Paul
Goble
Staunton, November 28 – Russia now
faces a choice, Rafael Khakimov says. It either can limp along under its
current hyper-centralized system with more clan rule and corruption, or it can
move to a federal system which recognizes regional differences and makes
regional elites rather than Moscow responsible for what happens on their
territories.
Khakimov, the vice president of
Tatarstan’s Academy of Sciences and former senior advisor to Tatarstan leader
Mintimir Shaymiyev, has been the leading advocate for genuine federalism in
Russia since the end of Soviet times; and he now offers a summing up of his
longstanding arguments on its behalf (afterempire.info/2016/11/23/federalism/).
All developed countries, the Tatar
scholar says, are federal in principle even if they do not openly declare that
fact because it is impossible to run effectively a large modern state from a
single center without recognizing variations and allowing those variations to
be the basis for experimentation and development.
“The idea of centralization,” he
continues, “which has thoroughly penetrated the Russian mentality is a poor
alternative: it stimulates clan rule, corruption, and the constant shifting of
responsibility for the development of the regions to the center.”
“The clan system originated in the Golden
Horde,” the historian says, but it arose as a result of the large number of
nomadic peoples from whom there was no other way to collect taxes and was not
imposed on sedentary populations. It thus assisted with the administration of a
very different kind of pattern of settlement than that in Russia today.
Some now are inclined to “call
Russia ‘the Horde Turned Upside Down,” to the extent that there has been
erected a similar power vertical but with a capital not in Saray but in Moscow.”
However, it should be remembered that the Tatar tribute was about 10 percent;
now, Tatarstan send “more than 73 percent of its taxes” to the federal
treasury.
One should not overemphasize Russia’s
links to the Horde, because in important ways “what Russia has preserved is its
Eurasian foundation,” something that when properly understood calls not for
centralization but lays the basis for the emergence of genuine federalism.”
Empires, Khakimov continues, evolve
in two ways: the Roman which seeks unification and homogeneity, and the
Eurasian “which openly gives preserve to variety. One can provisionally call them ‘the path of
Caesar’ and ‘the path of Chingiz Khan.”
Russia has gotten in trouble when it has tried to impose the first on
the second.
Peter the Great was the chief
proponent of this but even he did not destroy all the regional variety in
administration that had existed prior to his rule. But by pursuing the Roman strategy in a
Chingiz Khan world, he introduced “colossal contradictions” in the governmental
structure of Russia.
“The very Eurasian nature of Russia
required federalization, which appeared in the recognition of particular laws
on various territories,” the historian says.
Its territory and its peoples were never “a Euclidean space on which it
was possible to draw borders at the whim of politicians.”
Now, “the ethnic diversity of Russia
strikes everyone, frightening some as the cause of a possible disintegration of
the country on the basis of an analogy with the end of the USSR.” But those with such fears “somehow forget
that the collapse of the Union took place on the initiative of Moscow and Kyiv,”
not the Tatars.
The Tatars “voted for the preservation
of the federation because they are basically statists and it was hard for them
to understand why it was necessary to destroy their own state with their own
hands.”
“Chauvinistic politicians want to
liquidate the republics and make all of them gubernias calculating that this
will eliminate the causes of federalism.” But in urging that, Khakimov says,
such people “do not notice that regional diversity is no less significant than
ethnic” and that “regional identity is growing at an uninterrupted rate.”
“Over the last few years, there has
occurred the fusion of the local administration with the business elites of the
regions; and in the absence in the country of an ideology, local interests re
becoming dominant.” Trying to put in place “constructivist” ideas like the “rossiiskaya
natsiya” will do nothing to stop that.
Those who think otherwise should
remember that “even Stalin did not decide to formally turn away from federalism
although he with all his soul hated this system and did everything possible to
destroy the republics” while leaving them formally in place.
“Effective administration from a
single center over large territories is impossible in principle,” Khakimov
says. It may create “the appearance of a strong power” but “in practice it will
give birth to corruption which will radically undermine any effort to carry out
the economic policy of the state.”
He adds: “If Russia should make a step toward federalism and
broaden the capacity for independent action of the regions,” there will be a
new control mechanism introduced into the society: control from below that is
the only means for reducing the level of corruption among officials.
“Only
the people itself cannot be bought off,” Khakimov argues. And the supposed need
for centralization to preserve the country’s unity is “a myth created by
certain political circles who don’t know well the real history of their country
and thus are not capable of understanding the nature of Russia and the
aspirations of its people.”
“From
weak regions,” Khakimov says, “a strong Russia cannot emerge.” Only if the
regions are strong will the country flourish.
And he offers the following “simple slogan” for the future “’Strong
Regions for a Strong Russia.”
***
Khakimov’s
article appears on an important new web portal, “After Empire,” that merits
widespread attention. Its organizers
seek to promote federalism in place of centralized imperial rule not only
because they believe that Russia is the last empire but because empires by
their nature fight against their regions and the world (afterempire.info/2016/11/02/why-after-emp/).
In
presenting their site to the world, they say that it is based on the conviction
that “the complete liberation of [Russia] cannot be centralized. All projects
oriented only on ‘replacing the powers that be in the Kremlin’ lead only to
another historical reproduction of the very same imperial Kremlin-centric
approach.”
And
they declare that their site will reflect three basic ideas:
·
“We are
supporters not of ‘the disintegration of Russia’ despite the accusations of
Kremlin propagandists but its genuine federalization when the basic power
belongs to the regions.”
·
“Many regional
movements in Russia are based on their distinctive culture which for a long
time has been suppressed and minimized by the empire. We intend to show that
the culture of various regions can be the basis of a healthy and mutually
interested dialogue which doesn’t need any imperial ‘vertical.’”
·
“We are interested in the history of
various regional movements but still more in their projects for the future.”
No comments:
Post a Comment