegas Montiel (1996), would become an important part of their future political changes.

3. Finally, this work will determine and analyze the articles with the largest number of amendments in each episode. For the first episode, 26 different articles were amended in 13 years. The article 75 referred to the functions of the Chamber of Deputies (the lower house of the Congress of Mexico) was changed 5 times. Then, the articles 79 and 83 that state complementary mechanisms of the Chamber of Deputies and the duration of the Mexican Presidency were modified 3 times. Lastly, the articles 45 (regarding the integrity of states), 84 (the power of the Mexican Congress to designate an interim president), 89 (functions of the military), 115 (a republican form of government), 123 (right to labor), were changed two times. During this episode, 18 articles were changed only once (out of a total of 26 or 69.23%).

In the second episode, a total of 77 different articles were changed in 54 years. The article 73 that states functions of the Mexican Congress was changed 20 times. The articles 27 and 123 regarding ownership of the state over certain territories and right to labor were amended 11 times. Finally, the article 107 with supplementary mechanisms for the article 103 regarding the functions of the Supreme Court was modified 8 times. 35 articles were changed only once (out of a total of 77 or 45.45%) during this episode.

During the third episode, 105 different articles were modified in 31 years. As in the second episode, the article 73 had the largest number of amendments at 23 times. The article 122 regarding the functions and properties of Mexico City was changed 14 times. Lastly, the articles 105 and 116 that state the functions of the Judicial Power and the separation of powers within states (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) were modified 11 times. During the third episode, 27 articles were modified only once (out of a total of 105 or 27.61%) during this episode.

From this comparison, is possible to note a concentration in the number of articles amended, with the following classification according to their frequency in each episode:

A) Functions of the state: with 5 main the articles (75, 79, 83, 84 and 89) in the first episode, 2 main articles (73 and 27) in the second episode and 2 main articles (73 and 105) in the third episode.

B) Configuration of the state: with 1 main article (45) in the first episode and 2 main articles (122 and 106) in the third episode.

C) Rights of citizens: with 1 main article (123) for the first and second episode.

This classification provides an insight to the functions of amendments in supporting the increasing complexity of the state, however it does not demonstrate the specific purposes behind constitutional changes made throughout different presidential periods.

Based on the results of this study, we can observe a tendency for a larger amount of changes in fewer articles, suggesting a more precise approach in amending the constitution in areas that require constant adaptation. Notwithstanding, late constitutional amendments include articles that have little impact in the overall development of the nation and in the public opinion. This is evident in the amendments made to the articles 3, 5, 24 and 130 regarding the relations between the Church and the State in 1992 considering that these articles were never implemented to their full extent, moreover in a period of stability between both institutions.

A possible explanation is that during the third episode, the state needs to amend a large number of articles to keep up with its own development while declaring certain positions and procedures required by international organizations. To simplify this process, groups of articles are amended at once in the context of “integral reforms” with a common theme despite in fact having a wide array of goals.

Their prevalence on the third episode are evident, at 21 integral reforms with a total of 175 articles from 1990 to 2021. This is a dramatic increase from the second episode, with 8 integral reforms and the modification of 175 articles from 1990 to 2021. Thus, based on their content, the main purposes for constitutional amendments are determined – strengthening state institutions (as seen in the articles 75, 79, 83, 84, 89, 105, 125 and 116), increasing its institutional compatibility with foreign organizations (as seen in the article as seen 5, 27 and 123) and unification of states for a more balanced power (as seen in the article 112).

This is conclusion is supported by Ulloa (1983) as he states that the Mexican Constitution serves as a legal support for the internal organizational transformation of the country, from which intentions are reflected in different period, the most important, according to Kan (2018) regarding the constitutional amendments in the early nineties that integrated Mexico with the world. Is possible to claim that the decision of the Mexican government to carry out these amendments were influenced by a correct understanding of the context, as Huerta Gonzales (1991) claims, the international restructuration of capitalism led to the integration of Mexico, that according to Peters and Kim (1992) ultimately changed the character and instruments of the Mexican state.

Russian and Mexican institutional actors in the context of constitutional amendments

Regarding the entities behind constitutional amendments, in Russia the chapter 9 states that the President, the Prime Minister, the heads of regional legislative powers of federal subjects as well as groups of no less than one fifth of the members of the Council of Federation or the deputies of the State Duma can propose revisions and amendments. Thus, according to the article 136, amendments to the chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are made in the framework of laws that reflect their purpose. Each amendment (in the format of law) is then approved by the parliament and by regional legislative bodies. By contrast, the article 135, states that the chapters 1, 2 and 9 can only be amended by the adoption of a new constitution by the Russian Constitutional Assembly or by popular vote.

In Mexico, according to the article 135 (reformed in 2016), the President, deputies and senators as well as legislative bodies of each state can submit proposals to the Congress to amend the constitution. The proposals undergo a period of review and modifications and are approved if at least two thirds of the deputies vote in favor and if most of the regional congresses approve the changes. Finally, the president signs and publishes the constitutional amendments.

Despite a decentralized system of constitutional amendments, is possible to claim that the President is the central figure regarding constitutional amendments in both countries. For instance, Russian presidents have been the initiators of the constitutional changes of 2008, 2014 and 2020, in the same manner, Mexican presidents have proposed all of the integral reforms.

