Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Administrative and municipal law
Reference:

Direct democracy “ad hoc”: on the question of extraordinary forms of direct people’s rule

Ubasev Viktor Vladimirovich

ORCID: 0000-0001-7373-2753

Postgraduate student, Department of Constitutional Law, Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation

119606, Russia, Moscow, Moscow, Vernadsky Avenue, 84

ubasev.v@mail.ru

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0595.2024.2.70263

EDN:

GQNWRB

Received:

27-03-2024


Published:

04-05-2024


Abstract: The possibility of classifying the institutions of direct democracy as “ad hoc” legislation, that is, institutions that are extraordinary forms of direct expression of the will of the people, is being considered. The criteria for distinguishing such forms of direct democracy from forms that are of an ordinary nature, that is, designed for repeated use, are determined. The question of the advantages of forms of direct expression of the will of the people, classified as “ad hoc” legislation, over ordinary forms is explored. The article also raises the question of the risks that can be realized when using special institutions of direct democracy to solve specific problems. The relevance and novelty of the study are due to the small number of scientific works devoted to this topic - on the one hand, and the growing practical interest in the application of institutions of constitutional law related to “ad hoc” legislation in the implementation of direct democracy - on the other. At the moment, there are studies on the topics considered, carried out within the framework of the scientific subject of the theory of state and law, as discussed in the article. At the same time, there are simply no substantive constitutional and legal studies. For a long time, the answer to the question of the effectiveness of such institutions remains unclear. Conclusions: the only objective criterion that allows one to classify a particular institution or norm as an “ad hoc” norm is an indication of its one-time application of a rule of law; It seems incorrect to attribute a particular norm/institution to “ad hoc” legislation only because the law was adopted “for a specific task”; extraordinary forms of direct democracy are the most effective for conducting various kinds of electoral events, that is, voting.


Keywords:

direct democracy, direct popular democracy, forms of direct democracy, expression of will, voting, democracy, people power, democratic institutions, legislation, ad hoc

This article is automatically translated.

Over the years, the theory of law has developed well-established definitions of many legal categories, including the concept of "rule of law", which, it would seem, undoubtedly has a sign of its repeated application [1, p. 143] or, as other researchers say, regulation of standard public relations [2, p. 66]. But despite the well-established ideas about such basic legal phenomena that exist in Russian legal science, practice opens up new horizons for scientific research every day.

Thus, the multiplicity of application, as a sign of any legal norm, becomes irrelevant in practice in cases where the provisions of an adopted law or other normative legal act (NPA) are initially designed for one-time use. Such norms and regulations, applied once, are referred to by the term "ad hoc legislation" [3, pp. 181-182]. The most interesting, in the context of this study, are the norms of laws and subordinate normative legal acts regulating the issues of direct democratic procedures, in particular those through which the Constitution of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) was adopted in the recent past, as well as an amendment to the Constitution in 2020.

The purpose of the study is to form criteria for attributing institutions of direct democracy to "ad hoc" legislation, that is, to those institutions of direct democracy that represent extraordinary forms of direct expression of the power of the people. In addition, it is planned to identify the advantages and disadvantages of using such institutions in comparison with similar "ordinary" forms of direct democracy.

To achieve the purpose of the study, it is necessary to analyze extraordinary forms of direct democracy in Russia, such as: the 1993 National Vote, which adopted the Constitution (hereinafter referred to as the National Vote) and the All–Russian vote on approving amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation in 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the All–Russian Vote), institutionalized by the Law of the Russian Federation on the Amendment to the Constitution RF dated 03/14/2020 No. 1-FKZ "On Improving the Regulation of Certain Issues of the Organization and Functioning of Public Authority" (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Law) [1]. It is also necessary to show examples of those institutions of direct democracy that are similar to institutions that are unambiguously classified as "ad hoc" legislation, but have differences that do not allow them to be included in this group. Based on this comparison, the criteria that distinguish extraordinary institutions of direct democracy from others – those that are applied or can be applied repeatedly - will be identified.

The methodological basis of the research is formed, among other things, from general scientific methods: analysis, synthesis and comparison. The methods of legal sciences are also used: the method of comparative law and legal forecasting.

