Friday, May 25, 2012


The Power Vertical

Is Medvedev About To Redraw Russia's Map?

President Dmitry Medvedev in the Siberian Military District headquarters in Chita on February 19, 2009.
TEXT SIZE - +
An unusual degree of secrecy has surrounded President Dmitry Medvedev's upcoming state-of-the-nation address this year. Moreover, the annual speech was originally scheduled for this week, but has reportedly been delayed at least until November 22.

Today we got some idea of why this might be the case. According to a report in the daily "Vedomosti," Medvedev is considering a plan that is nothing short of a wholesale redrawing Russia's political and administrative map -- and the plan could be announced in next week's speech.

Citing three unidentified Kremlin officials and a secret government draft document, "Vedomosti" reported that Medvedev plans to scrap the current system in which the country is divided into a dizzying array of 83 regions, territories, republics, and federal cities -- replacing them with 20 massive super-regions centered on major cities:

The current territorial organization is imperfect, the document says. Local branches of the federal authorities are not where needed, but where there are limits on the maximum number of employees and limits on networks of schools, clinics, hospitals, post offices, and banks. This lowers the quality of life in rural areas and in small towns.... It is necessary to restore order and to introduce the criteria of population for cities and towns and to establish uniform criteria for placement of regional federal agencies, the document says.

Under the plan, for example, most of Russia's northwest would be part of a giant province governed from St. Petersburg. (A map of the proposed reorganization is included with the "Vedomosti" article.)

There is historical precedent for such large administrative divisions. In 1708, Peter the Great divided Russia eight administrative "gubernia" to streamline governance. The number, however, increased over time as Russia acquired more territory and the size of its administrative units was diminished. The number of gubernia increased to 23 under Catherine the Great and by 1914 had grown to 81.

"Vedomosti" has a reputation for thorough and quality reporting and the story appears to be well sourced. I have few doubts that somebody is floating this idea -- perhaps to prepare the public for what would be a major change in governance, perhaps as a trial balloon, or perhaps as part of some hidden intrigue that we can only guess at.

But the thing is, the proposed changes make sense given recent political developments: Medvedev's removal of powerful regional leaders like Moscow's Yury Luzhkov, Tatarstan's Mintimer Shaimiyev, and Bashkortostan's Murtaza Rakhimov who may have tried to block such a plan. 

The plan also fits with smaller developments like recent calls to abolish the title of "president" for leaders of Russia's ethnic republics.

So if this is the real deal, what is Medvedev up to?

The official line is that it will help spur the president's modernization drive by encouraging migration into large and medium-sized cities. "A critical mass of intellectual resources forms an infrastructure of knowledge, establishes a new model of urban governance and the concept of creative cities," "Vedomosti" quotes the document outlining the plan as saying.

Some analysts say it is also an attempt to burnish Medvedev's image as election season approaches.  The daily quotes political analyst Yevgeny Minchenko as saying that the move has a "campaign character," adding that Medvedev needs "to start a great reform to demonstrate that the country is not stagnant and is moving to something bigger and better."
 
Speaking to RFE/RL's Russian Service, political analyst Mikhail Tulsky says, however, that the project also carries enormous political risks -- including potential separatism:

It's hard to talk about a campaign in a situation where election results are preordained in advance, when there is only an imitation of the campaign rather than real thing. In this situation, there can not be any pre-election moves in a serious sense of the word. The previous reduction in the number of regions from 89 to 83 looked reasonable. But now the situation is being brought to the point of absurdity. Creating 20 large regions could actually be the prototype of some future great state. The population begins to think of themselves as part of a vast region. And as soon as the country's problems will begin. Divided into 80 regions this is difficult. But at 20, it is quite real, unfortunately.

It is unclear what effect subsuming ethnic-based republics like Chechnya into larger administrative units would have in the restive North Caucasus.

The plan also has the potential to create administrative chaos and bureaucratic backlash. Russia currently has 83 regional leaders. Reducing the number to 20 would constitute a major and possibly destabilizing downsizing.

This could turn out to be nothing. But is also could turn out to be huge. Just something else to keep an eye on.

-- Brian Whitmore
This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
Comments
     
by: john from: uk
November 18, 2010 17:44
yet another american propaganda piece supported by the imperialist paymasters disguised as "journalism". the jokes never seem to end with you.

