вход по аккаунту



код для вставки
UDC 321
M. M. Khamathanova
Ingushsky state university. Nazran, Russia
[Федерализм и проблемы оптимизации отношений центр
- регионы в современной России]
This article discusses one of the most important problem in Russia – the optimization of relations between the
center and regions. It analyzes propositions of experts on problems of improving the international, federal and centerperiphery relations. It was found that the relations between the subjects of the Federation with the Center is the
dominant of Russian State development, and the potential relationship center - regions depends on the regions. There is
the actuality of optimization of relationship center-regions in the context of modern federalism. It is shown the main
tendencies of development of these relations in recent years, and the arguments in favor of the model optimization.
Based on the analysis it is concluded that the challenges of modernity require a state's democratic development, which
in the conditions of the spatial dimensions of Russia and its multinational population can be realized only in federalism
modern type, adding by a strong and responsible local self-government.
Key words: federalism, the relationship center - regions, equality regions, optimization center-periphery and
federal relations.
Elements of federalism as a model of the state existed in the conditions of ancient Greece,
which is reflected in the writings of Plato and Aristotle. But first the whole concept of federalism
proposed Johannes Althusius (1562-1638), developed the so-called federal theory of popular
sovereignty. Considerable fame idea of federalism found in the middle of XIX-XX centuries .. At
the time, Proudhon foretold that the XX century open an era of federations. [1, p. 96]
The famous French sociologist R.Aron considered federalism as the only suitable for the
present day means capable to break the deadlock and to establish order. Federalism, Aron argued,
"for the middle of the XX century, plays the same role he played in the XVIII century, liberalism,
Marxism in the middle of the XIX century, ie it corresponds to the ideas of our time, allowing you
to use them both in theory and in practice. "[1]
The problem of federalism and today remains controversial, and the reasons for the dispute,
according to the American political scientist D.Elazara are as follows: 1) federalism applies to both
the structure and the functioning of public authorities; 2) allows synthesis edin¬stva and diversity;
3) acts as both a political and a social phenomenon; 4) provides specific goals and means of
achieving them, and these goals may be limited in nature and global; 5) allows for the existence of
several models of political organization of the federalist nature. [2, p. 129]
Russian political scientist RG Abdullatipov believes that "federalism" - the phenomenon of a
multidimensional, multi-faceted, it is impractical to reduce to a state system of certain territories.
For Russia, it is also a principle of arrangement of various peoples in the state through various types
of education. Federalism can only function successfully in a democratic society. We can say that
federalism - a democratic principle arrangement of the peoples of territories under a single state; is
the improvement of governance; is the preservation of its territorial integrity; is respect for the
rights and interests of all nationalities, the free development of their economy, culture and traditions
through careful consideration of the features of interest, as well as needs. And the interests of the
entire system of government and administration. The primary measure of success of federalism is to
respect the equality of citizens, regardless of their nationality or place of residence in the territory of
the whole country ". [10, p.11]
The authors of "The genesis of Russian federalism" note that the issue of Russian federalism
was on his way. [5. 12] IA Ilyin wrote: "Russia has had only two options: either to wear out and not
be, or to pacify their neobrazimye outskirts of weapons and the government ... Russia .. picked it up
and carried his burden; and implemented a unique phenomenon in the world ". [6] Thus, the authors
believe that" the world's only Russia has become a phenomenon because solving the problems of
their state system, she sought to save all peoples, languages, cultures than radically different from
American or Western European ruling classes. "[5. 12]
However, we can not idealize the past Russia: its historical path rife with repression on ethnic
grounds, outbreaks of anti-Semitism, xenophobia, ethnic conflicts, etc. However, the fundamental
basis of their these negative phenomena and processes to a greater extent determined by social and
economic factors than civilizational-religious or ethno-cultural contradictions.
The situation in Russia today, aside from the orthodox Marxist approach, lies in the broader
scheme of the center-periphery of Andrew Heywood: "Model" center - periphery "helps to explain
the reasons for the uneven economic development of regions and the actual mechanism of such
processes. This model is the basis for the two theories - the theory of internal colonialism, which
explains the imbalance in the development of the regions within a state, and the theory of world
order, revealing the reasons for the same processes, but at the level of the global economy. The
concept points to the proximity of these two processes, as "central" regions, as a rule, better
integrated into the world economy. "[15, p. 202] As rightly pointed out by "the very model of the"
center - periphery "aims to reveal inadequate system of exchange in which the" center "of a thriving
and growing mainly due to the operation of the periphery, dooming it to backwardness. "Center" at
the same time characterized by indicators such as high wages, high levels of scientific and
technological development and diversification of production, and the "periphery" - low-wage,
rudimentary technology and narrow specialization of production. "[Ibid] This is the case in Russia
applies to the "Russian" regions, so that the ethno-cultural and religious features of the region - a
sign of more optional.
