dr Srđan Đorđević,
vanredni profesor Pravnog fakulteta
Univerziteta u Kragujevcu
O USTAVU KROZ PRIČU
Ustavi su kao ljudi: rađaju se, žive, nasleđuju, zaboravljaju, umiru, ali traju... Ustavotvorna vlast je njihov roditeljski par, zajednica ljudi rešenih da stvore novo delo, kojim će sebi i drugima obogatiti život. I ustavi rastu i razvijaju se; imaju sopstveno detinjstvo, mladalačko doba, zrelost; a znaju ostariti i nestati sa pozornice realnog pravnog života. Mogu biti dobri i loši, pravedni i nepravedni, jasni i nerazumljivi, glasni i tihi. Mogu biti čak i ubijeni, sahranjeni sa ili bez traga i potomstva, a znaju nekada i sami biti ubice, ili se to tako samo drugima čini. U svakom slučaju, kada ustavi ne bi neprekidno utiskivali državi pečat prava, ona ne bi ni sama znala da postoji, a još lakše bi to neznanje bilo prisutno u njenom okruženju.
Dužina života jednog ustava zavisi od mnogo faktora, pa izdvajamo samo neke od njih: iskrenost ustavotvorca da stvori dugotrajno čedo; genetska predodređenost ka stabilnom ustavu koja se meri snagom tradicije; društveni uslovi u kojima ustav raste i razvija se, zdrav život; otpornost na bolesti i td.
A kad se već rodi, svaki ustav bude zaokružen aurom ozbiljnog dostojanstvenika, kojem se obezbeđuje prestoni tron unutar porodice i šire familije prava. Prilikom okončanja nastajućeg procesa, tvorac mu dodeljuje posebnim moćima presvučeni mač, koji neprestano leluja nad praksom pravnog života, sve tragajući i proveravajući jesu li članovi porodično-familijarne pravne zadruge pristojni i kulturni. Ako nisu, ustavni mač se dodatno zategne, kako bi mu oštrina sečiva pala pravo na neposlušni akt, odrubljujući mu postojanje i ispravljajući greške koje je načinio. Zato je ustav kralj, vladar, koji ne prašta. Jer, ako bi prevideo tuđu grešku i potrebu za kaznom, istovremeno bi sebe uvredio; i sebe i svog tvorca. A jedini kojem niko ništa ne može jeste tvorac, koji je moćniji od svih, te zato ustavi nisu ovlašćeni da praštaju greške drugih i nižih.
Dok je još uvek mlad, reklo bi se, detinjast, ustav je ispunjen maštovitim snovima, koji se obično smeštaju na početku njegovog teksta. To je onaj deo napunjen emocijama iz kojih zrači snažan pogled upravljen daleko ka budućnosti, započet ponosom prošlosti. Kao i svakom drugom mladom detetu, i ustavu tog uzrasta ne pada na pamet šta drugo sem večitosti; čini mu se da je najlepši od svih prethodnih, a dovoljno je sebičan da ne očekuje naslednika. Čak bi, dok je tako nepromućuran, i ustavno vreme računao samo od sebe i bez pomisli na sopstveni kraj.
No, kao što se u ovoj priči zapisa, ima retkih među ustavima koji su od početka razboriti iako su tek nastali. A možda su i rođeni pod srećnom zvezdom čija ih svetlost prati i obasjava im put kojim koračaju kroz vekove. Kada mudrac skroji pravu meru za pogođenu ideju, onda u njemu ima i proročkog duha. Predvidi se moćima mudrosti gotovo svaki budući trenutak i društveno vrenje u njemu, pa je ustav tada ona stabilna i uvek budna matica koja se stalno iznova osvežava kakvom rosom revitalizacije, koja izvire iz složne a pametne ljudske zajednice. Takvi ustavi su znalački pripremljeni da dobrodošlicom prihvate svoje nove delove, koje donose tvorci i tumači.