The research is based on an already existing theoretical basis. In particular, such sources are the works of T.Ya. Khabrieva, P.V. Krasheninnikov, A.A. Klishas, N.A. Bobrova, which explore the problems of direct democracy in general, as well as direct democratic procedures of an extraordinary nature, including those implemented within the framework of constitutional reforms. An important part of the theoretical basis of the study is the work of E.A. Lukyanova, V.S. Byalt and S.Y. Chimarov, devoted to the problems of interaction between government and society, including the phenomenon of norms and institutions"ad hoc", the essence of legal norms and their features. Although both of these scientific directions have sufficient elaboration within the framework of the above studies, the question of the phenomenon of legislation existing in practice"ad hoc", in relation to the normative consolidation of institutions of direct democracy, has not been widely covered in science before. Consideration of this issue from the point of view of the problems of legal consolidation of extraordinary forms of direct democracy, often used in carrying out constitutional reforms, is relevant for the science of constitutional law in Russia, this research topic is not yet widespread enough.

The amendment of the Constitution itself ensures the evolution of constitutional regulation in line with the basic constitutional principles [4]. However, it is important to take into account that the amendment process is regulated in Chapter IX of the Constitution and does not involve any electoral procedures, as well as the adoption of relevant regulatory legal acts regulating them. Of course, this thesis does not apply to the process of adopting a new Constitution in 1993, when there was no regulatory framework for such a procedure at all and it actually had to be created from scratch. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 1633 of 10/15/1993 (hereinafter – Decree No. 1633) [2] was of an extraordinary nature and determined an equally extraordinary vote as an important element of the procedure for adopting the Constitution.

According to the developers, Decree No. 1633 was initially adopted as an "ad hoc" regulatory legal act, being designed for a single application. According to its purpose, the document became the basis for the adoption of a normative legal act of the highest legal force – the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The popular adoption of the Constitution, which performs, among other things, a constituent function [5], was procedurally mediated by the issuance of Decree No. 1633.

This example shows that normative legal acts containing norms of constitutional law can be adopted "in case", and their norms can be deliberately designed for one-time use. That is, such norms of law are not a "reference" model, but represent an exception to the general rule developed by the domestic science of the theory of state and law. The peculiar uniqueness of Decree No. 1633 lies in the fact that the norms in question actually predetermined the formation of a new regulatory framework of domestic legal regulation, since it was through their application that the Constitution of the Russian Federation was eventually adopted, which became the basis for further building the legal system of modern Russia.

Another striking example of a regulatory legal act containing procedural provisions related to "ad hoc" norms is the Amendment Act. The most important procedural element of the ongoing constitutional reform provided for by the Amendment Law was the All-Russian vote, which is a unique, special form of direct democracy, not previously provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation [6, p. 220].

Speaking about the prerequisites for the creation of the legal mechanism under consideration, N.A. Bobrova points out that "it was impossible to do without holding an All-Russian vote because it was obvious that the amendments to Chapters 1, 2 and 9 of the Constitution were actually invaded with the formal untouchability of their text, since these chapters are "untouchable" due to the absence of a Constitutional Assembly and the undesirability of a "real" referendum under the Referendum Law, which has stricter requirements for recognizing it as having taken place than the requirements for an all-Russian vote" [7, p. 70]. At the same time, it is important that the All-Russian vote is inherently an extremely close legal mechanism to both the federal referendum and the Popular Vote provided for by Decree No. 1633, although they both appear to be independent, extraordinary in nature forms of direct popular expression [8]. Speaking about such legal institutions, I.A. Starostina points out that in electoral practice other forms of voting can be designed and used, which are close in their characteristics to a referendum, but differ in name [9]. At the same time, we must not forget about the essential differences. For example, the quorum for decision–making, in the case of National and All-Russian voting, became a kind of "stumbling block" in the question of the possibility of holding a referendum, as a result of which decisions were made on the establishment of new institutional forms of direct democracy - both in 1993 and in 2020 [10, 11]. AndV. Ignatushko, for example, considers the emergence of such specific institutions of direct democracy as quite natural features of the development of the legal system of modern Russia [12]. This position seems quite logical and at the same time does not contradict any of the other points of view indicated, including it may exist both in the context of the objective need to create "special" institutions of direct democracy for equally special measures, which are constitutional reforms, and in the context of the opinion that their development was needed solely to circumvent The norms of the current legislation on the referendum are an element of the application of a significant administrative resource to the highest degree.

