Vladimir Putin spoke to the caller the hottest debate changes to the Constitution - the notorious nullification of presidential terms. This is not the only Argument in favor of nullification. However I must admit that his opponents ' arguments as a lot. All the more reason to consider them in detail. So, the Argument 1st: zeroing Is the usurpation of power from Vladimir Putin. The definition of usurpation Is violent, illegal seizure of power. Understand the desire of some people to hang colorful label to the phenomenon that you hate, And with which person you don't agree, but still an introduction to the Basic law stories through: A) approval of the constitutional court, b) the counting of votes in both houses of Parliament And b) a national plebiscite - Well, not a usurpation. Even if we leave out the fact that Putin may not go for another term. Argument the second: the nullification fundamentally inconsistent with the democratic norms, means rolling back Russia to authoritarianism. Well, the most obvious counter-argument in this case - question: why the decision supported by the majority of the population (if the amendments will support), is considered undemocratic? But another more interesting aspect. Five to ten years ago, Even the allegation in retreat from democratic norms would sound a lot more convincing for a large part of the population of Russia. The main reason why the West has become a role model for the world, was built where the democratic system is directly linked to socio-economic progress of the countries concerned. For decades North America And Western Europe were the most advanced, rich And prosperous regions of the planet - because of this everywhere formed the view that this is the case because of their political systems. However right currently, the eyes of the world this judgment is crashing is crashing, ripping it open, because It was only a myth, But at the same time, the reality is much more complex And contradictory. Years worked flawlessly the argument "let's do it at home, in America/Europe - And live it" just stopped working. Saying "zero is bad, because it is undemocratic (by Western standards)" This also applies in full force. A third argument that the current desire to keep stability will result in a severe crisis of the state-political system in the future - as happened some time ago with the Soviet Union. in contrast to previous considerations that appeal to abstract, "spherical in vacuum" speculative concepts, this argument - or rather, a whole set of arguments refers to the specific realities And experiences of the country And in that sense deserves much more careful consideration And reflection. The point is that the opponents of nullification have drawn a parallel between the present time, often defined as "Putin's stability" And the late Soviet Union, remaining in history with the name "stagnation" And, ultimately, played a fatal role in life of the country. There is no doubt that the Soviet leaders of that era were the good wishes (as they understood them), but the Result was disastrous: the dominance of key positions authorized for the older generation, decades sitting on their posts, the actual overlap of social mobility in politics And public administration for young professionals, the inability of management to feel And respond to the challenges, moral weariness on the part of the " Kremlin elders ". The result is well known: as soon as an opportunity arose, this design was demolished, together with the state. for reviews part, modern Russia faces a similar threat. But is it really So? the company informed Expert Institute of social studies has prepared a report on the personnel policy relative to management areas. The numbers unequivocally showed that the average age of new governors 48 years And they are 12-13 years younger than their predecessors. And this year conducted a similar simple calculations concerning the new And the previous government. It turned out that if the average age of Federal Ministers in the government of Dmitry Medvedev was 53 years (also, frankly, not Methuselah age), then the office of Michael mishustina it is 50 years. What Is the highest level of governance, So to talk about the lack of fresh personnel, the lack of new faces in national leadership And the slide of Russia into a gerontocracy, not Even close to necessary. In fact right up to the present time is the reverse process - the active generation change in the government system. Another thing is that it is as long as a few to a lesser degree affects the most important public sphere. In January, Russian society in General extremely positively apprehended a renewal of the government, quite nervously waited for the reassignment of heads of the military And the Ministry of foreign Affairs. And had no matter what Lavrov is working the Federal Minister has more than two decades, And Sergei Shoigu - two and a half. For reviews of Residents, It was the best candidates for the appropriate posts - And tellingly, This view coincided with the assessment of the country's leadership. So, No, vices undermine the Soviet system do not threaten the current Russian state, And in this sense concerns the issue of zeroing presidential terms are seen to be groundless. Another thing is that modern Russia has its own risks, And they are many - both external And internal. That is, about It Vladimir Putin also said in the same interview, noting that the state-political system of the country must have " security of self-preservation ", to be able to withstand shocks of any origin. It is clear that any guarantee he sees, And among them, the proposed amendments to the Constitution: from strengthening social security to an outright ban on the alienation of the territories from postulating the continuity of our millennial history to establish the priority of national law over international. However, the President does not certainly agree. Moreover, a week Later to all citizens having the right to vote will be given the opportunity to Express their own opinion on the matter. <span style="color:darkgray