On Thursday, December 22, the Tatarstan State Council Committee on State Construction and Local Self-Government floated a plan to pause the draft amendments aimed at changing the official title of the region’s top official. The move was presented as a pause rather than a final decision, signaling a careful response to a proposal that touched on the ceremonial language surrounding the republic’s leadership.
The draft constitutional amendment to the Tatarstan statute, published on December 21, proposed replacing the term used for the head of the republic. Specifically, it suggested changing the designation from the current wording to a variant that more closely mirrors the language seen elsewhere in Russia for regional leaders.
Albert Khabibullin, who chairs the state-building committee within the Republic’s State Council, indicated that the initiative should be withdrawn in the edition that was before the council. Reporters noted broad support among lawmakers for this stance, with TASS providing coverage of the discussion. The outcome underlines a broader sentiment that the proposal did not adequately reflect regional history and cultural context when naming the region’s chief official.
Proponents of the draft argued that there was a pathway in federal law, established on December 21, 2021, that allows naming the head of a region in a manner that respects local and historical nuances. Yet, this pathway was not reflected in the revised edition of the draft.
In Tatarstan, the word president remains in use for the republic’s chief, a distinction that sets the region apart as a singular entity within the federation. This is notable given the federal trend in recent years toward standardizing regional titles and the broader legal framework that governs public power in Russia.
A year earlier, the president of Russia signed legislation governing how regional authorities are organized, which included a prohibition on using the word president in the title of the head of any region. The same law also introduced a uniform term of office for heads of subjects and removed the two consecutive term limit that had previously constrained leadership tenure in many regions.
When the proposal was first introduced to the State Duma, Tatarstan’s officials publicly opposed it. Khabibullin reminded observers that the regional legislature should pause discussion on the bill until its initial reading at the federal level, and he indicated that regional deputies would likely oppose it in the lower chamber. This stance reflected a cautious approach to changing a title that carries symbolic weight in Tatarstan and across Russia.
Historically, the naming of regional leaders has shifted in the post-Soviet period. In the 1990s, several republics used the title president for their heads. Names of leaders in regions such as Mari El, Mordovia, Yakutia, Chechnya, Udmurtia, Adygea, Kabardino-Balkaria, Tuva, Ingushetia, Kalmykia, Dagestan, Bashkortostan, and Tatarstan appear in historical discussions about regional governance.
In discussions tied to the broader federation, Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov has been cited as a key player in the broader renaming trend. Reports from media outlets indicate that Kadyrov himself urged a change in how regional heads were titled, noting that his own stance influenced his colleagues to align with his approach. As a consequence, most regional leaders adopted new titles in line with that shift, with Tatarstan’s Rustam Minnikhanov being a notable exception at that time, preserving the title in use within the republic.
The question of how to name the republic’s leader has persisted for years. By late 2010, the State Duma passed amendments aimed at restricting the use of the word president for heads of federation subjects. Yet, Tatarstan managed to maintain its distinctive terminology by navigating the legal framework and leveraging an existing agreement with the federal center on the distribution of powers. In 2015, then-President Vladimir Putin suggested that the people of Tatarstan should decide the name of their own presidential office, underscoring a nuanced approach to regional identity within the federation. The ongoing conversation reflects the delicate balance between federal unity and regional tradition, especially in a republic with a robust sense of local heritage and autonomy.
Even as other regions have moved toward standardization, Tatarstan’s leadership and lawmakers have repeatedly weighed linguistic and historical considerations against federal norms. The republic’s stance has often been framed as defending regional identity while remaining within the broader constitutional structure of the Russian Federation. This tension continues to shape debates about the most appropriate, respectful, and legally compliant way to designate the head of the republic, with implications for governance, perception, and the symbolism attached to regional leadership.