Paul
Goble
Staunton, May 15 – Because of the
disintegration of the USSR and the two post-Soviet Chechen wars, Russians are
especially sensitive to anything resembling separatism, but they have paid less
aattention to “another dimension of the collapse of statehood” – the loss of
the basic prerogatives of state power over portions of the country, according
to a new study.
But the loss of these prerogatives,
including “the supremacy of its jurisdiction everywhere in the country, support
for basic standards in the shere of law and security a certain level of loyalty
and solidarity, [and] a monopoly on legitimate force,” exist in Russia today,
are “no less dangerous than territorial” challenges and can “in the final
analysis grow into [them].”
That is the conclusion of a 54-page report
on “The Map of Ethno-Religioius Threats: The North Caucasus and the Volga
Region” prepared by the Moscow Institute for National Strategy (apn.ru/userdata/files/ethno/Ethnodoc-new-full-sm.pdf), and discussed
by the institute’s leader, Mikhail Remizov, in “Nezavisimaya gazeta” (ng.ru/ideas/2013-05-14/5_ethnoreligion.html).
Among the most important indications of this hidden
disintegration are “the de facto falling out of the legal space of Russia of a
number of regions,” such as Chechnya, Ingushetia, and Daghestan and especially “the
de facto formation of systems of organized force not under the control of the
Federal Center.”
A second is the
rise of ethnocracies “in practically all and even the most well-off republics
of the Russian Federation and a tendency toward legal particularism” in places
like Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Sakha and Tuva. Because in most cases, “behind
the national question stands the property question,” that trend is especially
serious.
A third
indication is the rapid spread of radical political Islamism, which now offers
an alternative arrangement to society territorially, ethnically and socially
and which has penetrated not only organized criminal groups but even parts of
the state administration. A major contributing factor to this development is
massive immigration from Central Asia.
And a fourth is
the rise of ethnic stereotypes on both sides which promote the further
radicalization of the population, especially among the young. Unfortunately, Remizov says, “the authorities
continue to struggle with the symptoms of this tension and not with its systemic
causes.”
A major reason
for this is that “the arsenal of the federal authorities to counter such
threats is extremely limited.” For example, they have bet on “traditional
Islam,” something that has proved a weak reed in and of itself and a strategy
that its opponents view as a sign of weakness and yet another chance for them
to spread their influence.
But
even more important in this regard is the failure of Russians to recognize that
Russia faces a threat from pan-Islamism because of “a crisis of the Russian
state itself.” If the state were
fulfilling its functions, the threat from political Islamism would be
significantly less than it now is.
But instead of
addressing those shortcomings, Remizov says, the government is making the
situation worse by its clumsy efforts to combat extremism by force alone or by
throwing money at the problem, something its opponents are all too ready and
able to divert to support their own plans and add to the existing level of
instability.
Unfortunately, he writes, this year is an especially bad time because “the period of the preparation and conduct of the Olympic Games in Sochi is a time of heightened ethnopolitcal risk and forced concessions by the Federal Center which not only prevents the taking of decisions but even the consideration of serious problems.”
Unfortunately, he writes, this year is an especially bad time because “the period of the preparation and conduct of the Olympic Games in Sochi is a time of heightened ethnopolitcal risk and forced concessions by the Federal Center which not only prevents the taking of decisions but even the consideration of serious problems.”
To counter this
development, Remizov makes a number of specific proposals: better coordination
among government agencies, greater support for local civil society, heightened
respect for traditional political groups like the Cossacks, appointment of
stronger officials to oversee the region, and shifting Stavropol kray out of the
North Caucasus FD.
But
“the main thing” Moscow has to do is to understand and act upon the basic
physics of political “gravity.” Russia
has an ethnic core: it consists of ethnic Russians, and they have no one to
support them besides the Federal government.
Moscow must thus act on their behalf to hold the country together.
In
the North Caucasus, that means “strengthening the perimeter of rhe frontline
ethnic Russian regions” because only if things go well will “a ‘recolonization’
of the Caucasus in the course of modernization of its economy” be possible. And
in the Middle Volga, Moscow must ensure that Russians stop leaving but stay
where they are to hold that region for Russia.
No comments:
Post a Comment