THE CONSTITUTION-MAKING PROCESS AND ITS PARTICIPANTS

Abstract

The article is devoted to a comprehensive analysis of the subject composition of the process of creating a constitution as the highest form of law-making activity. The authors aim to overcome the narrow, purely institutional understanding of constitution-making, focusing not only on the official developers of the text of the Basic Law, but also on the entire spectrum of actors whose influence, direct or indirect activity determine the content and legitimacy of the final constitutional text. The focus of the study is the thesis that constitution-making, being a special type of law-making, is characterized by a unique, expanded and multi-level circle of participants. Their interaction, conflicts of interest and balance of power directly shape the essence of the constitutional contract in society. The article consistently argues that ignoring the role of informal or indirect participants leads to an incomplete understanding of the nature and genesis of constitutional norms. The author's classification of participants in the constitution-making process is proposed and substantiated according to two key criteria: 1) by the nature of formal involvement and 2) by the type of influence. On this basis, the following groups are distinguished and analyzed: official (formal) subject-creators: official subjects with related powers; political and social actors with direct influence; civil society and the expert community as subjects of legitimation; international participants. The emphasis is on the procedural complexity of constitution-making, in particular, the requirements for a quorum, a qualified majority of votes, the stages of parliamentary consideration and the role of a referendum. It is emphasized that the creative aspect of the constitution-making process consists in the formation of conceptual foundations of statehood, the coordination of social interests and the synthesis of national and international experience. The article outlines the main risks of the process, including politicization, marginalization of public participation, expert contradictions and external influence. The conclusion is drawn about the need to combine legal excellence with creative content to ensure legitimate and effective constitutional renewal.