Paul Goble
Staunton, Mar. 30 – What is often
called “the Tatar lobby” in Moscow -- the numerous officials and businessmen both
ethnic Tatar and ethnic Russian who work in the Russian capital -- have long
attracted attention there and in other republics for their role in promoting
and defending the interests of Tatarstan there, sometimes successfully and
sometimes not.
(For background on this group, see windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2021/05/bashkirs-upset-by-power-of-tatar-lobby.html,
prufy.ru/news/kazan/176823-ot_mordovii_do_khabarovska_kak_tatarskoe_lobbi_vozglavilo_ministerstva_i_regiony_v_8_subektakh_rf/
and realnoevremya.ru/articles/193598-v-moskve-vse-familii-izvestnyh-tatarstanskih-upravlencev-na-sluhu.)
The IdelReal portal asked three
experts –Ruslan Aysin, a Tatar political émigré and activist, Abbas Gallyamov,
a former Putin speechwriter and now Putin critic who earlier worked in Bashkortostan,
and Irina Busygina, formerly at the HSE and now at Harvard’s Davis Center, for
their views on the Tatar lobby and its future (idelreal.org/a/tatarskoe-lobbi-i-predely-loyalnosti-gotova-li-kazan-k-samostoyatelnosti/33714210.html).
Aysin says that Tatarstan’s
political leadership posses “significant lobbying capabilities” but ones that tend
to be concentrated in specific areas of importance to the republic such as construction.
Their role there has become possible because “Moscow views the Tatarstan elite
as highly effective and sufficiently loyal.” That gives this elite “a special
value.”
Sometime the lobby is successful in
promoting a cause or delaying the implementation of a Moscow decision but that
its position is “behavioral rather than strictly political” and in any case
reflects the views of Kazan rather than being an independent actor in its own
right. That could change, however, if Moscow weakened and could no longer
eliminate rivals.
Gallyamov says that neither the
Kazan elite nor its lobby will push for secession anytime soon but instead will
seek to maximize Tatarstan’s influence and freedom of action within the Russian
Federation. Both groups resent much that Moscow does but recognize that too
actively expressing such views would be dangerous.
And Busygina observes that the Tatar
lobby is an intriguing object for study because she does not know of any other
region or republic which has anything like it -- although all have permanent
representations in Moscow that may provide something similar. (On these, see windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2022/10/embassies-of-non-russian-republics.html
and indowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2024/08/apparently-on-moscows-order-functions.html.)
She says that there is discontent
with Moscow in both Kazan and among the Tatar lobby and that “A weakening of Moscow could serve to expose it. But it is
definitely there. However, to openly demonstrate this discontent right now
would be tantamount to political suicide. It would be an absolutely irrational
move."
She says that what
she means by the "weakening of the center" would be Putin’s
loss of his current ability to mediate among various groups in the center and
have the last word. At present, none of these groups is capable of challenging
him.” But that could change; and if it
did, these groups which “loathe one another” and have different visions of the future
could act.
In that event, regional and
republic capitals and their representatives in Moscow could play a dramatically
expanded role in determining the direction Russia will take given the likelihood
that some of the competitors for power in the Russian capital will seek them as
allies in that struggle.