Paul
Goble
Staunton, July 15 – The Khabarovsk
protests highlight the fact that the Russian state today is an empire with
colonies rather than a federation and that people in the regions recognize that
unless something radically changes, they will remain “no more than colonies of
Moscow,” Vladimir Pastukhov says.
“This is very dangerous,” the
London-based Russian analyst says, because it means that regardless of what may
trigger anger in the regions and republics, this conclusion and not the
original source of outrage will be increasingly what residents of those places
act upon (echo.msk.ru/programs/personalno/2675713-echo/).
And that situation is exacerbated by
another: All too many people in Moscow do not understand how people in the
regions and republics think and therefore believe that it would be good to
return the country to Soviet or even pre-Soviet conditions in which there would
be no nonsense about federalism and Moscow would run everything through
governors general.
But such people within the ring road
have forgotten that federalism in Russia “did not arise out of nothing. It
arose” when the country was on the brink of disintegration and when only
concessions to the periphery kept it from falling apart into even more pieces,
first in the 1920s and then in the 1990s.
Those who want to dispense with the compromise
arrangements made in the 1990s do not recognize that by doing so, they risk
recreating the situation the RSFSR found itself in when the USSR collapsed and
many thought that parts of the Russian republic might leave as well. In any
crisis, especially one as deep as the current situation, that is a serious
danger.
Pastukhov adds that he doesn’t know
whether Furgal is as bad as Moscow paints him, although it he is, that raises
some serious questions about a political system that could have allowed such an
individual to operate for so long and to rise so high. But that isn’t the important
question for him or for the people of Khabarovsk.
For Khabarovsk residents, Furgal’s
past is a matter of indifference. To put it in the crudest terms, for them, he
may be a bastard but he is their bastard. And Moscow’s intervention against him
makes them even more convinced of that and of the fact that the center is
treating them without respect but only as a colonials.
In support of that process in which
even someone who might be a problem under other conditions can attract support
when people conclude he is “ours,” Pastukhov recalls his experience as a
graduate student in Kyiv at the end of Soviet times when he was allowed access
to the closed special collections, a major mistake, he says, of university
officials.
What he discovered was that in 1917
between the two revolutions, some agitators tried to get Russian troops to
reject Trotsky because he was Jewish.
The troops responded that Trotsky might be a Jew but he was “our Jew”
and thus worthy of respect. Such attitudes are often ignored by outsiders but
only at their peril.
No comments:
Post a Comment