Russia's Regions: Two Different Results Under the Rule of the Kremlin

Published on January 28th, 2010, the Economist's "Russia and its Regions: Beyond the Kremlin's Reach" explains the difference between the current situations in two different areas of Russia. The first, Tatarstan, has remained a peaceful part of the country since its integration in the early 16th century. For the past twenty years the region has been governed by Mintimer Shaimiev, and under his leadership the area survived the dissolution of the USSR and the centralization of the Russian government with few economic or social implications. He recently announced his retirement, the timing of which, not coincidentally, coincides with President Dmitry Medvedev's decision to place Rustam Minnikhanov as the next governor of Tatarstan. By choosing Minnikhanov as the successor, Medvedev was "voicing Mr. Shaimiev's wish as much as his own." In contrast, the region of Dagestan is in turmoil. It has recently experienced a surge of Islamic fundamentalism, which has been accompanied by assassinations, car bombings, murders, and fueds between local clans. So, what makes this region different from Tatarstan? Both are Muslim regions within Russia. But, unlike Tatarstan, Dagestan was colonized in the late 1800s, and due to Russia's emphasis on violence and forced obedience, it was never fully assimilated. After two brutal wars the region finds itself governed by Ramzan Kadyrov, a "kremlin backed strong man with his own small army." Medvedev installed Alexander Khloponin in an effort to gain control of the region, but it is doubtful that he will be able to curb the violence. So, Tatarstan does relatively well with little influence from the Kremlin, but Dagestan's difficulties are increased because of it. "Mr Putin’s centralization of power has made Russia more autocratic but it has not made it better governed."

Russia's issues with the centralization of  power link to the ideas of power, authority, and sovereignty. These three concepts are fueled by a government's legitimacy. In Tatarstan the people trust in their local leaders to lead them on the right course, because the area has remained prosperous due to the decisions of the government. However, in Dagestan the people have no faith in their leaders, and are therefore taking action to change the way things are run. This conflict is also creating tears within the government. Some politicians believe that Russia should grant Dagestan and its surrounding areas (Chechnya and Ingushetia) autonomy, while others wish to keep a firm grasp on the region. Now the government must utilize public policy to best govern this volatile area, while continuing to build up the rest of the vast country.

Grade This Post

Shawna Taets

Rights Group: Russian Religious Freedom in Danger

Summary: The article "Russian Religious Freedom in Danger" published on the 25th by "The Associated Press" in the New York Times explains how Russia is soon to be a country free of religious minorities. Russia's president Dmitri Medvedev wants to make Russia a secular state by permanently assigning Orthodox priests to army units and introducing religious education classes at state schools. There are 100 million Russian Orthodox followers in Russia, although only 5% are strict followers. The independent Moscow-based Liberty of Conscience Institute is worried about the increase in in support for the Russian Orthodox church because the reforms that Medvedev wants to create are against the Russian constitution. Sergei Mozgovoi, co-chair of the institutions board, said that these wanted reforms are aimed at "fostering loyalty to the regime". The Russian constitution does say that there is a separation between church and state, although now-a-days this relationship is said to be "symbiotic." Sergei Buryanov,who is the other co-chair of the institutions board, feels that these new religious reforms will persecute the minorities and take away all chances of religious freedom in Russia. Religious Freedom activists share Buryanov's concerns and are worried by recent moves, such as the banning of any publications by a Jehovah's Witness, against both the Muslims and the Jehovah Witnesses. The instiutue belives Russia will no longer have religious minorities if the government continues implementing strict rules in regards to religious freedom.

Correlation: This article mainly correlates with Civil Rights, the seperation of church and state and social clevages. The freedom to pursue any religion is one of the Civil Rights that us Americans posess. The changes that Medvedev has created makes it hard for someone in Russia to practice the religion of their choice since the government is deciding which religion to teach you about and which religion everyone around you shall have. Secondly, these new rules are killing the social clevages that used to be existent in Russia. The Muslims and Jehovah witnesses are being discriminated against and forced, by law, to stop practicing their religion and start practicing Russian Orthodox. This forces them to rid of their minority identity and leads to no social cleveage and one big minority. Having only one social class brings conflicts to a cease and will make it easier for Russian Officals to maintain power. Lastly, this article correlates to the seperation of church and state. In the US the government can't mandate all public schools to teach a certain religion. The US is built off it's share of minorties and different groups of religions. Russia is loosing it's sense of seperation of church and state due to the fact that the President has decided what religion is to be taught and preached in all public schools.

Photocredit:http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Travel/Pix/gallery/2001/02/05/priest.gif

Grade this post.

Russia Tries to Address Future of Monocities

Summary

This article discusses a situation that is troubling the monocity Baranchinsky, as well as many other monocities throughout the country. A monocity is one city that is dependent on just one energy source, and one industrial factory supports about 90 percent of the cities people in some way. Baranchinsky is coming close to nonexistence as most of the workers at its only factory have received their tiny pay only once in the last 16 months. The businesses don't want to spend the money, the workers don't want to relocate and the government doesn't want to deal with the instability that comes with unemployment. These monocities, described by citizens as "dying settlements" have had trouble since the fall of Communism. The people don't have the money to leave or the skills to work in a bigger city, leaving them almost trapped in these monocities, waiting for life to improve.

