Paul
Goble
Staunton, December 11 – Separatist attitudes
are intensifying in Russian as well as non-Russian regions of the country less
because of the actions of regional or ethnic movements than because of the
anger many people feel about the increasing centralization of power and wealth
in Moscow, according to a Tatar analyst.
In an article this week on the
independent Chuvash journal “Irekle Samakh,” Nail Gilmanov, a Tatar from that
Middle Volga republic, says that proposed legislation to impose criminal
sanctions on “separatism” is so poorly drawn that it will be used in the first
instance by the powers that be against their political opponents (irekle.org/articles/i57.html).
Moreover, the draft laws clearly
violate the Russian Constitution and basic human rights because they outlaw the
discussion of self-determination, a concept that is far broader than simply
about the pursuit of state independence.
And these bills, precisely because they do that and fail to address what
is behind separatist ideas, very likely will provoke more of it.
As Gilmanov points out, “the main
thing for each people is to have the opportunity by a democratic path to define
its future and independently decide questions which are vitally important to
it. Among these are the right to the use of native language, the right to the
use of the natural wealth of the region, the development of national culture,
the system of national education and national media.”
“If all these issues are resolved in
the framework of a federative state, then there will be few demanding complete
independence,” he says, pointing to the experience of many other countries.
Indeed, “separatist slogan are an indicator that all is not well in the sphere
of national or regional policy.”
In many cases, people use them not
to advance a cause but “only as a method of attracting attention to problems of
national or regional development or as a response to the actions of federal
authorities who have undermined the rights of residents of ‘the provinces.’”
And that use must be clearly distinguished from others.
According to Gilmanov, there are two
main causes for the fact that separatist comments are becoming more common in
Russia today. First, in non-Russian
regions, there has been a massive closure of non-Russian-language schools,
calls for “the liquidation” of republics, and for “a Russia for the [ethnic]
Russians.”
People are angry, he continues, but
at the present, “there are no political forces really preparing to seek the
separation of any region from Russia or even legal mechanisms for that to
happen.” Thus regional or national separatism can hardly “completely destroy”
the country, but it “does represent a real threat to the imperial unitary
system of power.”
The second “and chief” cause of
separatist attitudes lies in the nature of “Russian ‘federalism’” itself,
Gilmanov says. “The concentration of
power and money in Moscow and the harshly centralized bureaucratic system of the
administration of the state do not correspond to the interests of ordinary
citizens beyond the borders of the capital.”
At present, “the regional
authorities politically and economically are controlled by the Kremlin, the
lion’s share of taxes and oil and gas revenues go to the federal budget, and
the majority of major regional companies belong to Moscow oligarchs,” he
writes.
“The basic function of the federal
center thus involves the control over financial flows and the redistribution of
incomes from taxes and the earnings from the export of natural resources” and
the use of such money for “imperial projects like the Olympics in Sochi and the
World Cup in 2018.”
Regional leaders are forced to try
to extract resources they’ve sent to the center back to their regions, an “extremely
ineffective, corrupt and absolutely unacceptable” system that puts a brake on “the
normal development of the regions” and cannot fail to generate “dissatisfaction,
one of the forms of which are calls for the separation of the regions from Russia.”
The current arrangements are stable
only if prices for oil and gas are high, the political activity of the majority
of the population is low, and the force structures are prepared to defend
whatever the Kremlin wants. But “genuine
stability and the development of the country” is possible only with strong
regions and real federalism, including fiscal federalism.
The regime’s talk about separatism
is intended to open the way for less federalism rather than more, but such a
move will provoke even more discussions of it. Obviously, most of the Muscovite
bureaucracy will support such efforts because they are the immediate
beneficiaries. But not all are, and consequently, some discussion is still
possible.
Obviously, Moscow is not the only
cause of separatism, Gilmanov says. Ethnic issues in places like the North
Caucasus are contributing factors. “But these exception only underscore the
main argument” he is making. If a law
imposing criminal sanctions on discussions of separatism passes, it will be
used successfully against the opposition but not against separatism as such.
Indeed, the Tatar analyst concludes,
“in attempting to suppression national and regional movements,” Moscow will “be
freezing natural political processes and blocking the development of the
regions.” That, and not any calls for “separatism” as some in the Duma
understand it “will lead Russia to collapse.”
No comments:
Post a Comment