Similar examples are also found in the practice of foreign countries. A similar extraordinary form of direct de facto democracy turned out to be the constitutional referendum in Serbia, held in 2022. Despite the apparent universality of the named institution, the law on the referendum, formally designed for multiple applications, was adopted only on the eve of the constitutional reform, although its draft was prepared back in 2006 [13]. An important difference between the above-mentioned referendum in Serbia and other special procedures is its universal nature with regard to holding such events in the future, however, it is impossible to accurately predict whether this mechanism will be applied in the future. Thus, from the point of view of the "targeted" adoption of the law, it can be attributed to "ad hoc" legislation only with a significant degree of conditionality. If we take as a basis for such a restriction the criterion of mandatory normative indication of the one-time application of the norms of law, the referendum in Serbia cannot be classified in this category. In other foreign countries, priority is given to ordinary forms of direct democracy (referendums), which are often enshrined in the constitution itself and are in the most stable state [14, p. 248].

The question remains open as to how it is necessary to differentiate such NPAs and legal norms when deciding on their attribution to ad hoc legislation. It seems that the main criterion should still be the orientation of the norms to their single or repeated application. That is, in the event that the law explicitly provides for the application of a norm or institution once – such norms and NPA relate to ad hoc legislation. If such a conclusion does not directly follow from the content of the NPA, the norm must be considered designed for repeated use, and therefore not related to the type in question. Since public relations often develop independently of the will of the legislator, to provide for the possibility of repeated application of the rule of law does not mean to ensure the existence of those public relations that such a norm should regulate. In this logic, repeated application of the norm, in principle, can neither be ensured nor predicted at the time of its development.

Returning to the Popular Vote, it must be said that in this case, too, its attribution to "ad hoc" institutions is not unambiguous. Despite the fact that Decree No. 1633 assumed a one-time holding of such a vote, the term itself is firmly entrenched in Chapter IX of the Constitution. Thus, according to part 3 of Article 135 of the Constitution, the draft of a new constitution is adopted by the Constitutional Assembly by two thirds of the total number of its members or submitted to a popular vote, and during a popular vote, the Constitution of the Russian Federation is considered adopted if more than half of the voters who took part in the vote voted for it, provided that more than half of the voters participated. Consequently, the name of such a form of direct democracy as Popular vote has been preserved in the current legislation. Moreover, given its constitutional consolidation in the "unchangeable" Chapter IX, this institution will definitely be applied when adopting the new constitution of the Russian Federation, when such a need arises. However, we still do not know what will be hidden behind this term and whether the new "popular vote" will be similar to the 1993 vote.

It can also be said unequivocally that a striking example of the "ad hoc" norms establishing extraordinary institutions of direct democracy are the provisions of the Amendment Law regulating the conduct of the All-Russian vote. And this conclusion directly follows from the provisions of the law itself, which regulated the process of holding the All-Russian vote in 2020. It is also important that the practice of holding such votes can be continued, but formally these are other institutions of direct democracy, even if their name becomes the same.

As for the advantages of extraordinary forms of direct democracy ("ad hoc" institutions), the main one is the adaptability of such norms. An established legal institution, such as a federal referendum, does not always fit the goals and objectives for which voting is necessary. Also, the use of "incorrect" procedures may lead to the failure to achieve the necessary results. For example, taking into account the opinion of the people in the case of ordinary democratic procedures may not be objective or voting will be difficult due to the low level of legal awareness of citizens of a particular state, and therefore the inability to obtain a quorum for voter turnout. When the institution of direct democracy is created for a specific task, for example, taking into account the opinion of the people on the issue of approving the ongoing constitutional reform, the most effective solution is to create such a "legislative foundation" for the procedural design of the reform, which would 100% respond to the challenges of the time and be able to withstand external factors affecting it at the moment. The effectiveness of such methods is evidenced, in particular, by the successful experience of constitutional reforms in Russia and Kazakhstan [15].

