Thursday, May 13, 1999 Published at 17:10 GMT 18:10 UK
Analysis: Russia's constitutional mess
Power vacuum: Yeltsin and Primakov in better times
By Russian Affairs Analyst Stephen Dalziel
That had been amended so many times as Russia went through democratic changes in the late 1980s that it led directly to the confrontation between President Yeltsin and the parliament in the autumn of 1993.
The 1993 constitution makes it clear that supreme power lies in the hands of the president. But when it was introduced, following a referendum, and less than three months after the shelling of parliament, doubts were expressed that it had been written too quickly. Now those fears are being realised.
Under the terms of the constitution, parliament must vote on whether or not to accept Mr Yeltsin's nomination as the new prime minister, Sergei Stepashin within two weeks of the sacking.
If parliament rejects Mr Stepashin, within one week Mr Yeltsin must either resubmit his candidacy, or suggest an alternative.
A further rejection would leave one week until the decisive third vote. Rejection by parliament at that stage would mean that, according to Article 111 of the constitution, President Yeltsin would have to dissolve parliament and call elections.
To make matters more complicated still, the constitution dictates that, if the president has to step down for any reason, including impeachment, the prime minister will carry out the duties of the president until presidential elections can be held within three months.
But at present, there is no prime minister, nor government. Mr Stepashin, like his fellow "ministers" is merely acting in that capacity. And if parliament rejects him three times, he will not even be that.
It looks increasingly likely that Mr Yeltsin sacked Mr Primakov on the eve of the impeachment debate deliberately.
He has created a constitutional crisis, apparently in a bid to hold onto power. Now Russia's top lawyers will be desperately racking their brains to see which way to turn should stalemate be reached.