The influence of the Mexican President is widely discussed, for instance, Ruiz Perez (2011) claims that while institutional design determines the actors and the constitutional framework determines the results of the policies, the President is key in determining dynamics in the directions of the country. Rousseau (2001) stated that the Mexican constitution was initially created from the agreement among armed groups to share the power, however the evolution of the country lead to the strengthening of presidential powers, in the same manner, Arroyo Garcia (2014) states that the Constitution of 1917 extended the powers of the judicial power while the president acquired power gradually according to the various political contexts of the country.

Regarding the effectivity of constitutional amendments, Garriga and Duarte Ortiz (2014) concluded that constitutional amendments is the main instrument of Mexico (and other Latin American countries) to carry out the most important measures, from economic policies to public administration, however as stated by Negretto (2010) there is no evidence that constitutional reforms in Latin America strengthen or weaken the quality of the state but lead to centralization and for the successful implementation of presidential initiatives. Thus,this exercise proposes that the core purpose behind constitutional amendments in both countries is for the establishment of a set of functions and mechanisms to follow a political agenda set by the respective president.

Even though the context, purpose and mechanisms behind constitutional amendments in both countries differ greatly, groups of articles are modified within the framework of “thematic” laws in Russia and “thematic” integral reforms in Mexico. Within the framework of thematic directions, constitutional amendments suggested by the Mexican President are more likely to be supported on the background of a regional power distribution (regarding governors of different political affiliation) and opposing political forces in control of regional legislative powers. This is confirmed by the studies of Negretoo (2006) that concluded that urgent proposals in the framework of integral reforms can lead to constitutional amendments even if the president and congress are backed by different political parties in Mexico.

In the same manner, transitional articles established in the constitution, set the tasks for multiple institutions of the state to ensure the implementation of all constitutional articles according to their latest amendments in two types. The first type consists of 19 base articles introduced since the original Constitution of 1917 with broad indications regarding the procedures and characteristics of electoral periods at regional and federal powers. The second type are a group of attachments (called articles) to integral reforms with specific tasks for government bodies. For instance, exact timeframes for the national congress to pass a new law relative to the preservation of water (reform to the article 4 in 2012) to the creation of a multiannual federal budget for education (reform to the article 3 and 31 2012), thus ensuring compliance of state institutions and other powers until constitutional articles and attached transitional articles are amended. To this date, a total of 239 articles in 63 integral reforms have been or amended.

For that purpose, against the background of a presidential agenda largely unaffected by a considerable power distribution Mexico City was granted status as an ordinary state (although referred as a federal entity), thus gaining control over its political and judicial powers from the federal government. Even though the amendments to the article 122 in 1996 allowed the elections of the head of the government (previously designated by the President) as well as representative of a newly formed local congress, the latest changes to the article in 2016 were designed to erase remnant institutional barriers and increase the overall productivity of the city as it competes with other metropolises on a global level.

By contrast, Russian constitutional amendments set the set the overall direction of the nation despite their limited frequency amid a limited political opposition and strong presidential powers. Thus, Russian constitutional amendments seem to be contradictory, on the one hand, the transition and distribution of power is limited due to the lack of a sizable political opposition, while on the other hand, each modification provided an increasing number of powers to the President. Is logical to claim that the ultimate purpose behind constitutional changes is to increase the overall capacity of the state, however this work proposes that power concentration is intended to ensure the continuity of the decision-making in periods when external forces pose an existential threat to the state.

This claim supported by the proximity of Russian constitutional changes with external conflicts, such as the worsening of relations that lead to President Putin’s Speech at the Munich security conference in February 2007 and the War in Georgia in August of 2008 with the constitutional amendments of November in 2008. In the same manner, after Ukraine’s coup d’état in 2014 with the constitutional amendments made in February and July on the same year and finally the subsequent deterioration of relations between Russian and a number of states with the amendments of July 2020. Thus, Russian constitutional amendments made in anticipation and as a reaction to the challenges of the context.

Evident in the changing response of the Russian government to external threats, from the rejection to a unipolar world and advocacy for international cooperation, economic development and diplomacy (Presidential Speech at the Munich Security Conference in 2007), to ensure the physical existence of the state by military means as the President noted while announcing the initiation of the Special Military Operation in 2022.

In the same manner, this exercise considers that constitutional amendments relative to the territorial composition of the country are largely intended to preserve the state and increase its reaction to external changes. Is possible to claim that declaration of the country as the successor of the Soviet Union in its territory as well as the core elements that define Russian culture within the constitutional framework, is aimed to define the boundaries of the state and its interests (beyond its current formal limits) according to Russian populations living abroad, thus guiding the formation of legal, political, economic and military instruments for their protection.

Conclusions

This exercise concludes that Mexican constitutional amendments constitute a changing framework of tasks and priorities relative to presidential terms, with an overall impact on regional political representatives (relative to governors and regional congresses) despite their political affiliation through budgets, strategies and plans. In this manner, constitutional amendments constitute an integral part in the functioning of the Mexican state while preserve its distribution and rotation of power.

Russian constitutional amendments provide a fixed framework of tasks and priorities shaped by the institutional distribution of power in all levels of the government and guidelines enshrined in the constitution to solve specific challenges while ensuring a unified response of the state to an increasingly complex environment and deliver expected results.