Of course, in the case of the establishment of new "extraordinary" democratic institutions, there is a risk of abuse and use of their features not for the benefit of the effectiveness of ongoing reforms and the most accurate consideration of the opinion of the people on certain issues, but in the selfish interests of government representatives, who at this moment fill certain public positions, whose powers include, among others, the organization ongoing reforms. However, these risks are negligible if the system of checks and balances works effectively in the state, and a significant set of important state powers is not concentrated in the hands of representatives of one political force.

Based on the results of the study, the following conclusions were formulated:

1. Institutions of direct democracy can be fixed in legislation on the principle of "ad hoc", that is, they represent extraordinary forms of direct democracy;

2. Such institutions, referred to as "ad hoc" legislation, are found in practice both in the Russian Federation and in some foreign countries, for example in Serbia;

3. the only objective criterion that allows you to attribute an institution or norm to the "ad hoc" norms is an indication of its one-time application in the NPA that these norms are fixed;

4. one or another norm cannot be attributed to the "ad hoc" norms only because the NPA fixing them was adopted "for a specific task" if this NPA allows the application of the fixed norms in the future;

5. Extraordinary forms of direct democracy are the most effective for conducting various types of voting, for example, within the framework of constitutional reforms, but their application may carry risks of abuse of state authority, which can be implemented in the process of law enforcement.

[1] Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. 2020. No. 11. Article 1416.

[2] Collection of acts of the President and Government of the Russian Federation. 1993. No. 42. St. 3995.

References
1. Krasheninnikov, P.V. (2017). Law and legislative process. Moscow: Statute.
2. Byalt, V.S., & Chimarov, S.Yu. (2022). On the issue of the concept and characteristics of the rule of law. Trends in the development of science and education, 84-5, 64-66.
3. Lukyanova, E.A. (2014). Population and laws. New in the development of communicative culture of relations between society and the state in Russia. Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 1, 180-193.
4. Khabrieva, T.Ya. (2023). The Constitution of the Russian Federation: identity, stability and development (to the 30th anniversary of the Basic Law of Russia). Journal of Russian Law, 12, 5-21.
5. Shustrov, D.G. (2012). Constituent function of the constitution. Constitutional and municipal law, 9, 10-16.
6. Khabrieva, T.Ya., & Klishas, A.A. (2020). Thematic commentary to the Law of the Russian Federation on the amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation of March 14, 2020 No. 1-FKZ “On improving the regulation of certain issues of the organization and functioning of public power”. Moscow: Infra-M.
7. Bobrova, N.A. (2023). Constitutional reform - 2020 as a harbinger of the new Russian Constitution. Legal science: history and modernity, 5, 66-75.
8. Ubasev, V.V. (2023). “Direct expression of the people’s will” as a constitutional and legal category. Vector of science of Togliatti State University. Series: Legal sciences, 1(52), 39-44.
9. Starostina, I.A. (2019). Constitutional orientation of power renewal based on elections in modern Russia. Constitutional and municipal law, 11, 51-56.
10. Uvarov, A.A. (2018). The effectiveness of democracy in relation to the forms of direct expression of the will of citizens. Constitutional and municipal law, 3, 32–35.
11. Kolyushin, E.I. (2020). Electoral reform of 2020 in the light of the principles of electoral law. Constitutional and municipal law, 12, 55-61.
12. Ignatushko, I.V. (2022). On the question of the forms and trends of legal regulation of direct democracy in the context of all-Russian voting. Court Administrator, 1, 35-38.
13. Zenkin, S. (2022). The mechanism of constitutional reform in Serbia: procedure and practice. Comparative Constitutional Review, 5(150), 42-62.
14. Barkhatova, E.Yu. (2020). Commentary on the Constitution of the Russian Federation: new edition (article-by-article). Moscow: Prospekt.
15. Balashkina, I.V., & Ubasev, V.V. (2023). Constitutional reforms in Russia and Kazakhstan as a response to external and internal political challenges. Legal World, 3, 13-19.