Correlation

Russia has overal experienced a boom in economy since the fall of the Soviet Union. True, there were some downfalls as the country switched from a centrally operated economy to a market economy, but in general the growth of the economy, nationally, has been great. Regionally, however, the effects have not been as good. This is one of the problems that came along with Russia's relatively recent democratization. Twelve percent of russia's population currently lives in these monocities, whose function is to fit the demands of a more socialist, centrally oriented economy. Their function is now becoming obsolete and they are more of a burden to the government as they must now try to find an effective way to address the problem, while they try to deal with multiple global issues at the same time. Bad transportation and lack of proper training to find new jobs have left the people in a sort of quarantine. With the globalization of the larger cities, the economies of these monocities have been hit hard. This relates to what we've learned so far in comparative government because it focuses on the burdens experienced by the people of a recently democratized country, and also problems that can arise from having a large income gap throughout a country.

Photo Credit: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/world/europe/05russia.html

Russia to Sign a Nuclear Reduction Treaty with the U.S.

Russia and the U.S. are on the verge of signing a nuclear arms reduction treaty that would greatly reduce the number of nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles, according to the New York Times. The two countries hope to have the agreement signed in time for it to set an example for an international conference in May. This landmark agreement has mended relations between the two largest nuclear arms holders after relations hit a post-cold war low with Russia's war with Georgia in 2008. President Obama and President Medvedev initially laid out plans last year to forge a successor to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start I), but a plan was not concluded by the time the treaty expired on December 5th. Among the remaining details that need to be worked out is the agreement on the exact amount of arms reduction. Currently the two countries plan to reduce nuclear warheads from current levels to 1,500 to 1,675, and delivery vehicles from 500 to 1,100. In order to pass, the agreement must be ratified by law makers in both countries, and other issues remain, such as how to monitor and verify the treaty's terms.

The renewed relations between Russia and the U.S. allow one to see how international relations reflects hugely on a country. Russia has undergone a great change in political culture since the fall of the Soviet Union, and among the top issues in the state is international relations. Plus, the reduction of nuclear arms portrays a desire for peace, a thought that hasn't been on the top of these countries' lists for quite some time. Not to mention that more countries feel safer dealing with Russia economically when it has the U.S. as an ally. The Russian oligarch that owns Rusel aluminum processing is now closer to instituting an I.P.O with Hong Kong. Russian has long been a world superpower, but the country still needs to improve its world status, and the government is finally taking steps to do just that.

Photo Credit: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/04/01/2009-04-01

Grade This Post

Shawna Taets

Russia Ends Opposition to Rights Court

Summary:
The article "Russia Ends Opposition to Rights Court" by Ellen Barry and published on January 15, 2010 in the New York Times explains how the Russian Parliament is deciding to accept Protocol 14 and establish some common ground with it's fellow European countries. Russia was one of 47 countries who refused to ratify Protocol 14. The reason behind this was because Russia looked askance to the International Human Rights Court due to some accusations it's made about Russia in the past. In the past this Court has received several complaints, mainly from France, which has found Russian officials guilty of corruption, torture, and other misconducts. Part of why these complaints bothered Russia so much is because their judges were not part of the reviewing process of the complaints. Russia has decided to accept Protocol 14 and follow the same rules as the other nations as a way of becoming more connected to their fellow European neighbors. Russia felt that they weren't being heard before and that nobody was listening to their complaints. Now that they have been heard they are more willing to work in partner with the other nations in the Human Rights Court rather than against them. Russia has finally realized that it would benefit them to model after the west rather than hurt it. Russia wants to slowly start taking steps towards becoming a Liberal Democracy. Russia has also realized that they aren't as isolated as they thought and that the world needs them involved in global affairs.



Correlation:
This article relates to what we've learned so far in Comparative Government in numerous ways. Firstly, the legitimacy Russia felt for the Human Rights Court was weak because the Human Rights Court had ignored them in the past and uncovered some of their corrupt politicians therefore Russia doesn't trust the court. Secondly, this article describes how much Globalization impacts the world. The article says, "It is already clear that without Russian participation, the Council of Europe will be of no use to anyone.” This quote emphasizes that all countries are needed to cooperate together in order for an International Organization (such as the Human Rights Court) to exist. Also, even though Russia may be physically isolated or the people may feel like they're isolated from the outside world, they're not. What they choose to do and not to do effects other countries. As inferred in the excerpt from the article. Lastly, Aleksei V. Makarkin, a leading analyst at the Center for Political Technologies, a Moscow policy research group, said that these steps Russia is making is a slow advance towards liberalization. This would allude that Russia would be ridding of their communist and socialist values of freedom and stepping towards the equality values of liberals.

Photo Credit: www.russian.arizona.edu/russia.jpg


Grade this post.