Some Soviet constitutional provisions applied to capitalist democracies

One question that has occurred to me is why various Soviet constitutional provisions could not (at least in theory) be applied to capitalist democracies. (I am here using the 1977 "Brezhnev Constitution" as my starting point.) Maybe just have Congress or Parliament meet once or twice a year and elect a Presidium to do its work when it's not in session? (That could certainly save money.) http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons05.html#chap15

Maybe have a Procurator General appointed by Congress or Parliament? http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons07.html#chap21 In a democratic country, the Procuracy's supposed task of seeing to it that government officials obeyed the law and respected citizens' rights might become genuine.

Also, note that until late in the Gorbachev era the USSR got along without any president. The Chairman of the Council of Ministers headed the government; the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet was the closest thing they had to a titular head of state. Yet even parliamentary states in the West insist on a figurehead president or monarch--unnecessarily IMO. Switzerland is the only exception I can think of offhand.
 
More than a few had said that the later Soviet Constitution, in theory, could have worked well in Western Democracies
 
Me most interesting provision would be recall (Article 107):

Article 107. Deputies shall report on their work and on that of the Soviet to their constituents, and to the work collectives and public organisations that nominated them.

Deputies who have not justified the confidence of their constituents may be recalled at any time by decision of a majority of the electors in accordance with the procedure established by law.

However, quite a few countries (and US states) give their citizens the right to recall representatives, but such a recall procedure is seldom and almost never succesful.
 
This brings up an interesting question (at least to me): Why did the Western media always consider the General Secretary of the CPSU to be the leader of the Soviet Union, rather than the Chairman of either the Council of Ministers or the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet? ISTM, that legally either one of them had a better claim to the title than the General Secretary.

The practice of considering the General Secretary to be the national leader is analogous to claiming that Ronna Romney McDaniel (Chair of the Republican National Committee) is the current "leader of the United States" and ignoring His Trumpness....
 
This brings up an interesting question (at least to me): Why did the Western media always consider the General Secretary of the CPSU to be the leader of the Soviet Union, rather than the Chairman of either the Council of Ministers or the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet?
Because he had the power. Natural, since Politbiuro and Central Commitee were seats of the power, not Supreme Soviet.
Similar examples:
Japanese Emperors had no power for several centuries, so they obviously weren't leaders of Japan: Shoguns were.
Roman Consuls had no power after Augustus, First-Citizen had the power, so obviously he was leader (yet consulship wasn't abolished until ninth-century).
How can someone be a leader if he doesn't even lead? He can't. Therefore General Secretary was leader.
 
This brings up an interesting question (at least to me): Why did the Western media always consider the General Secretary of the CPSU to be the leader of the Soviet Union, rather than the Chairman of either the Council of Ministers or the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet? ISTM, that legally either one of them had a better claim to the title than the General Secretary.

The practice of considering the General Secretary to be the national leader is analogous to claiming that Ronna Romney McDaniel (Chair of the Republican National Committee) is the current "leader of the United States" and ignoring His Trumpness....


Article 6. The leading and guiding force of the Soviet society and the nucleus of its political system, of all state organisations and public organisations, is the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The CPSU exists for the people and serves the people.

The Communist Party, armed with Marxism-Leninism, determines the general perspectives of the development of society and the course of the home and foreign policy of the USSR, directs the great constructive work of the Soviet people, and imparts a planned, systematic and theoretically substantiated character to their struggle for the victory of communism
All party organisations shall function within the framework of the Constitution of the USSR

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons01.html#chap01

If the US Constitution had a similar provision for the Republican Party, and if the Republican Party Chairman was the real, not nominal head of the Republican Party, I think it would be legitimate to consider the Republican National Chairman the leader of the US. (incidentally, from 1977 on the General Secretary usually *was* Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet and therefore nominal head of state, or the closest thing the USSR had to one. And Khrushchev was Premier as well as First Secretary from 1958-1964; Stalin of course was Premier from 1941 to 1953 as well as Secretary of the Central Committee. Technically speaking, he was never *General* Secretary after 1934, though often referred to as such.)
 
Top