Paul
Goble
Staunton, September 25 – The share
of Russians who say they don’t like Moscow has risen from about half in the
early 1990s to approximately 75 percent now, Ivan Shemyakin says, a trend that
reflects growing inequality between Moscow and the regions and that if it is
not reversed threatens the survival of the country.
In a Gazeta commentary, the Russian analyst says that because of the
nature of the Russian political system, this tension has not yet broken into
the political spheres, “but it has already become a fact of mass culture. A clear example is ‘Leningrad’s’ son about
burning Moscow” (gazeta.ru/comments/2017/09/21_a_10900460.shtml).
Most Russians don’t
dislike Moscow as such but rather “’the idea of Moscow,’” Shemyakin says.
Indeed, according to Olesya Gerasimenko, the author of a book Not Unified Russia, “when people curse
Moscow, they are cursing ‘the federal center’” and their words have nothing to
do with actual Muscovites.
And she cites the words of a St.
Petersburg separatist who points out that “if the capital of the Russian
Federation were now to be shifted to Vyshny Volochek, that would mean that all
would begin to hate Vyshny Volochek.”
But beyond any question, Shemyakin
says, “the existing level of inequality is viewed as unjust by all, independent
of their incomes.” Hating capitals is
widespread around the world, but the situation in Russia is worse not only
because of income inequality but because of the hyper-centralization of almost
all aspects of life.
“It seems to me,” he continues, “that
the danger of dislike of ‘Moscow’ not as real place but as a symbol which embodies
the ideas of unjust inequality, ‘a luxurious life at the expense of the rest of
Russia’ is seriously underrated” by many who fail to see that hatred of the
capital can quickly become hatred of the country itself.
“’We are not for separatism; we are
against Moscow’ is both deceptive and horrific. The slogan of the nationalists,
‘Stop feeding the Caucasus!’ is capable of seriously wounding Russia; the
slogan ‘Stop feeding Moscow!’ is capable of killing it.”
At the end of Soviet times, “one
could not infrequently hear” in the regions and republics that “we have nothing
against Russia and Russians, but we want to separate ‘from the Kremlin.’ The
union republics, especially Ukraine and Russia, decided that they would ‘stop
feeding’ one another. [As a result,] the united country died.”
Lest that happen again, Shemyakin
argues, “the country must immediately adopt a program to reduce the break
between the level and quality of life of Moscow on the one hand and the rest of
Russia on the other.” That program must be based on the idea that “Moscow is
not a tumor on the body of Russia but on the contrary is a source of its
development.”
Both the government and business
must decentralize, he says, something that will “allow for an increase in the
geographic mobility of the population not on the model of ‘periphery-Moscow’
but on the American and European one which presupposes the movement of people
from one city to another in the course of a lifetime.”
That will help hold the country
together and be “critically important for the formation of a nation,” Shemyakin
says. But it will be hard for many who
are used to looking at moving to Moscow as the capstone of their career rather
than as one stop among many.
Obviously, Russia should not move
the capital but rather some of its functions, and it should move them not to
the other end of Russia in Siberia or the Far East but rather to places closer
by, like Kazan, something that would help integrate the Tatars into the Russian
political nation.
“As a super-centralized country,” he
says, “Russia needs a strengthening of regionalism, it needs to see the move to
the regions and their centers of entrepreneurs and intellectuals which would be
itself reduce the absolute domination of Moscow,” Shemyakin says. And these
centers must come to view themselves “not as capitals of little principalities
but as all-Russian centers.”
If that doesn’t happen, he suggests,
there are real dangers to the territorial integrity of the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment