banner
Oct 27, 2021
0 Views
0 0

Will the Russian army have to take Kazan a second time?

Will the Russian army have to take Kazan a second time?

Photo: Egor Aleev / TASS

The parliament of Tatarstan did not support the draft federal law “On general principles of organizing public authority in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.”

The document proposes to establish a name common for all regions of the country for the position of a senior official – the head of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation. As explained in the press service of the State Duma Committee on State Construction, “taking into account the historical, national and other traditions of the region, the constitution (charter) of the subject may provide for an additional title of the position, but it cannot contain words and phrases that make up the name of the position of the head of state – the President of the Russian Federation. Federation “.

“In our opinion, certain provisions of the draft law contradict the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation as a democratic federal law-based state. We believe that in the presented version, the draft law departs from the establishment of general principles of legal regulation of the activities of state authorities of subjects, “- TASS quotes the head of the State Council Committee on State Construction Albert Khabibullina

It is worth recalling that in the 1990s, almost all heads of the subjects of the federation were called presidents. The renaming of posts began in 2010 with the filing of the head of Chechnya Ramzan Kadyrovwho announced his refusal to be named president and called on others to follow his example. According to Kadyrov, “in Russia, only one statesman has the right to be called president” and the “parade of regional presidents” should be stopped.

Today, Tatarstan remains the only region of the country, the head of which is called the president.

– Demarch against the bill on the unification of the names of the position of the head of the subject of the Russian Federation – typical separatist, “feudal” extravagance, – I am sure Director of the Institute of Freedom Fyodor Biryukov

– The authorities of the Republic of Tatarstan, regardless of the specific personalities in the leadership, throughout the history of the Russian Federation boasted of their “independence”, and to the last try to preserve the status of president for their head. There is, of course, more irrational here. Basically, this is purely “feudal” pride, the desire to stand out from the rest, to be more equal among equals, to demonstrate a certain political distance from the federal center. But there are also quite pragmatic reasons.

Tatarstan was one of the main centers of separatism in the 1990s. And he was also the locomotive of ethnocracies in the Russian Federation, often extremely Russophobic. In fact, the forced “Tatarization” of the republic, in which the ratio of ethnic Tatars and Russians was approximately the same (in 1989, Tatars 48.5%, Russians 43.3%), led to the fact that in the republic – in response to the actions of the ruling ethnocrats – the Russian national-patriotic movement was also actively developing, aimed at combating Russophobia and preserving the territorial unity of the country.

Even today, according to official data, the number of Russians is 39%, the Tatar population is just over 53%. That is, the number of Russian residents in Tatarstan has decreased, but still Russians are the second largest people in the republic. Therefore, the struggle of the republican ethnocratic elites for the preservation of the official “independence” is an element of their own struggle against the Russian political subjectivity in the region.

In addition, this already completely scandalous intransigence of Kazan is obviously supported and stimulated by those political circles in Russia and abroad that systematically work to create conditions for a new “parade of sovereignties” in the Russian Federation and further division of the country. These are liberal-oligarchic elites and radical pro-Western liberals in Russia, as well as Western centers of power, as well as Turkey, which is actively promoting the ideology and strategy of Pan-Turkism in the post-Soviet space and in Russia itself.

While we are talking about the bill. The Tatarstan authorities hope that they will be able to defend their right to “originality” in relations between the Center and the regions. But if, nevertheless, the law is adopted and enters into force, official Kazan will have to surrender or enter into direct confrontation with Moscow. This can be a signal for other national republics with developed ethnocracies. Thus, preconditions will be created for a cold or quite hot civil war, and even with different national accents.

The only real alternative to such a development of events is the political legalization and strengthening of the Russian national great-power consciousness, capable of uniting the citizens of the Russian Federation of various nationalities on the basis of common imperial values ​​and patriotic principles. But the state, by virtue of its internationalist and multicultural delusions, raised to the category of dogmas, not only does not contribute to the political Russification of the country, but does the exact opposite.

In theory, the draft federal law “On the general principles of organizing public power in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation” is intended to partially neutralize the demons of ethnic separatism in Russia that are dormant but capable of awakening at any convenient moment. But this, of course, is just a ritual half-measure. In order to be able to really resist ethno-separatist tendencies, the federal center will eventually have to come to a change in the administrative-territorial structure of the Russian Federation.

In part, this process has already begun, as evidenced by the plans to enlarge the constituent entities of the Russian Federation discussed at the government level. Only the Russian patriotic idea, transformed into the political will of the state, can revive these still hypothetical plans, give them a practical meaning and push them towards implementation.

– Tatarstan has always stood apart from other national republics, since their elites had the highest level of autonomy, – believes Evgeny Valyaev, political analyst of the Foundation for the Development of Civil Society Institutions “People’s Diplomacy”

– Tatarstan regularly publicly expresses its dissatisfaction with the growing centralization. The Russian Federation allows few of its national enclaves such an isolated life. Two state languages, its own constitution, its own political realities and peculiarities of state administration – Tatarstan will stand out for its status in comparison with other subjects of our country.

The national elite of Tatarstan are proud of the signs of the statehood of their republic, as this makes their position special. Such aspirations cannot be unambiguously called separatist, but we see that ethnicity is exploited in national regions to obtain political and economic preferences.

The conflict between Moscow and Kazan was inevitable, since two opposite approaches met – increased centralization and maximum federalization. Moscow began to take away from Tatarstan the signs of statehood, which they were able to receive even after the collapse of the USSR.

At first, the Federal Treaty, which they were proud of in Kazan, was not renewed, then a blow to the Tatar elite in the person of VIM-avia followed, followed by a series of revocations of licenses from Tatar banks, and began to put things in order with the Tatar language. Kazan seeks to preserve at least some signs of its exclusivity, so it will not easily pass a law that takes away the name of the president of the republic from them.

But this does not mean that Moscow will not be able to come to an agreement. It will be necessary to make concessions in other areas – in the economy, in the distribution of budgetary funds, perhaps even to support the nomination of Kazan as the host of major world competitions. The name of the head of the region is not so important as to quarrel over this, but the Kremlin at some point wanted to emphasize the special status of the president of Russia. Ramzan Kadyrov was one of the first to speak out in favor of renouncing the status of the president. In this regard, Chechnya and Tatarstan have different views on the power etymology – either they simply agreed with some earlier than with others.

Distortions often occur when national lobbying, which is one of the types of corruption, becomes the principle of state governance in the region. Speech, for example, about national quotas when applying for a civil service. It is very difficult for Russians to achieve career success living in national republics, and these are twenty-two regions of the Russian Federation.

Nowhere in the laws is it spelled out that only a Tatar can be the president of Tatarstan, and only a Chechen can be the president of Chechnya. But de facto this is the case. There should be no national quotas in Russia, the passport of a citizen of the Russian Federation should provide people with an equal set of rights throughout the country, without exception.

Any corruption damages the efficiency of public administration. Other corruption emanates from the clan system, which is supported by quotas. This is especially noticeable in the Caucasus, where the most corrupt regions of the country are located. Clannishness is the principle of state administration in the Caucasus and in other national regions.

In many national regions there are numerically more Russians than representatives of the “titular peoples” of these republics. In Tatarstan, residents, including Russians, are overly actively imposed on the Tatar language, in Tatarstan there is a violent “otatarization” of the population. According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the state language in Russia is one – Russian. Knowledge of other languages ​​is at the choice and request of citizens. This status must be protected and not allowed for the national elites of the national regions to lobby for a different situation.

Director of the EAEU Institute Vladimir Lepekhin believes that this is not a “riot” yet, it is the threshold of a “riot”.

– Regional elites feel that the federal government is losing its authority, and the country is approaching the edge, beyond which a possible collapse looms. In this sense, some republican elites (Tatarstan and some Caucasian republics) have a sense of the prospect of seizing part of Russian territories by an increasingly active Turkey. This is where the timid but sabotage of Moscow’s decisions by some regional elites begins. This is called “downloading rights”.

“SP”: – How important is the name of the head of the region? Previously, in general, all of us were presidents, so what?

– For the current bureaucracy, the image is everything, but the essence is nothing. Names and, in general, the form for them is of paramount importance, since you need to imitate the ability to manage in every possible way. Therefore, who is being tracked, how he sits and how he is called. It doesn’t matter what happens in Tatarstan, it is important that he knows his place.

“SP”: – In the opinion of the Tatarstan parliamentarians, certain provisions of the bill contradict the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation as a democratic federal law-based state. Is it so?

– In our country, in practice, almost everything contradicts the Constitution. In this sense, the argumentation of the Tatarstan deputies is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether the federal center will pump them up and how it will do it.

“SP”: – Can we say that separatist sentiments have been preserved in Tatarstan since the 90s?

– Today there are separatist sentiments in every autonomous republic of the Russian Federation. And the more weakness and stupidity the federal government demonstrates, the more dangerous and large-scale the separatist inclinations will be. So when Putin says that “Russia has exhausted the limit on revolutions,” he seems to be unaware of what kind of upheavals actually shine on Russia in the near future.

“SP”: – If one of the heads of the subjects still remains the president, will it be critical? Wouldn’t other regions want the same? Perhaps more?

“Of course, others will also want it. The formulation of the question is quite clear: if Tatarstan can. then why do we (Chechnya, Yakutia, Mordovia, Buryatia etc.) it is forbidden?!

Article Categories:
Politics
banner

Leave a Reply