Devolution Drives Russian Reform

Acting President Vladimir Putin's sudden ascendance, his stern calls for a strong state, and vigorous prosecution of the war in Chechnya have once again raised the specter of authoritarianism in Russia. At the same time, the weakness of Russia's central government, coupled with ethnic strife and economic failure, have led to predictions that the Russian Federation will fall apart. It is hard to say which haunts U.S. policymakers more: the nightmare of the violent implosion of a nuclear power or the rebirth of a totalitarian antagonist in Europe.

Fortunately, both expectations are off the mark. They miss one of the most important trends in Russian politics since the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991--the devolution of power to Russia's 89 distinct regions. The Russian state is not moving toward collapse, and it is far too weak to revert to authoritarianism. Instead, Russia is undergoing a historic devolution of power that is likely to lead to a more stable and open polity. In this sense, devolution within the Russian Federation is a very positive development and in the interests of both Russia and the United States.

This essay makes three points: First, that devolution of power in Russia has promoted democratic and market reform, enhancing political pluralism and allowing economic success stories to appear in the regions. The election of a moderate Duma in December 1999 and the prospect of an activist president may well provide a more stable environment in which these reforms can flourish. Second, that despite these positive aspects, devolution does pose formidable dangers to Russia and the West, in that it has given rise to autocratic power structures in many regions and has increased certain security risks. Third, that U.S. policy will need to focus more on issues raised by devolution of power, allotting a larger share of its diplomatic resources and economic assistance to Russia's regions. ¹

Devolution of Power in Russia Promotes Democratic Reform

The decentralization of power (devolution) has been a global phenomenon for the past 15 years. Nonetheless, the effects of devolution on democratic, market-oriented reform remain unclear. This is partly because devolution is typically the outcome of a wide variety of pressures, including the incapacity of central bureaucracies to manage increasingly complex issues of governance, a need to offload expensive social functions, and a genuine desire to empower the citizenry. The effect of devolution on reform has been uneven. Generally speaking, devolution promotes the growth of civil society, increases the accountability of officials, and promotes transparency by bringing government closer to the people--thereby stimulating demands for reform of government. Yet the ultimate effect of devolution on reform depends greatly on the nature of the specific modes of the devolution process within a nation. ²

In the Russian case, devolution has had a generally positive effect on reform. It has produced some of the expected general effects of devolution, plus some beneficial effects unique to the political process in Russia. Devolution has promoted institutions that enhance pluralism and check central power, increased political freedoms, and strengthened civil society. Given Russia's long authoritarian history, these are not small achievements.

The flow of power to Russia's regions (and to a lesser extent, its cities) has promoted diverse regional interests and checks on central power in four different areas. First, democratically elected governors have been effective at articulating regional interests. By law, all of Russia's governors had to stand for election by the end of 1996; many gubernatorial elections will occur again in the year 2000. The elections produced stronger, legitimized governors who often oppose the government's policies and are an alternative repository of power. Second, mechanisms to represent regional interests in Russia's parliament have helped check the center. Each of the governors automatically receives a seat in the Federation Council (upper house), which is a bastion of regional interests. Also, regional governors played a key role in the December 1999 Duma elections (lower house). Candidates backed by strong governors generally...