Zato je san svih ustava da budu dela sa merom, baš kao što i nama ljudima čitav život protiče u naporima mere. Da se merimo, da merimo i da nas mere. Ako tvorac ustava dobro ne odmeri kakav ustav stvara i na koji ga način baca u vatru društvenog života, osuđuje ga na propast, oduzima vazduh i skraćuje trajanje. Brzopleti tvorac najčešće kvari državni mehanizam, koji je dovoljno komplikovan da treba dosta znalačke energije kako bi zupčanici savršeno uklapali pravne procese u stabilan sistem. U suprotnom, mehanizam se kvari, jer mu se elementi sudaraju, tuku, lome, kidaju, otpadaju, gube, nestaju, pa se sistem vraća na protivrečnu praksu kao prvobitno stanje, što je onda prilika za novi početak.
A ima i dugovečnijih među ustavima; pravih staraca, što zavisi od eliksira mudrosti kojim su opremeljeni njegovi tvorci i pisci. To su oni dalekovidi, obično stariji pisci, mada su, interesantno, ustavotvorci mlađi. Kao da postoji nepisano pravilo, te što je država više tek na začetku, to joj je ustavno čedo predodređeno da duže živi. Ali, tako je samo na početku, jer je ustavna sudbina takva da tvorci žive zajedno sa svojim ustavima. Verovatno da bi opstalo pravilo da su od starijih roditelja deca pametnija. Tek sa potpunim nestankom jednog ustavotvorca, nema više ni ustava, jer je veza između njih tako jaka i čvrsta, da jedan bez drugoga ne mogu. Mala je vremenska razlika između tvorca i ustava; zajednica koja nije sposobna, već pravno jalova nestaje ukoliko sebe ne oplodi ustavom, pa je ustav uslov ustavotvorcu, koji je njemu uslov. Zato je država jedna simbiotička zajednica sa ustavom, koji je njen regenerator. On je obnavlja, održava, čini postojanom i postojećom. Jer, kada ne bi neprekidno utiskivao državi pečat čvrste organizovanosti, ona bi se raspala kao kakva krhka pukotina koja ruši konstrukciju.
Znaju i ustavi da se umore. Itekako. Oni u sebi sadrže akumulacioni prostor, koji popunjava društvo svojom energijom, p(r)overavajući mu kvalitet, podobnost, ozbiljnost i spremnost da opstane kao deo društva. Posustane li u tome, ustav pada na ispitu, odlazi mu energija u nepovrat, pa biva istisnust iz društva, koje se onda okreće novom tvorenju. Društvo ima uvek aktivnu matericu sa pripremljenom plodovom vodicom, kojom se popljuskuje ustavna suština. Nije li država neprekidna ustavna zadužbina; ona čvrsta stega koja se ustavom utvrđuje, pa država bude najčešće i na duže istorijske staze promatrano, stalna smena ustava. Samo retki, reklo bi se, ustavi mudrijaši, imaju privid sopstvene neizmenjenosti. Mada su i oni ispisani mastilom iskričave društvene pažnje, koja ih stalno proverava i menja. Onim mastilom koje ne bledi, a uvek iznova prikazuje novi saznajni i tumačeći sadržaj.
