Paul
Goble
Staunton, May 23 – The fact that the
two most important protests outside of Moscow in recent weeks have not been in
non-Russian republics but in predominantly ethnic Russian regions is a
“positive” development which may allow some in Moscow to recognize that
federalism is not another word for separatism, Abbas Gallyamov says.
The former Putin speechwriter says
that “neither the people of Yekaterinburg nor the residents of Arkhangelsk can
be called ethnic nationalists or separatists;” and consequently, the fact that
they represent a serious conflict between the center and the regions
undoubtedly is positive news” (idelreal.org/a/29956650.html).
No one in Moscow can denounce them
as separatists and consequently the issue of power-sharing changes, Gallyamov
continues. “In this situation, the chances increase that the so-called
‘liberals’ in the leadership will be able to win a victory over ‘the hawks’ and
the problem of changing the relationship between the center and the regions
will be resolved in dialogue.”
That is likely an overly optimistic
assessment not only because, although the Moscow commentator doesn’t mention
it, there are serious ethnic conflicts going on in Ingushetia, Sakha, and
elsewhere; and any talk in Moscow about moving in the direction of any kind of
decentralization will certainly involve discussions about these.
Moreover as long as there are any
national republics or even non-Russian nations aspiring to have one are within
the borders of the Russian Federation, officials in the Kremlin are likely to
continue to think about federalism in terms of its possible impact on the
territorial integrity of the country rather than its impact on how the country can
be better run.
Gallyamov is just one of the experts
IdelReal journalist Ramazan Alpaut
interviewed in the wake of the anti-Moscow trash protests in the Arkhangelsk
area and the demonstrations in Yekaterinburg to build a cathedral in the city’s
main square.
Moscow political analyst Konstantin
Kalachev observes that in Yekaterinburg, “local and regional authorities were
not able by any means to resolve the conflict without advice from above,” aa
reflection of the fact that Russia today is “a centralized state” in which officials
at all levels are subordinate to the powers that be in the center.
“But even in such circumstances, one
can and must take responsibility for one’s actions …[as] unitary systems do not
necessarily live only under a constant regime of hands’ own management from Moscow. When centralization reaches to such an absurd
level,” Kalachev says, “then federalism gains popularity.”
The chief problem today in relations
between the center and the regions grows out of a fundamental contradiction. “On
the one hand, the center demands improved results, a growth in effectiveness,
and readiness to carry out unpopular decisions” but “on the other, it wants the
preservation of administrative control and social stability at any price.”
This is “the Scylla and Charybdis”
through which leaders have to navigate, he says. Putin realizes this is a
problem, but the Kremlin leader doesn’t know what to do. Perhaps, Kalachev
concludes, it is finally time to rethink some of this and open the way to a
system in which those in power will care more about the population below them
than those officials above them.
Finally, Dmitry Oreshkin, another
Moscow analyst, stresses another point. He notes that “the very Russian model of
administration presupposes control but not development. In such a situation,
all the regions are equally powerless” and lack mechanisms to influence decisions
in the center.
“The power vertical is good from the
point of view of control over territory, but it is bad from the point of view
of development.” It can deal with foreign threats by dispatching people and
resources to counter them. That is enough to solve things. But in doing so,
Oreshkin says, the system fails in an important sense: “the territory so
defended doesn’t develop.”
No comments:
Post a Comment