Any change of the Constitution should be well planned. The parts of the Constitution should be changed, while the preamble should be left, said Professor of the Constitutional law Vladan Petrov. “My thesis does not correspond to the theses of politicians, since we are not changing the Constitution for the EU, but for us. It is necessary to correct some additional guarantees, mechanisms and solutions that bring us closer to the ideal of the rule of law,” he said.
He said that currently, in his opinion, one of the disputed solutions is the institution of the President. President of the Republic was directly elected by the citizens and therefore he has a strong democratic legitimacy, while according to the Constitution his authority is not sufficiently strong.
Petrov said this for now there are no information in which direction will go further changes of the highest legal act, and he did not know whether it will be a fundamental change (total revision) i.e. adoption of a new constitution, or it will be a partial change. “I am for the second option, because the Constitution from 2006 was not so bad, as is often presented to the public. Also it is not good for a country that is aspiring to European values, to change the Constitution so fast, and it is really fast, because it was adopted in 2006. From the standpoint of constitutional stability, the period of 9-10 years is not particularly relevant,” said Petrov.
He, however, noted that the level of constitutional culture and the awareness that the Constitution is indeed the highest and most important legal act and top legal value in the case of our country is very low.
Petrov believes that the Constitution should be reviewed from the first to last page, but that the preamble should not be changed. “I think that in this respect, the Preamble of the Constitution should remain, at least as “the Constitutional imagination,” although we are aware of what the reality is,” said Petrov.
