Saturday, May 26, 2012


Commentary

Russia's 'Federation' Myth

Chechnya's Ramzan Kadyrov (center) is no longer president, but "imam."
TEXT SIZE - +
By Mikhail Sokolov
Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov announced recently that there should be only one "president" in Russia and therefore he was renouncing his own claim to that title. Other leaders of North Caucasus republics then announced their intention of following Kadyrov's example. North Ossetia, though, was ahead of the curve -- about two years ago, the forward-looking republic already turned its president into a "head of the republic."

One could view Kadyrov's move as another act of outward loyalty by a vassal to his lord. It is possible that this manifestation of oriental courtesy was a result of the feudal anger of President Dmitry Medvedev, expressed to his envoy to the region Aleksandr Khloponin and the leadership of Daghestan concerning corruption in the North Caucasus and the lack of investment there. The situation is no better in Kabardino-Balkaria or Ingushetia, both of which rely on the federal budget for 90 percent of their revenues and are crippled by primitive economies and low-level partisan conflict.

But Chechnya also doesn't have much to brag about -- except for a fragile peace and the ability to absorb regular donations of billions of rubles from the federal budget. And Moscow has no way of figuring out how that money is spent since the regime in Chechnya is absolutely opaque. All the auditors can do is marvel at the palaces of the local elites and the impressive cortege of jeeps that hustles Kadyrov from place to place. Any talk of kickbacks for reconstruction contracts is carried out only in whispers, since anyone caught speaking too loudly could easily vanish without a trace tomorrow.

Chechnya today is de facto paid tribute. Its formal ruler pays a supposedly loyal vassal for superficial demonstrations of loyalty and to use his own forces to put down local insurgents. It is a payment for peace and a payment for a war against guerrillas that "Imam" Kadyrov's forces can carry out far more effectively than the Russian Army.

So now Kadyrov has publicly appeased Moscow, but this does nothing to change Chechnya's de facto status in Russia. Russia will have one president. All the others will quietly change their titles. But there will also be only one "imam," the head of Chechnya, who is de fact above the authority of the Russian Constitution, and who not only rules over Grozny but who also has the power of life and death over all Chechens around the world.

This situation is a bit reminiscent of the pasha of Egypt in the early 19th century. Although Egypt was formally a province of the Ottoman Empire, its rulers governed autonomously and -- in part because of the power of its army -- influenced matters in the imperial center.

The federal bureaucrats of the ruling United Russia party have hurried to support Kadyrov's initiative. After all, it is a lot easier to mobilize regional lawmakers for another show of servility than it is to, for instance, fix all the mistakes in the federal Forestry Code. But there is something positive in Kadyrov's proposal: it makes the real situation in Russia clearer. Now it will be easier to see the real essence of the present system of relations between the center and the regions.

Pantomime Federalism

The de facto confederal relations that have emerged between Chechnya's ruling imam and Moscow are an exception. And Tatarstan and Bashkortostan, which have held on to some real federal relations with the center, are in their own orbit. A little closer to the center is Yakutia. But that is the extent of the asymmetrical construction of the Russian state.

The heads of other republics who still have the title president clearly do not deserve it. Even the country's republics -- to say nothing of its ordinary oblasts -- are rushing headlong to lose their real status as subjects of a federation and are being turned -- as nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky once promised -- into simple "guberny" or provinces of a unitary state that are all subordinated to the central vertical of a unitary state.

It doesn't matter that unitarism is a post-Soviet, ineffective, lazy, corrupt system that has no mechanism for two-way communication or mobilization even in the event of a critical situation. As the fiery summer of 2010 has shown, even fire alarms don't reach the co-rulers in the Kremlin and the White House in a timely manner. And that is why Russia burned so badly this summer.

Actually, it would be more honest to admit once and for all the process of defederalization and to change the name of the country itself. The official name "Russian Federation" is outdated and doesn't reflect the reality that has been created by the regime of Vladimir Putin.

