Paul Goble
Staunton,
January 11 – Since Vladimir Putin came to power in 2000, Russians have been
obsessed with “one aspect of Russian ‘unity,’ territorial,” Vladislav Inozemtsev
says; but “the unity of the Russian nation is not only about the inviolability
of state borders but about much else and the neglect or suppression of these other
aspects threatens Russia’s future.
In
a Snob column, the Moscow economist
says that the unity of any nation, including the Russian, involves a
recognition of common tasks and goals, a shared vision of the world, and
sufficient confidence in society of these “elements of solidarity” that there
can be debate about issues affecting its members (snob.ru/entry/170762).
“The essence of civilized politics,”
Inozemtsev continues, consists of discussions reflecting the different opinions
of citizens within this common set of understandings and values. Unfortunately,
“today, this does not seem to be the case in Russia;” and that lack is a more
serious threat to Russian “unity” than is any “territorial” threat.
According to the commentator, “two decades of the
assertion of ‘the unity’ of the country has led however strange this may seem
to a complete discrediting of the political processes at the all-national
level.” Even those who are nominally federal
politicians now speak only about narrow local concerns. Anything else is precluded by all the talk
about “unity.”
“And what is particularly important,”
he argues, is that “the people also is ever less concerned about problems
common for the country as a whole” and instead focuses more on narrow issues
than on all-national one. That was demonstrated again and again over the past
year.
People were angry about the pension
age boost and about new taxes, but relatively few took to the streets both
absolutely and in comparison to the numbers who came out to protest local concerns
be they the border change in Ingushetia and Chechnya, the handling of trash, or
technogenic disasters of one kind or another.
Russians were especially focused on
the last because they have become a real risk to life and limb. In the past year, more than 100 bridges and
viaducts collapsed, shopping centers burned, and gas explosions outraged Russians
without leading them to ask the kind of questions about general causes and
general responsibility typical of most countries.
The conclusions of the Dmitriyev
group that Russians are losing interest in the foreign policy agenda and
concentrating on domestic affairs attracted widespread attention. On the one
hand, this appears to mean a reduction in the importance of the territorial
unity of Russia in the minds of many Russians.
But on the other, it highlights the
absence and the need for social and mental unity which must be discussed and
then recognized by the population. That
kind of unity can be achieved only if the powers that the powers that be show
they are more concerned about them and want to involve them in a discussion of
how the nation can function as one.
Without that kind
of mental unity, Inozemtsev says, there is a great danger that “regional problems”
and especially those which show that some regions like Chechnya are “more equal”
than others have the potential to lead to disappointment, anger and protests
and “grow into serious destabilization.”
According to the Moscow analyst,
Russia desperately needs “a return to life of federal politics,” with real and
not for show parties that can become instruments for discussing problems and
what can be done about them and for ensuring that there is a genuine and not
for show unity that makes such national unity a reality.
“Russian can be united only when the
concerns of one region become common for all and the problems of this or that
branch or sphere of life are national.
Without this, all talk about ‘a united Russia’ lack any meaning, and
measures of ‘trust’ any importance,” Inozemtsev concludes.
No comments:
Post a Comment