Paul
Goble
Staunton, June 1 – One of the
problems that Moscow propagandists face is that many of the arguments they put
out for political change in Ukraine apply with equal or even greater force to
the Russian Federation and thus have the potential to spark demands inside the
latter country that the Kremlin is very much against.
Nowhere is that possibility of
unwelcome blowback more obvious than in Russian discussions of the need for
decentralization of power and the creation of genuine federalism in Ukraine,
discussions in which every argument about Ukraine could be made with even
greater force about Russia.
An obvious example of this possibility
is unintentionally provided by Aleksandr Karavayev, a researcher at the Moscow
Institute of Economics, in a commentary on “The Decentralization of Ukraine as
a Variant of Soft Federation” on the Politcom.ru portal on Friday (politcom.ru/17657.html).
As with most Moscow authors on this subject,
Karavayev says that “the strategy of decentralization may be the last chance at
a minimum to implement the reform of local self-administration and at a maximum
to weaken the separatist backlash.” And
he says this strategy must involve the devolution of both electoral and fiscal
control.
The regions and cities of Ukraine would be
allowed to elect their own leaders, keep far more of the taxes collected on
their territories, and leave to Kyiv only a coordinating function. Not surprisingly, demands for exactly the same
things are regular features of the agendas of regionalists in the Russian
Federation where ever fewer officials are elected, ever less of taxes collected
are left to the regions, and where Moscow insists on deciding everything.
In
support of his argument about Ukraine, Karavayev says there are five “essential
political reasons” why Kyiv should decentralize:
·
First, such a reform would allow the
government to adapt to the diversity of Ukraine’s regions.
·
Second, it would open the way for
cooperation among regions and not just between individual regions and Kyiv.
·
Third,
it would allow for a return to the system of proportional representation in the
national legislature in place of the current winner-take-all arrangements.
·
Fourth,
decentralization would open the way for talks with Moscow to improve bilateral
relations.
·
And
fifth, it would open the way for the resolution of the problems the
self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk republics by meeting many of the demands
they pose and thus reducing pressure for secession.
Karavayev says that the experience of Canada
shows that “federation in the Western world is one of the best means of
resolving the problems of administration in complex states. And he says that
Ukraine could have chosen on its own to do so but now may be forced to do so by
the threat of the disintegration of the country.
Exactly the same argument could be made about
the Russian Federation, although it is certain that this particular Moscow
writer and others like him would be most distressed if anyone in Kazan,
Irkutsk, or Makhachkala ever draws the obvious parallels, something they are
almost certain to do as the economic and political situation in Russia
deteriorates.
No comments:
Post a Comment