Paul Goble
Staunton, May 17 – Over the last 30 years, more than 34,000 villages have disappeared from the map of Russia; and more are doing so at the rate of approximately one ever day. Since 2000, 28,000 schools of have closed, many in rural areas, leaving the country with only 40,000 a trend that has accelerated this process, according to government data.
Of course, Dmitry Trifonov of the Versiya news portal says, this process began long ago in Soviet times and is not uniquely the produce of post-Soviet rule. But it has been exacerbated since then, especially as there is now more support for having villages disappear (versia.ru/po-kakim-prichinam-proisxodit-depopulyaciya-rossijskix-dereven-i-chto-zhdet-rossiyu-bez-sela).
In the 1960s and 1970s, Soviet officials identified “villages without prospects” and planned of their closure. But the policy was unpopular and in 1980, it was officially suspended. But Trifonov says, there are still many officials who are promoting that idea to improve efficiency and save money.
“Certain experts consider that behind the withering away of villages stand not only objective causes but definite interests,” he continues. Among the most prominent of these are agro-industrial concerns which want to do away with the villages so that they can farm regions without any restrictions the population may require.
That combing villages and moving people into larger district centers is more economically efficient, Trifonov says, is beyond question more efficient. But it ignores the feelings of the populations involved and even if looked at more generally the broader interests of the state as a whole.
Supporters of consolidation argue that a village is like an organism and say that “sometimes amputation of a gangrenous extremity will save the rest of the body.” But, and this is critical, the journalist continues, “behind each such ‘amputated’ settlement are people who live on the land of the ancestors” and are deeply attached to it.
To move them is to “destroy part of their identity. Besides, a massive resettlement into cities intensifies the burden on the infrastructure of the latter” and may end by costing more than any of the much-ballyhooed savings from taking that step. Moreover, doing it in some places will alienate Russians in other places where this process has not yet occurred.
Trifonov is clearly an opponent of untrammeled consolidation. And he suggests there are compelling reasons for viewing any such plans with skepticism. They may lead to a reduction of agricultural production and make Russia more dependent on imports, they may cost the country the unique culture villages provide, and they put the people involved at risk.
If this process takes place gradually and with the full consultation of all involved, then it is probably inevitable and can be a positive thing. But if it is pushed through by officials in Moscow who don’t understand what is at stake in the regions, then there is a high probability of disaster, he suggests.