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the research in the article submitted for review is, as its name implies, the problem of direct democracy "ad hoc". The declared boundaries of the study have been observed by the scientist. The methodology of the research is not disclosed in the text of the article. The relevance of the research topic chosen by the author is beyond doubt and is justified by him as follows: "Over the years, the theory of law has developed well-established definitions of many legal categories, including the concept of "rule of law", which, it would seem, undoubtedly has a sign of its repeated application [1, p. 143] or, as other researchers say, regulation of standard public relations [2, p. 66]. But despite the well-established ideas about such basic legal phenomena that exist in Russian legal science, practice opens up new horizons for scientific research every day. Thus, the multiplicity of application, as a sign of any legal norm, becomes irrelevant in practice in cases where the provisions of an adopted law or other normative legal act are initially designed for one-time application. Such norms and regulations, applied once, are referred to by the term "ad hoc legislation" [3, pp. 181-182]. The most interesting, in the context of this study, are the norms of laws and subordinate normative legal acts regulating the issues of direct democratic procedures, in particular those through which the Constitution of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) was adopted in the recent past, as well as an amendment to the Constitution in 2020." In addition, the scientist needs to list the names of the leading experts involved in the study of the problems raised in the article, as well as reveal the degree of their study. The scientific novelty of the work is manifested in a number of the author's conclusions: "The question remains open as to how it is necessary to differentiate such NPAs and legal norms when deciding on their attribution to ad hoc legislation. It seems that the main criterion should still be the orientation of the norms to their single or repeated application. That is, if the law explicitly provides for the application of a norm or institution once, such norms and NPA relate to ad hoc legislation. In the event that such a conclusion does not directly follow from the content of the NPA, the norm must be considered designed for repeated application, and therefore not related to the type under consideration"; "... the name of such a form of direct democracy as Popular vote has been preserved in the current legislation. Moreover, given its constitutional consolidation in the "unchangeable" Chapter IX, this institution will definitely be applied when adopting the new constitution of the Russian Federation, when such a need arises. However, what will be hidden behind this term and whether the new "popular vote" will be similar to the 1993 vote is still unknown to us"; "Of course, if new "extraordinary" democratic institutions are established, there is a risk of abuse and use of their features not for the benefit of the effectiveness of ongoing reforms and the most accurate consideration of the opinion of the people on those issues or other issues, and in the selfish interests of government representatives, who at that moment fill certain public positions, whose powers include, among other things, the organization of ongoing reforms. However, these risks are negligible if the system of checks and balances works effectively in the state, and a significant set of important state powers is not concentrated in the hands of representatives of one political force," etc. Thus, the article makes a certain contribution to the development of domestic legal science and, of course, deserves the attention of potential readers. The scientific style of the research is fully sustained by the author. The structure of the work is quite logical. In the introductory part of the article, the scientist substantiates the relevance of his chosen research topic, defines its purpose and objectives. In the main part of the article, the author identifies the criteria for attributing institutions of direct democracy to "ad hoc" legislation, identifies the advantages and disadvantages of using such institutions in comparison with "ordinary" forms of direct democracy. The final part of the article contains conclusions based on the results of the study. The content of the article fully corresponds to its title and does not cause any particular complaints. However, it is not without drawbacks of a formal nature. So, the author writes: "Also, the use of "incorrect" procedures may lead to the failure to achieve the necessary results" - "incorrect". The scientist notes: "Of course, this thesis does not apply to the process of adopting a new Constitution in 1993, when there was no regulatory framework for such a procedure at all and, in fact, it had to be created from scratch" - "Of course, this thesis does not apply to the process of adopting a new Constitution in 1993, when the regulatory framework for the implementation of such a procedure there was no procedure at all and it actually had to be created from scratch." Thus, the article needs careful proofreading. There are typos and punctuation errors in it (the list of typos and errors given in the review is not exhaustive!). All abbreviations should be deciphered (NPA) when they are first used. The bibliography of the study is presented by 15 sources (monograph, scientific articles, comments), not counting normative material. From a formal and factual point of view, this is quite enough. The nature and number of sources used in writing the article allowed the author to reveal the research topic with the necessary completeness and depth. There is an appeal to opponents, both general and private (P. V. Krasheninnikov, V. S. Byalt, S. Y. Chimarov, etc.), and it is quite sufficient. The scientific discussion is conducted by the author correctly; the provisions of the work are justified to the appropriate extent and illustrated with examples. There are conclusions based on the results of the study ("1. institutions of direct democracy can be fixed in legislation according to the principle of "ad hoc", that is, they represent extraordinary forms of direct democracy; 2. such institutions referred to as "ad hoc" legislation are found in practice both in the Russian Federation and in some foreign countries for example, in Serbia; 3. the only objective criterion that allows one or another institution or norm to be attributed to the "ad hoc" norms is an indication of its one-time application in the NPA by which these norms are fixed; 4. one cannot attribute one or another norm to the "ad hoc" norms only because the NPA The document consolidating them was adopted "for a specific task", if this NPA allows the application of the fixed norms in the future; 5. Extraordinary forms of direct democracy are the most effective for conducting various types of voting, for example, within the framework of constitutional reforms, however, their application may carry risks of abuse of state authority, which can be implemented in the process of law enforcement"), they are clear, structured, have the properties of reliability, validity and, of course, deserve the attention of the scientific community. The interest of the readership in the article submitted for review can be shown primarily by specialists in the field of theory of state and law, constitutional law, provided that it is slightly improved: disclosure of the research methodology, additional justification of the relevance of its topic (within the framework of the remark made), elimination of violations in the design of the work.