Ustavi, kako se kaže, znaju biti i loši, ali mi se čini, ni krivi ni dužni. U konačnome, društvenu odgovornost za njih snosi njihov tvorac, ali je zaboravnoj misli lakše svaliti krivicu na ono što se lakše menja, a lakše je promeniti ustav, nego društvo. S druge strane, društvo je ta sila koja ima moć da raspodeljuje krivdu i pravdu, a ono samo želi da sebe uvek vidi neokaljanog obraza. Kada bi društvo pristalo da prihvati sopstvenu grešku u trenutku njenog nastanka, onda bi to bio siguran znak da se gubi smisao njegovog postojanja. Tek kada protekne neko određeno vreme dovoljno da se osete posledice nedobrog delanja društva, onda se novi ustavotvorac doseti čarobne formule da je ustav izvor zla prethodnog poretka. A ustav je tek sredstvo kojim se činodejstvuje, te je stoga uvek nužno oštricu misli usmeriti ispod njegovog pokrivača, jer se tamo strpljivo skriva suština. Onaj kome misli okupira ustav, mora tragati za istinom ušuškanom u iskonskoj ustavnoj pozadini. Stoga i mislim da nema autoritativnog tumačenja ustava bez uzimanja u obzir njegove sociološke strukture i političke dimenzije, te ne treba tako olako ni Lasalovu ideju svrstavati u neprihvatljiv koncept doživljaja ustava. Naprotiv, iako će zazvučati praktično jeretički i neizvodljivo, posebno mi se čini dobrodošlim da ustavno-sudska vlast treba da bude prožeta i lasalovcima, a ne samo kelzenovcima. Proboj ustavnosti nas tera da priznamo postojanje šireg konsenzusa među modelima za razumevanje ustava.
I na kraju: oni koji ne mogu nikada do kraja da razumeju ustav, moraju priznati da vreme samo odabira najbolje među ustavima: verovatno će najbolji biti onaj koji najduže traje; to je već ozbiljno formirana ličnost, koja nema problem svog socijalnog života; on je takav čvrsto ukotvljen u krilima društva, pa se oni međusobno daruju bogatstvom stabilnosti.
prof.dr Srđan Đorđević
Srdjan Djordjevic, PhD
A TALE OF CONSTITUTIONS*
Constitutions are like people: they are born, they live, inherit, forget, die, but still they last... Constitution creating powers are their parents, a communion of individuals determined to create a new act to make a better life for all. Thus, constitutions develop, growing from babes in arms to youth and maturity, and they have also been known to become old and leave the stage of real jurisprudential life. They may be good or bad, fair or unjust, clear or inscrutable, vocal or silent. They may even be assassinated, buried without any trace, and they have been known to kill, or at least to leave such an impression. Be it as it may, were it not for the constitutions affixing the seal of law on the state, the state would not be aware of its own existence.
The lifespan of a constitution depends on many factors, let us highlight here but a few: its creators sincerely having its longevity at their heart; genetic makeup for stability, in terms of the strength of tradition; social circumstances where a constitution grows and develops, healthy lifestyle, resistance to diseases, etc.
Once born, each constitution gains an aura of a solemn dignitary, promised and granted the supreme throne within the wide and broad family of law. Its creator grants it a sword sheathed with special powers that relentlessly sways over the practices of jural life, checking whether all the members of the familial jural cooperative are worthy and well-bred. If not, this constitutional sword aims the sharpness of its edge at the disobedient act, beheading it out of existence and correcting any errors that may have been made. That is why the constitution is a sovereign with no forgiveness or mercy. If it were to overlook an error and not exercise punishment, it would at the same time harm both itself and its creator. And the only one to be beyond reach is the creator, mightier than everybody else. Hence constitutions do not have the authority to forgive the faults of others and those of lower standing.
While still young, even childish we might say, a constitution is brimming with visionary dreams in its preamble, the part teeming with emotions, projecting a mighty look directed far ahead and conceived by pride in the past. Like any other child, a constitution of that age can consider nothing else but eternity; it finds itself the most beautiful of all the previous ones, and is egotistical enough not to anticipate any successors. While still so daft, it would even measure constitutional time only by itself, not giving a single thought to its own end.
Nonetheless, as this tale chronicles, there are such constitutions, albeit few and far between, that are from their very conception sensible and wise, even though they have only just been created. And perhaps they were born under a lucky star that lights their path through centuries. When a wise man tailors the true measure for the right idea, he has been inspired by a prophetic gift. The might of wisdom then foresees almost every future moment and social turmoil, and so a constitution plays the role of the queen bee, always rejuvenated by the honeydew welling up from the harmonious and clever human society. Such constitutions have been deftly prepared to welcome any new parts coming from creators and interpreters.
