Sergey Ross
Translated by Dan Erdman
Russia is a federation, according to both the constitution and the name of the country, but in fact it is a super-centralized proto-unitary state where the institutions of federalism are either not developed or “sleeping.” The artificial system of vertical and regional authority in the persons of various plenipotentiaries has long been a source of pride within our authoritarian government.
But in the last few years, unusual deviations have occurred – and, suddenly, the authorities turn to a regime of forced decentralization in a system in which there are no independent units outside of the center, and also no strong local communities of citizens on which local authorities could rely. The central government first took powers and resources from the regions, and now it has aggressively re-imposed both powers and responsibility. But no resources.
A recent example was the pandemic, which exposed this paradox. The president transferred responsibility “down,” and, along with all responsibility for outcomes, he seemed to transfer a share of legitimacy, as if to be able to say: “The tsar is good, the boyars are bad.” When the responsibility for an important issue of national importance was transferred to the governors, be addressed at their different whims, this led to irregularities. Apparently satisfied with the recommendations from the Presidential Administration, the governors made mistakes and, in order to avoid punishment, they attempted to create an alternate reality - they tried to influence statistics, closed the borders, and tried to introduce censorship. All to please the center. The work was focused not on results, but on reporting.
“The removal of the center from decision-making has led governors seeking to distinguish themselves to compete with each other in imposition increasingly tough measures. Regional officials have read the signals from their federal counterparts: if the center cares little about the economy, why should they? Instead of a new flourishing of federalism, we see rather anti-federalism: it’s easier for the head not to think about the balance of measures (and, therefore, the interests of the territory), but to close everything at once, in order to effectively report to the head of state later,” said Meduza’s special correspondent Andrey Pertsev.
This year, a similar situation occurred at the time of partial mobilization: several regions created their own special legal regimes, and governors became personally responsible for the provision of resources for those mobilized. No one is embarrassed that the army is federal, and they must ensure its supply in the same way as if it were local militias in the 17th or early 18th centuries.
In my view, the crisis of responsibility has already arrived. In conditions in which the centers of power are being dispersed, the division of spheres of influence is inevitable. Now we are seeing how power is slipping out of the hands of traditional political institutions and being handed over to temporary focal points. This is accompanied by legislative fog and the lack of a clear regulation of actions, which gives rise to errors and confusion. The final result no longer depends on the decisions made, but on the personal readiness of mid-level officials to at least do their jobs conscientiously. Which, alas, is by no means guaranteed.
Probably this is not very noticeable now, but it seems to me that over time this approach to decentralization on demand will result in the formation of a new source of legitimacy for the most successful regional leaders who, in a moment of confusion, will be able to “show themselves;” among other things, it will give rise to something which vertically-integrated power has been working against – the emergence of a national hero. And this will require decision makers in the center to make administrative adjustments to such strong figures.
For a super-centralized country like ours, this is probably rather a good sign. Nevertheless, I would not like to find myself in a situation akin to the forced democratization of the early 1990s, which was carried out mainly by the same suddenly “distinguished” or “far-sighted” Soviet functionaries. It is well known what happened then. The current political regime is a natural outgrowth of the very era when hopes for democracy quickly turned to shells fired at the parliament. But the future cannot be evaded, and we must prepare for it. Including taking into account the experience of the recent past.