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

A REVIEW of an article on the topic "Direct democracy "ad hoc": on the question of extraordinary forms of direct democracy." The subject of the study. The article proposed for review is devoted to topical issues of extraordinary forms of direct democracy. The author identifies the concept and features of institutions of direct democracy "ad hoc", studies a number of examples of such an institution, and draws conclusions about the possibility of their further application. The specific subject of the study was the norms of legislation, the opinions of scientists, and the materials of practice. Research methodology. The purpose of the study is stated directly in the article: "The purpose of the study is to form criteria for attributing institutions of direct democracy to legislation "ad hoc", that is, to those institutions of direct democracy that represent extraordinary forms of direct expression of the power of the people. In addition, it is planned to identify the advantages and disadvantages of using such institutions in comparison with similar "ordinary" forms of direct democracy." Based on the set goals and objectives, the author has chosen the methodological basis of the study. As the author of the article writes, "The methodological basis of the research is formed, among other things, from general scientific methods: analysis, synthesis and comparison. The methods of legal sciences are also used: the method of comparative jurisprudence and legal forecasting." In particular, the author uses a set of general scientific methods of cognition: analysis, synthesis, analogy, deduction, induction, and others. In particular, the methods of analysis and synthesis made it possible to summarize and share the conclusions of various scientific approaches to the proposed topic, as well as draw specific conclusions from the materials of practice. The most important role was played by special legal methods. In particular, the author actively applied the formal legal method, which made it possible to analyze and interpret the norms of current legislation (first of all, the norms of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and other acts). For example, the following conclusion of the author: "Amendments to the Constitution in itself ensures the evolution of constitutional regulation in line with basic constitutional principles [4]. However, it is important to take into account that the amendment process is regulated in Chapter IX of the Constitution and does not involve any electoral procedures, as well as the adoption of relevant regulatory legal acts regulating them. Of course, this thesis does not apply to the process of adopting a new Constitution in 1993, when there was no regulatory framework for such a procedure at all and it actually had to be created from scratch. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 1633 of 10/15/1993 (hereinafter referred to as Decree No. 1633) [2] was of an extraordinary nature and determined an equally extraordinary vote as an essential element of the procedure for adopting the Constitution." The possibilities of the comparative legal research method should be positively assessed. Thus, the following important conclusion was made: "In the practice of foreign countries, similar examples are also found. A similar extraordinary form of direct de facto democracy turned out to be the constitutional referendum in Serbia, held in 2022. Despite the apparent universality of the named institution, the law on the referendum, formally designed for multiple applications, was adopted only on the eve of the constitutional reform, although its draft was prepared back in 2006 [13]. An important difference between the above-mentioned referendum in Serbia and other special procedures is its universal nature with regard to holding such events in the future, however, it is impossible to accurately predict whether this mechanism will be applied in the future. Thus, from the point of view of the "targeted" adoption of the law, it can be attributed to "ad hoc" legislation only with a significant degree of conditionality. If we take as a basis for such a restriction the criterion of mandatory normative indication of the one-time application of the norms of law, the referendum in Serbia cannot be classified in this category. In other foreign countries, priority is given to ordinary forms of direct democracy (referendums), which are often enshrined in the constitution itself