The real people around the world know you very well by now.

In Response

by: Anonymous from: USA
November 18, 2010 23:49
Hey, it's better than the al-jazierra-like British propaganda machine known as the BBC (government funded and anti-American as usual). Since you mentioned "imperial", the US has a long history fighting imperial powers starting with the British in 1776.
In Response

by: BS Buster
November 29, 2010 15:58
Only to become an imperial power itself.
In Response

by: Anonymous from: USA
November 30, 2010 08:33
Yeah BS,
I see you're out of your padded room again. If the US is imperial, then where are the Emperors? Where is the Royalty? Empire is an anathema to the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. You should read them some time.
In Response

by: BS Buster
November 30, 2010 14:28
My "padded room" (as you put it) exhibits far more intelligence than the one you're in Anonymous.

Getting to your level of "logic," the Soviet Union didn't have a dynastic like royalty as well.

Society the world over has become more politically correct. For example: in the US, note how the Deaprtment of Defense was once known as the War Department.

FYI, one reason why many American colonists started to oppose British rule was because the former wanted to expand in Indian lands - which the latter didn't want - instead seeking to maintain an existing status quo (understanding) with the Indians.

This point isn't to suggest the Brits as being more progressive than the American colonists opposing them. At the same time, spare us the idiotlogical BS.


by: Mark from: Canada
November 18, 2010 20:27
Excellent and informative piece, Mr. Whitmore. It appears quite a few people underestimated Mr. Medvedev's capacity for big ideas. It remains to be seen if he can make them happen, and in this case it will depend on being able to secure the requisite political support. As you've suggested, this will be largely determined by his reasoning for the change.

Depending on the autonomy offered the potential new regions and the degree of personal administrative responsibility each would bear, it might also be an attempt to address future regional catastrophes - such as the fires surrounding Moscow this past summer - more proactively.
In Response

by: András from: Brussels
November 19, 2010 15:47
As for addressing regional disasters more proactively, I don't think this in itself would be a suitable solution. The main problem with the Forest Law and generally the decision-making in Russia is that it is too centralised. However superregions the government creates, they won't work without decentralisation. Critics may say that in this case, on the other hand, it is the central state that wouldn't work. Anyway, nobody tried this yet
In Response

by: Mark from: Canada
November 19, 2010 21:42
Well said, Andras. You're correct that it hasn't been tried in Russia; however, if I may, I offer Canada as an example of provinces (superregions) that are essentially autonomous with their own governments and provincial/municipal organizations, but which remain subordinate to a central authority. Any province finding itself in extremis as Moscow did this past summer can apply for federal aid and crisis management, as well as funding to combat the disaster while it's in progress as well as follow-on funding to assist with cleanup, environmental mitigation and relocations afterward.

Canada's federal government remains the overall taxation authority, to which all provinces pay taxes, whereupon the federal government redistributes the funds as transfer payments. There's a good deal of arguing about the merits of that concept, but it prevents any province (in theory) from becoming too powerful based on fortuitous ownership of energy assets. That, too, would appeal to the Russian centralized government ideal.

It's not perfect, but Canada enjoys a comparitively high standard of living, and the nations have resource-reliant economies in common. The situations are not dissimilar.

by: Yuri Hu from: Chinese Siberia
December 13, 2010 01:54
Rather than "new administrative units" (ie: a flushing of the old guard), I think the interesting part is "encouraging migration into large and medium-sized cities".

The advantages are as follows. If people are concentrated, they are easier to move when the time comes. If an administrative unit is huge, it can survive the loss of some territory.

This comes at a time when Russian military can look around their neighborhood and consider two potential wars causing the loss of Siberian territory. One being the further destabilization of Central Asia and Pakistan, involving the loss of Tatarstan and the establishment of a Caliphate. The other being the encirclement of China sparked by Korean instability, and the Chinese grab of Siberia for resources.

That's what I think anyway.

About This Blog

The Power Vertical is a blog written especially for Russia wonks and obsessive Kremlin watchers by Brian Whitmore. It covers emerging and developing trends in Russian politics, shining a spotlight on the high-stakes power struggles, machinations, and clashing interests that shape Kremlin policy today. Check out The Power Vertical Facebook page or

Listen

​​