Pivovarov

16

One of the major factors of strengthening of the unity of regional elite is «governors’

solidarity» which it demonstrates. One can remember consensus type decisions of the Soviet of

Federation taken to spite federal authorities (the questions of restitution, confirmation of the

judges of the Constitutional Court, raise of minimal level of pensions etc.). A new feature of time

is the development of horizontal ties between the subjects of  federation. Until now regional

leaders could not organize effectively working horizontal ties. Moscow successfully blocked

their aspirations to unite forces, pushed one regions against the others using their egoistic aims.

But the instability of political situation in the Center and the inadequacy of the federal policy to

the regional interests made regions to seek rapprochement. Now the regions more and more

often conclude bilateral agreements; interregional associations function more and more actively.

And what about the Center? What were and are his reactions onto substantial

transformation in its relations with the regions and onto the strengthening of regional  elites’

autonomy? It will not be a great exaggeration to say that the Center has no effective regional

policy. More than that different representatives of federal authorities have different views on the

model of relations between the Center and the regions.

“Liberal” approach to the solution of this problem is personified by the ex-premier Victor

Chernomyrdin. According to this approach regional leaders are recognized as equal partners of

federal power; balance of interests is established between the Center and the regions and the

central role is to be played by the relations of consensus type, by looking for mutually beneficial

solutions both in political and economic spheres. Great attention is paid onto the establishment

of good and friendly relations between the Premier and regional leaders. All this means neither

fundamental change in the existing state model nor limitation of power ambitions of provincial

elite (the struggle against so called «new feudalism»). The liberal approach is based on the

search for an elite consensus within the framework of loose and asymmetrical federation. This

type of policy was more or less successfully realized until 1996.

“Microrevolution” of 1996 led to the need of other type of regional policy of the Center

(from the point of view of interests of the Center itself). The reaction onto the growth of

authonomy of the regional leaders came as  a policy of  recentralization. It is connected with

Anatoly  Chubais.  Recentralization policy means construction of such a political mechanism

---

17

which limits regional power, in other words it is the mechanism of checks and balances in the

system «The Center - the regions».

The essence of the «centralist» regional policy is the establishment of real control over the

process of privatization in the subjects of federation.

Chibais understands it very well that the fact who - Moscow or local authorities - controls

the process of privatization, determines the distribution of the best «pieces» of property. It is

very easy for the «young reformers» headed by Chubais to pursue such a course. In contrast to

Chernomyrdin they have no special personal relations (often for many years) with the governors.

Correspondingly they have no moral limitations. That is why they very easily became the leaders

of «counterrevolution», aimed to minimize the consequences of «the regional revolution» of

1996.

Centralizing plans of the Chubais’s group had to do not only with the territories (kraj) or

provinces; in fact it was a beginning of an at tack directed against national republics which had

privileges according to the Constitution. It is not coincidence that when the attack began

influential Moscow daily “Izvestiya” published an article (a comment on a visit of  Chubais to

Yakutiya) ”Chubais, gatherer of the Russian lands”. Of course there was the irony and the joke

in this title, but there is a measure of truth in every joke.

The “liberals” realized that they would not be able to control the privatization process in a

decentralized state. That is why they immediately transformed themselves into the ”statiers”

(“gosudarstvenniki”). Thus the doctrine of “the new Russian centralism” (or of “the centralism

of the new Russians”) was born. At the basis of this doctrine there lies a policy of containment

of regional executive power by development and support of some other regional power

institutions. For example, support of the mayor of the city and making him quarrel with the

governor. In fact this is a course directed at  the containment of powers  of the subjects of

federation from below, through and by the organs of local selfgovernment.

Another variant of containment policy is the creation of a power body parallel to that of

governor’ s power. There were attempts to activize the institute of the President’s representative

in the subjects of federation.

---

18

As for the president Boris Yeltzin, he, as always, occupied a position “above the fight”.

In the last months he in fact confirmed, first, his  strategic course aiming at the creation of a

contractual federation,  and, second, priority of his relations with the governors and with the

presidents of republics. In spite of all evident weaknesses of such a policy one should admit: in

the context of existing political relations such a course enabled the federal center to prolong

maximally the process of “federal building”. This course also enabled the Center to make a

treaty on  delimitation of authorities a kind of cake given to this or that regional leader as a

gratitude for the service or as a form of political advance. President  Yeltzin began to fulfil the

role of political arbiter who regulates the relations between the Center and the regions. That

means that the President now is above not only the regions, but also above the Center!

It is no doubt that the position of  B.Yeltzin is different from both «liberal approach» of

V.Chernomyrdin and “centralizing approach” of  A.Chubais. At the same time elements of both

approaches are present in the Yeltzin’s position. Yet Yeltzin’s policy is much more skillful and

has many nuances. It presupposes construction of complex political combinations (both of

personal and institutional character). Here we can see an orientation towards consensus,

towards personal ties; the use of method of “containment”, limitation of the power of “regional

barons” through and by organization of some kind of “antipower” bodies (organs).

V. ANALYTICAL EXPERT CENTERS

Analytical expert centers exert definite and even considerable influence on the process of

elaborating and making political decisions. It is connected with the fact that, first the leaders of

such centers have as a rule personal close links with the representatives of the supreme power.

Second, the centers are created in order to prepare and adopt the major political decisions in

the shade, far from public. Third, such analytical and expert centers really accumulate the best

intellectual forces of the country and fourth, not always but rather often, the centers were

founded simply to provide jobs to those politicians who for some reasons had resigned from

official top posts of the country at that time.

---