Paul
Goble
Staunton, July 23 – Two Novosibirsk
activists, who earlier created a national cultural autonomy for Siberians, are
calling on the presidential plenipotentiary for the Siberian federal district
to begin a process that would lead to the unification of all the regions and
republics east of the Urals into a single Siberian “macro-region”
The creation of
such a political-territorial unit would go a long way to satisfying the demands
of Siberian regionalists and Sibiryaks
as many of them now identify themselves, and it would potentially allow for the
more rational development of a region that has often suffered because of the
internal divisions Moscow has imposed on it.
But because it would be so large –
more than half the area of the Russian Federation – and because it would promote
rather than retard the kind of a separate “Siberian” identity that would
challenge a Russian identity civic or ethnic, the idea of a single Siberia is
unlikely to find the necessary support among Russian officialdom.
Nonetheless, in an open letter to
Viktor Tolokonsky, the plenipotentiary for the Siberian federal district,
Yevgeny Mitrofanov and Aleksandr Bakayev do their best to couch their proposal
in terms of ideas that Tolokonsky himself has on occasion articulated in the
past (sibinfo.su/news/sfo/1/41898.html).
Mitrofanov
and Bakayev write that they are encouraged by Tolokonsky’s own words about the
need for “the development of Siberia as a macro-region” and the presidential
plenipotentiary’s awareness that “today Siberia is encountering a whole list of
problems which are significantly restricting its development.”
Among
the most important of these is the imbalance in the distribution of tax
revenues with Moscow getting far more and Siberia and other regions far less
than they need. “As long as the entire
configuration [of the state] including legislation is directed toward maximum
centralization,” they say, the current problems in the regions will only get
worse.
Indeed,
they say, the regions are given so few resources back from Moscow that they
either run deficits or have to borrow money to meet even their basic
obligations, let alone fulfill the directives of the Russian president and
other officials. That does not serve the interests of either Moscow or the
regions.
“Unfortunately,”
Mitrofanov and Bakayev continue, “discussion over many years about the
redistribution of the tax base between the regions and the center has still not
gone beyond the level of promises of particular representatives of the
leadership of the country,” even though polls show that most Russians would
support a change.
That
is unlikely to happen as long as regional leaders are appointed rather than
elected, something that makes it difficult for them to come together to advance
their common interests. This aspect of
the problem is already quite clear “not only to Russian but also to foreign
analysts.”
“Thus,”
the two Novosibirsk activists continue, “in the opinion of one of the lading
Washington political analysts Paul Goble, the policy of hyper-centralization of
power being carried out by the Kremlin undercuts the idea of Russian federalism
as established in the Constitution.”
Given
that residents of the regions ever more clearly “understand the injustice of
the existing system of the distribution of the tax base, [their] total
dependence on the decisions of the federal center, and the regional authorities
lack of real levers of administration,” “not only the growth of dissatisfaction
with the existing order and protests” is “inevitable.”
In
addition, and equally “inevitable” is the appearance of separatist tendencies
which are extremely dangerous for the integrity of the Federation,” tendencies
one can already “observe in a number of regions east of the Urals.”
These
“separatist attitudes are not germs from across the ocean intentionally
injected into a healthy organism,” they write. Instead, they are “manifestations
of one of the most radical forms of popular dissatisfaction.” Repressive measures alone, without a restoration
of true federalism will be counter-productive and led more people to think
about “secession.”
“In
order to preserve the integrity of the Russian Federation and guarantee
conditions for the development of Siberia as a strategic macro-region,”
Mitrofanov and Bakayev argue, the authorities need to come up with “’a road map’
for the de-concentration of power, the decentralization of authority, and the
redistribution of the tax base in favor of the regions.”
The
two call on Tolokonsky to take the lead and “initiate at the level of the
highest leadership of the country a process of unification of Siberian regions
into a macro-region of Siberia with greater tax, administrative and legislative
authority.” Such a step will create
budgetary efficiencies, produce economic growth, increase transparency, improve
administration, and “in the final analysis preserve the federal system.”
“We
are certain that precisely You as a native Siberiyak
and a mman with colossal political and administrative experience is capable of
taking such a decisive step which will forever make you a historical figure as
a true patriot of Siberia,” the two Novosibirsk writers conclude.
No comments:
Post a Comment