Paul
Goble
Staunton, September 19 – Many
Russians who live far from Moscow lump those who live in the city and oblast
together, Yaroslav Butakov says; but in fact, those in the city of Moscow and those
in Moscow oblast have “diametrically opposed” interests, a reality that could
become the basis for a regionalist challenge to the center from those living
close by.
One of the reasons for this
conclusion and this neglect of the differences is rooted in the Russian
language itself, the Russian regionalist says. Russians normally use the
preposition “pod” which means most generally “under” for places near a major
city rather than “okolo” which denotes “in the area of” (afterempire.info/2017/09/19/submoscow/).
As a result, many
view the oblast as those who are part of Moscow or who want to be for what may
seem the entirely justifiable reasons that in Moscow the conditions of life are
better. But in fact, that perspective
reflects the colonial position of the oblast relative to the city, something
that has become more pronounced since 1991.
And those who arrive from other
regions of the Russian Federation or abroad view the oblast as “only a certain
intermediate stage on the path to being included within Moscow city,” much as
in some colonial situations, those who worked directly for the masters were
viewed as better off than those who worked for their agents.
That has colored Moscow city’s
attitudes as well. It has treated the oblast as a resource to be used as it
wants rather than as a place with its own interests. And “it has become
customary that the oblast organs give unqualified agreement to any demands of
Moscow city even when they aren’t formally asked for their agreement.”
As a result, Butakov says, “Moscow
oblast was almost completely deprived even of that shadow of subject status
which other regions not so close to the capital make use of.” And as a result, Moscow
city feels comfortable absorbing parts of the oblast that are of greatest value
to it rather than those consisting of populations that would benefit.
Thus, Moscow is taking the less-populated
southwestern areas of the oblast which are most useful for the recreation of
its own residents but leaves the rest of the oblast with less for itself and
does nothing for its population. That makes the administration of the oblast more
difficult and reduces still further its sense of independent identity.
“The most honest” resolution of the
current situation, the regionalist says, would be “the complete unification of
Moscow and the oblast into a single federal subject. But Moscow does not want this.” It doesn’t want the burden of having to raise
the standard of living of people in the oblast to something approaching that of
the city.
One indication of Moscow city’s
dominance is the transportation network in the oblast which is entirely based
on lines running into and out of the city and not on line that connect one part
of the oblast to another.
And as a result, even though “the
interests of Moscow and Moscow oblast are now diametrically opposed, the
residents of the oblast in their majority consider themselves as being ‘five
minutes away from being Muscovites’ and do not recognize this,” Butakov
continues. But things don’t have to stay that way.
“Moscow oblast regionalism, based on
a consciousness of the long-term interests of the development of the economy of
the region not as a reserve base for the business of capital state corporations
but as an independent unit not only is possible in principle but is also
necessary,” he argues.
The people of the oblast would benefit,
but so too would the people of Moscow city who now live at the brink of
transportation collapse. The residents
of each have some common interests, he suggests; but these commonalities can be
promoted only if each side recognizes that the basic interests of the other are
entirely different.
No comments:
Post a Comment