Staunton, September 28 – The referendum
in Scotland in terms of both the way in which it was conducted and its outcome
has important lessons for Daghestanis and the government of the Russian
Federation, according to a Makhachkala commentator, lessons that neither has
yet assimilated but that both should.
On the one hand, Eduard Urazayev
says, what has taken place in Scotland shows that political struggles conducted
with ballots rather than bullets are more likely to produce positive
outcomes. And on the other, it shows
that decentralization and federalization are necessary for ethnically diverse
countries (chernovik.net/content/respublika/uroki-shotlandii-dlya-dagestana).
In the current issue of “Chernovik,”
the Daghestani commentator notes that reaction to the vote in Scotland has
ranged from delight to despair, depending on the politics of those involved
because “each has taken from this referendum his own lessons,” but, he says, “certain
conclusions are [quite obviously] useful for Daghestan.”
While many in the Russian Federation
are now disappointed with democracy as an institution, he says, “Great Britain
and Scotland demonstrated in model fashion to the entire world how it is
possible by law and without war to reach a decision on an extremely sensitive
issue – the possible division of one country into two.”
Indeed, Urazayev continues, their
behavior is especially impressive when one considers that the vote took place
at a time of increasing international tensions “because of events in Ukraine
and the continuing financial-economic crisis in many countries of the West.” Despite that, participation was high,
the competition fair, and the outcome close but clear.
And while the proponents of Scottish
independence lost, although not by much, “in complete correspondence with the
principle of democracy about taking the rights of minorities into account, the
leadership of Great Britain immediately after the announcement of the results
of the referendum began to prepare proposals” to give Scotland more autonomy.
Most Daghestanis on hearing the word
Scotland think only that it is “also a mountainous country which conducted a national liberation
struggle” and has a football team, Uruzayev says. “But we are all human beings,
and comparisons are always useful,” perhaps especially in this particular case.
When the Soviet Union collapsed and
the state weakened, “representatives of the former communist elite were forced
to make concessions and to include in the Constitution and laws of Daghestan
norms about national quotas in elections for the Popular Assembly and municipal
representative bodies.”
They also had to “consider
nationality in the assignment of ministers and leaders of other organs of
executive power,” Uruzayev says. But then some of those who had risen to
leading positions of national movements were found to be either convicted of
crimes or closely connected with criminal elements. And the whole system was
discredited.
But not everything was lost at least
initially. Three times (in 1992, 1993 and 1999) Daghestanis rejected the idea
of a single leader of the republic and turned out in large numbers to vote for
a collective president, the State Council of the Republic of Daghestan which
existed from 1994 until 2006.
Unfortunately, the Makhachkala commentator says, “the
extent of violations and falsifications during election campaigns rose sharply
in the mid-2000s after the elimination of the population elections for heads of
regions, the introduction of a proportional electoral system (elections by party list) and the elaboration
of the vertical of executive power.”
And
as a result, “under the pretext of restoring order, increasing control and
improving the governance of the country and regions, the idea of popular power
was discredited, and we now have what is called administered or hybrid
democracy” and not the real thing of the kind in evidence in Scotland.
But
all may not be lost, Uruzayev says. On the very day of the Scottish vote,
President Vladimir Putin declared that moving forward “depends not only on the
government but on the heads of the regions.”
That suggests he “knew that in the referendum in Scotland, the number of
supporters of independence would be greater where unemployment was higher and
incomes lower than average.”
And Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev only shortly before
that said that he was preparing legislation that would simplify the process of
transferring authority from federal organs of power to regional ones because
there is a fundamental “contradiction” in the fact that “the authority on which
the investment climate in the regions depends is held by the federal authorities
which do not bear responsibility for the result of their actions in the
localities.”
Many
commentators have pointed out, Uruzayev says, that “in developed democratic
countries, the most effective factors restraining [moves toward independence of
regions] are a strong economy and a reliable financial system which in times of
troubles can lead individuals to conclude that a bird in the hand is worth two
in the bush.”
Where democracy is not developed, he
continues, a far greater role is played by “political and historical factors
and force.” Typically, “separatist
movements are hardly suppressed by the central authorities. But the weakening
of central power can lead to a strengthening of organizations seeking independence
– and then developments become unpredictable.”
In neither Scotland nor Daghestan
today, “financial and economic issues of interaction with the central authorities
have greater importance” than any nationalist agenda. That is something the two
have in common. What they don’t share is similar levels of democracy and economic
development.And
Uruzayev concludes his article by
quoting Winston Churchill’s aphorism that “democracy is the worst form of
government except for all the others which have been tried from time to time.” The Scottish vote is clear evidence of this: “under
democracy there is the chance to openly discuss a problem and to find an
optimal way for its resolution.”
That is “a plus” which peoples and
countries without effective democratic institutions clearly do not have.
No comments:
Post a Comment