That is why it is a dream of any constitution to be a work with measure, just as our human lives are lived amidst attempts at measure. To be measured against, to measure ourselves, to be measured by others. If the constitution creator should fail to measure properly what kind of constitution he is creating and how he throws it into the fire of social life, he condemns it to doom, stifles it and shortens its life. A hasty creator would most often wreak havoc within a state mechanism, a sophisticated one requiring a that all the cogwheels perfectly fit. Otherwise, the mechanism breaks down, its parts collide, crash, shatter, drop off, disappear, and then the system revisits the contradictory practice, and the original state of affairs provides an opportunity for the new beginning.
However, there are long-lived ones among the constitutions, true centenarians, which depends on the particular elixir of wisdom at hand to its creators and writers. These are the long-sighted, usually elder ones, although, interestingly, constitution makers are usually younger. It is as if there were an unwritten rule, that the closer the state is to its inception, the longer its constitution is destined to live. But, it is so only at the very beginning, since it is the fate of the constitutions that the creators live together with their constitutional offspring. Probably to reaffirm the rule that older parents have smarter children. And it is only when a constitution maker is no longer that the constitution is gone, so strong and sound are the ties between them. There is little time difference between the creator and the constitution; the community that is not able-bodied but jurisprudentially barren is to disappear unless it pollinates itself with the constitution. Thus the constitution conditions the constitution creator, and the latter is a condition for the former. That is why the state is in a symbiosis with the constitution that is its regenerator. The constitution replenishes and sustains it, makes it stable and existent. For, were it not for the state constantly being imprinted with the seal of firm orderliness, it would break apart, just like a hairline crack brings down the entire structure.
Constitutions can become exhausted. Oh, yes, they certainly can. They contain an accumulation space within, a reservoir supplying the society with their energy, prov(id)ing quality, aptness, gravity and readiness to endure. Should it fall short of that, a constitution fails, its energy is wasted for good, and it is dismissed by the society turning towards a new creation. The society always has a vital womb, bathing in its forewaters the constitutional essence. Is it not so that the state is a lasting constitutional legacy, a bondage thus defined? Is it not so that the state is most often, historically speaking, the constant revolution, rotation of constitutions? Only a few of the constitutions, the sharp-witted ones, have the air of remaining unchanged. However, even such constitutions were written in ink of vivid social focus that keeps testing and changing them. It is the ink that does not fade, always showing anew the novel content to be taken in and interpreted.
Constitutions are also often said to be bad as well, but it seems to me through no fault of their own. After all, social responsibility is the creators, but to a forgetful mind it is easier to put the blame on that which is changed more easily, and it is easier to change a constitution than a society. On the other hand, the society is that force with the power to bestow injustice and justice, always wishing to see a perfect image in its mirror. If the society could accept their own mistake at the time it occurs, then it would be a sure sign that the purpose of its existence is being lost. It is only after some time has passed, sufficing for the consequences of not-so-good actions of the society to be felt, that the new constitution creators remember the magic formula that it is the constitution that is the source of all previous evil. And since the constitution is but a means to hold service, it is always necessary to look sharp under its cloak, for that is where the essence patiently lies in waiting. The one whose thoughts are occupied by the constitution must seek for the truth in the primordial constitutional background. That is why I think there can be no proper interpretation of a constitution without taking into account its sociological structure and political dimension. Consequently, Lassalles idea should not be dispensed with lightly and seen as an unacceptable concept of experiencing a constitution. Quite the reverse, although it might sound almost heretical and impracticable, I believe that constitutional and judiciary power should be interspersed with Lassallians as well, not only with Kelsenians. The breakthrough of constitutionality compels us to recognise the existence of a broader consensus for understanding constitutions.
Finally, the ones who can never fully comprehend a constitution must admit that time that is the judge of the best of constitutions: probably the best one will be the one that lasts longest being already a seriously formed personality, with no problem with its social life, and thus firmly anchored in the society, so that they confer on each other the prosperity of stability.