Federalization Problem: Russia vs. Ukraine
by
Kateryna Dronova (Berkeley, CA)
Shortly
after Russia swallowed Crimea, its appetite grew even stronger: next day after
March 16 Crimean referendum Russian Foreign Ministry called upon Ukrainian
government to create a new constitution providing for “democratic federal
state”. On April 17 Vladimir Putin questioned Ukrainian current borders and
called its eastern and southern part “Novorossiya” (New Russia, Russian-speaking
regions formerly controlled by Russia during the imperial times). By the end of
the month federalization in Ukraine has become #1 issue in Russian-Ukrainian
dialogue. Sergey Lavrov, Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, in his interview stated that Russia must insist on
federalization “not because we want this, but because it is a request of the
southern and eastern regions.” Ukrainian Transitional Government strongly
opposes the idea of creating a “federation” out of a unitary state and views
Russian suggestion as an attempt to “dismember” a country. At the same time the
idea of decentralization of power has acquired recognition and support from
Ukrainian officials and is currently promoted to become central in the reforms
package. Unexpectedly President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko (old Russian
ally) joined Ukrainian side and commented that federalization would
"split the country" and “destroy the Ukrainian state.” This post
makes humble attempt to distinguish between Russian “federalization strategy”
and Ukrainian “decentralization ambition” and clarifies whether one should
follow Mr. Lukashenko’s example.
Russia
has been insisting that Ukraine should adopt a federal form of government and
award regions with authority over its own “economics, finance, culture,
language, education, foreign economy and cultural ties with neighboring
countries or regions.” In line with the claim concerning the alleged abuses
against Russian-speaking population, Russian authorities are playing this card
again and again (proved to be nonsensical in a post 1, post 2, post 3): along with insisting on Ukraine’s
alleged inability to protect minority rights, they also claim that Ukraine
failed to develop its own identity or historical narrative, common for all the
regions. Additionally, Kremlin criticizes the current system of appointing
governors from Kiev and suggests that federal form of government would provide
for “neutrality of state” (it is assumed that such system contends with each
region's particular identity and obliges them to coexist within the single
state framework).
At a first glance it looks like a reasonable advice based on
Russian own experience. However, the first glance is deceitful: actually Russia
requests Ukraine to create a confederation, while similar mode of state
organization proved to be inefficient in Russia and lately transitioned to
highly centralized, close to unitary form of government. In early 1990s, after
the “Parade of Sovereignties”, transition to federation was the only solution
for Russia to maintain its “inherited" boundaries (see more here).
In the case of Ukraine, the situation is substantially different since the
state is facing a different challenge: external military threat to the
territorial sovereignty.
In terms of minority protection and political
engagement of minorities, Russian example also provides for little melioration.
Federal Agreement 1992 named three different types of constituent entities of
the Federation; scope of their competences and the breadth of discretion varied
substantially depending on potential threat of growing separatism (that was
reflected in bilateral agreements between such entity and federal center).
Later on, these differences blurred due to the leading tendency for intense
centralization and concentration of power in the hands of federal government
(regions of European unitary states usually possess more powers in the sphere
of budget and local administration then federal entities in Russia). The
substantial difference, which remained, is Russian language policy: Russian
legislation does not provide for any status of “regional” language (in
alternative to currently existing in Ukraine). That’s why the probability of
violation of minority rights under current Russian legislation is more probable
than under Ukrainian rule. Hence, Russian government demands Ukraine to perform
the act, which Russia currently doesn’t have the guts to do, in the conditions
of permanently high political pressure, and considering that such action won’t
result in the inclusion of national and ethnic minorities into political
process.
Ukraine
rejects any type of such “advice” since it deems federal form of government as
a political mode, which makes eastern and southern regions vulnerable to
Russian invasion/interference. First of all, Ukrainian people poorly support the
idea of federalization: according to the survey by the International Republican Institute,
overall 14 percent of Ukrainians support federalization. Yuriy Yakymenko, a
political expert at the Razumkov think tank in Kiev, calls the “federalization
problem” absolutely artificial attempt to prevent Ukraine from integrating with
Europe. Ukraine’s Acting Prime Minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, expressed an opinion that “…the
federalization issue may lead to a situation where, instead of one Yanukovych,
we will have lots of little Yanukovyches.” Oleksy Garan, a professor of
comparative politics at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, shares
this view: unless local (regional/city) administrations and legislatures are
vested with executive powers, federalization is likely to lead to accumulation
of power by “feudal princes” in eastern Ukraine. He also insists that Ukraine
needs decentralization as a form of actual self-government. Indeed, the process
of redistributing and delegating powers to local elected authorities not only
addresses the flaws of the current system of “Kiev appointees”, but also
supports the growing need of minorities political engagement highlighted by the
number of international bodies (see previous discussion). More importantly, if
accurately implemented, it provides for preserving current unitary state
organization while providing for actual benefits for the local communities
which should get empowered to make essential economic and social decisions
concerning each particular locality and affecting it. Finally, the
decentralization strategy goes in line with Ukrainian pro-European vector since
it promotes democracy in action from the roots to tops.
Conclusion
After all, one must admit that
Mr. Lukashenko’s statement totally made sense. Russian demand for
federalization only increases the eastern-western antagonism in Ukraine, and
most likely won’t result in any political or social improvement (judging from Russian
90s experience) and in the best case brings country back to where it started.
Moreover, Russian reference to its own political past is totally irrelevant
since the internal and external political and economic conditions are
different: Russia was “collapsing” through the motion of former USSR republics
and Ukraine is commanded to split apart by the “polite” request of the
paramilitary groups without identification signs eventually recognized by Mr.
Putin as belonging to Russian militia. And third, such radical step as
federalization must belong to the means of last resort. Luckily, Ukraine has
not exhausted alternatives to federalization, namely the Transitional
Government is more than willing to trigger decentralization process providing
to broader political engagement of local communities, including national and
ethnic minorities, while preserving unitary form of country.
Excellent analysis! Thank you!
ReplyDeleteNovorossia was the name they gave of the conquered lands of the Zaporizhia host - an Ukrainian state. If it was always Russia.. why Novo("new")?
ReplyDeleteRussia is hard at work on convincing the rest of the world that Ukraine doesn't have any legitimacy on it own territory. This played out perfectly in Crimea - I've yet to see any representation of a Ukrainian historical or sociological point of view on the peninsula in any non-Ukrainian media. So the west just didn't want to challenge Russia on the issue, its theirs anyway, isn't it?