and are in the most stable state [14, p. 248]." Thus, the methodology chosen by the author is fully adequate to the purpose of the study, allows you to study all aspects of the topic in its entirety. Relevance. The relevance of the stated issues is beyond doubt. There are both theoretical and practical aspects of the significance of the proposed topic. From the point of view of theory, the topic of extraordinary forms of direct democracy is complex and ambiguous. It is difficult to argue with the author that "Over the years, the theory of law has developed well-established definitions of many legal categories, including the concept of "rule of law", which, it would seem, undoubtedly has a sign of its repeated application [1, p. 143] or, as other researchers say, regulation of typical public relations [2, p. 66]. But despite the well-established ideas about such basic legal phenomena that exist in Russian legal science, practice opens up new horizons for scientific research every day." Thus, scientific research in the proposed field should only be welcomed. Scientific novelty. The scientific novelty of the proposed article is beyond doubt. Firstly, it is expressed in the author's specific conclusions. Among them, for example, are the following conclusions: "1. Institutions of direct democracy can be enshrined in legislation on the principle of "ad hoc", that is, they represent extraordinary forms of direct democracy; 2. such institutions, referred to as "ad hoc" legislation, are found in practice both in the Russian Federation and in some foreign countries, for example in Serbia; 3. the only objective criterion that allows you to attribute one or another institution or norm to the "ad hoc" norms is an indication of its one-time application in the NPA by which these norms are fixed; 4. one cannot attribute one or another norm to the "ad hoc" norms only because the NPA that enshrines them was adopted "under 5. Extraordinary forms of direct democracy are the most effective for conducting various types of voting, for example, within the framework of constitutional reforms, but their application may carry risks of abuse of state authority, which can be implemented in the process of law enforcement." These and other theoretical conclusions can be used in further scientific research. Secondly, the author suggests ideas for generalizing the practice, which may be useful to specialists in the field of research. Thus, the materials of the article may be of particular interest to the scientific community in terms of contributing to the development of science. Style, structure, content. The subject of the article corresponds to the specialization of the journal "Administrative and Municipal Law", as it is devoted to legal problems related to the implementation of constitutional norms and regulations. The content of the article fully corresponds to the title, as the author has considered the stated problems, and has generally achieved the purpose of the study. The quality of the presentation of the study and its results should be recognized as fully positive. The subject, objectives, methodology and main results of the study follow directly from the text of the article. The design of the work generally meets the requirements for this kind of work. No significant violations of these requirements were found. Bibliography. The quality of the literature used should be highly appreciated. The author actively uses the literature presented by authors from Russia (Krasheninnikov P.V., Khabrieva T.Ya., Balashkina I.V., Ubasev V.V. and others). Many of the cited scholars are recognized scholars in the field of constitutional law. Thus, the works of the above authors correspond to the research topic, have a sign of sufficiency, and contribute to the disclosure of various aspects of the topic. Appeal to opponents.
The author conducted a serious analysis of the current state of the problem under study. All quotations of scientists are accompanied by author's comments. That is, the author shows different points of view on the problem and tries to argue for a more correct one in his opinion. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The conclusions are fully logical, as they are obtained using a generally accepted methodology. The article may be of interest to the readership in terms of the systematic positions of the author in relation to the stated problems. Based on the above, summing up all the positive and negative sides of the article, "I recommend publishing"