Paul
Goble
Staunton, May 10 – Daghestan is
descending into chaos and possibly disintegration, recent events suggest, and
now a Makhachkala commentator has suggested an outcome that may be even more
disturbing to the Kremlin. According to
him, both secular and Islamist groups in that North Caucasus republic reject
Russian control and want independence for their republic.
In a commentary on Kavpolit.com,
Musa Musayev says that Daghestan which has recently attracted international
attention because of Tamerlan Tsarnayev’s visit there is sinking rapidly into
“uncontrolled chaos” and that it is entirely possible that “the republic will
simply fall apart” along ethnic lines (http://kavpolit.com/exo-bostonskogo-terakta-v-dagestane/).
As Musayev notes, some representatives
of the Nogay nation want to form a separate federal subject within the Russian
Federation. Some Chechens living in Daghestan want their regions to join with
Chechnya. Some Kumyks want a separate subject. And some Azerbaijanis want
Derbent to be detached from Daghestan and joined to Azerbaijan.
But Daghestan and Moscow may face a
far larger challenge than these, the Makhachkala writer says, because he argues
there “exists the threat” of Daghestan being detached from the Russian
Federation altogether. And somewhat unexpectedly
perhaps, this threat comes not just from Islamists but from liberal portions of
the population.
According to him, the secular part
of Daghestani society “is cultivating liberal values with hidden but far
reaching goals” including independence, and the Islamists seek to create a
place where “the norms of the shariat” will be “the only alternative to
existing [Russian Federation] laws.”
Musayev says that “all religious,
political and ideological groups have the right to exist under Russian
legislation. But the fact is that many ideologues, activists, and religious leaders
do not recognize the jurisdiction of Russia. And they do not see a path for the
peaceful exit from the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation, although they do
not talk publically about this.”
The reasons
that each side has reached a similar conclusion, he suggests, represent the
last link of what he calls “the chain of recent events in Daghestan: from the
terrorist action in Boston to the [question of] the elections of the head of the
republic.”
Many officials
as well as many businessmen in the republic are increasingly politicized with
outsized ambitions for themselves and those with whom they have ties. This trend has been intensified by the closed
politics that the absence of elections to the top position have in fact
promoted, Musayev says.
And because
there is not yet the kind of “political culture” that sets the boundaries for
behavior, ever more of these people are thinking about destroying the current
political arrangements altogether in the hopes that they will benefit under
some new and more independent arrangement.
This situation
is intensified both by the fact that only about five percent of the population
has direct involvement with power; the remainder is completely excluded and has
no hope of becoming a political player and by the dominance of the shadow
economy and the lack of outside investment.
Those factors in turn have led to
violence, and perhaps the only salvation will be that each of the two
extra-systemic forces may be sufficiently frightened of the
other that it will be willing to ally itself with those who want to bring
stability to Daghestan. But so far, Murayev implies, neither sees a good reason
to do so.
As a result, Daghestan, now
attracting attention because of the six-month-long visit of one of the Boston
terrorists, may soon become the object of attention for other reasons, ones
that include the most serious challenge to the territorial integrity of the
Russian Federation since Chechnya in the 1990s.
No comments:
Post a Comment