There was a time when authoritarian rulers were more honest. When it took over a federal state in 1933, the "ruling party" of Germany promptly declared it a single "Reich," or empire. And no one in the country and no one around the world had any illusions about its goals. That was the brutal fashion of those times.

But now we live in an age of public relations and democratic window dressing. Having created a "management vertical" and having destroyed all vestiges of federalism and the first sprouts of local self-government, the Putin regime nonetheless must hang on to the old banner of the Russian "Federation."

These aren't the 1930s and it isn't fashionable anymore to be an autocrat. The architect of the government's decorative projects, Vladislav Surkov, is charged with maintaining the facade of a "democratic," "federal" Russia that periodically stages a show called "elections."

Mikhail Sokolov is a broadcaster with RFE/RL's Russian Service. The views expressed in this commentary are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL
This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
Comments
     
by: Anonymous from: USA
August 28, 2010 15:12
Within 10 years Russia will probably scrap its own constitution because of its inconvenience. Already, the current leadership operates above the law and with more demonstrators protesting that reality, the constitution will only seem more of a ball-and-chain around the ankles of Putin/Medvedev. I predict it will happen after the 2012 elections. There is no 'federation', Russia has become an empire, just like before. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
In Response

by: Ray F. from: Lawrence, KS
August 29, 2010 21:22
Rule no.#1 when it comes to Russia: avoid making predictions. About a decade ago, The Atlantic Magazine ran a cover article labeled "Russia is Finished," and we can see how that worked out.

Mr. Sokolov is an astute journalist, and while I don't want to defend the current Kremlin administration (or the Kadyrov clan in Chechnya), I suspect that most Russians are glad that open hostilities have stopped in this region. Though I know the futility of looking into the crystal ball, my guess is that the US will end up using the Kadyrov-model when they finally depart Iraq and Afghanistan.
In Response

by: Anonymous from: USA
August 30, 2010 14:58
What's wrong with predictions? I'm not betting money on it, and I won't cry if I'm wrong (I've been wrong before). Back in 1998, Igor Panarin predicted the US would collapse and split into four countries by June, 2010. What's interesting is that after the financial collapse of 2008, officials in Russia and the EU began to listen to him, believing every word. The Atlantic magazine article may still be correct 100 years from now assuming there is no date associated with Russia being "finished" (I admit I have not read the article). As for the Kadyrov-model you mentioned, I hope you are wrong about Iraq and Afganistan. I would like to see peace prevail in both of those countries. It will be difficult with Iran and Pakistan fighting for influence in Afganistan.
In Response

by: Ray F. from: Lawrence, KS
August 31, 2010 13:49
Nothing wrong with predictions, as long as you don't base policies upon them (i.e. attack Iraq, dispose Saddam, democracy flourishes). Given the current madness in Washington and Wall Street, who knows Panarin may be correct. Do you think the Kremlin should be aiding and abetting separatist movements in the US based on this prediction? I hope I'm wrong regarding Iraq and A-stan also, but I fear otherwise.

by: jako from: Brussels
September 02, 2010 01:35
I love your envies and desperate hopes about fall of Russia!
I LOVED to see your gleaming despair when you saw Russia thrive under Putin!
I can't wait to see that again !!!
Vladimir Putin for PRESIDENT in 2012!
God bless RUSSIA and all Orthodox people!

In Response

by: Steven F from: France
September 22, 2010 11:25
Putin was a 'great leader' because he had no restraints. That's why he was able to manipulate (& still does) the Russian people so easily.

Latest Commentary

No records found for this widget:963

More Commentary

Most Popular

               
 
 
 
 
Being Discussed Now

No Saturday Night Fever, As Armenia Mulls Eurovision Blackout

Latest Comment (23 total)

greg: Rafi. you go through round after round accusing me of raping and killing ... More

Loophole Offers Legal Out For Doctor Convicted In Bin Laden Case

Latest Comment (3 total)

khan: i think everyone in the paki gov should be hanged the traiters suking ... More

Putin Wants To Party Like It's 2007

Latest Comment (3 total)

nirvichara: It is so boring to hear all this crap about Putin's "old KGB ... More