Right steps in this direction were made in the beginning of 90-ies, when the collapse of the
Soviet Union created a new situation for Russia, it was necessary in the political and legal
background to preserve the unity and integrity of the Russian state in the form of the Federal Treaty
and the adoption of the new Constitution. According to Article 5 of the Constitution of the Russian
Federation consists of the republics, territories, regions and cities of federal importance,
autonomous region and autonomous areas - equal subjects of the Russian Federation. In relations
with federal bodies of state authority all the subjects of the Russian Federation shall be equal. [7]
Equality here, in our view - a key position.
According to many researchers, the relationship with the subjects of the Federation of the
Center is a dominant feature of the Russian state, the potential of which depends on the region. [10,
p. 19-20] The situation is quite controversial: any move towards independence in Moscow is seen as
separatism, and, on the contrary, any action of the federal government to strengthen the vertical
power structures in the republics perceived as imperial pretensions. [2: 233] In this context, the
problem of optimization of the relationship between the center and the regions in Russia is one of
the most pressing issues. The solution to this problem must be closely linked with the main trends in
the development of these relations in recent years. Effective relationships between the center and
the regions are possible in terms of federalization and deeper decentralization of Russia, as well as
in terms of the observed current centralization. [4. 108]
Of course, the contradictions in the relations between the Centre and the subjects of the
Federation have always existed: the center, possessing unquestioned monopoly in all spheres of life:
political, economic and cultural, too tried to centralize control. The main problem is that these
contradictions are not antagonistic character acquired. In other words, we need dialogue to develop
a compromise position. And so here it would be correct to agree with LT Jakeli that "the
relationship between the center and the regions should be based on the principle of subsidiarity,
according to which the central authority should be delegated only the political, economic and other
functions that can not be with the same efficiency, without subjective biases solved authorities
domestic entities." [3 s.65-66]
Modern line on the excessive centralization of the political structure of the state makes it more
rigid and therefore carries considerable risks of destruction, so it is particularly important to
organize formal and informal representation of the interests of the population of regions in the
center, not by reducing the problem to reciprocity elite center and the regions. As the MS Salikov
otherwise without the consent of central and regional interests, without promotion of regional
interests in the area will be very disadvantageous, precarious position. Russian regions are
interested in political autonomy, as well as in financial and economic aid from the center and it is
the objective consequence of the uneven development of the Russian territory. [12]
Unfortunately, according to the classification of the Ministry of Finance, the North Caucasian
republics are included in the category of the economically underdeveloped subjects of the
Federation, living mainly on the federal budget subsidies. In this case, the North Caucasus region of
the type is defined as "a region of stagnant poverty" and as "a troubled region." Social explosion,
conflicts in regions such natural. [Ibid] Prof.. IM Sampiev notes in this regard that "the Russian
practice were violated principles of economic (fiscal) federalism as the subjects of the Federation
have to" bargain "for themselves their own resources, and the redistribution of these resources is
one of the key factors determining factor in federalism - Russian" . [13, p.206]
Prof. Kuchukov MM notes that the problem lies in the region as the state of the economy,
which depends mainly on the ongoing federal government economic policy, as well as the
peculiarities of historical relations of peoples from formed in recent years, the political culture of
the population and many other factors, problems are not solved, and preserved ... carried out an
unprecedented informational pressure on the minds of Russians, specifically formed anti-Caucasian
hysteria. [8, p. 136]
However, in society and in the power of understanding, there is the danger of such a
provision. So, in an address to the Russian public members of the Federation Council of the Federal
Assembly of the Russian state: "The center is not able to efficiently and effectively do what
naturally can and should do in the field. It is essential that the regions of the country have received
guaranteed funds for its effective activities from its own sources in the interests of ordinary people
living in these areas .... Increasing economic independence and responsibility of subjects of
Federation will not lead to the collapse of Russia. In contrast enhancement regions will strengthen
the state as a whole. This will benefit every citizen of the Russian Federation. "[14, p.107] In
addition, the North Caucasus crisis is exacerbated by serious shortcomings in the formation of the
center of the strategy of national policy that preserves the whole complex of long-standing
problems. Does not contribute to the normal federal relations and assignability heads of subjects,
and the elections to the regional parliaments on party lists, because of the sharp narrowing of the
channels of upward mobility.
In the Soviet Union personnel mobility within the national management layer fully veil from
the center. Appointment to the party and consistent management position in Moscow. As correctly
pointed L. Sagaitova, Federal Republic received compared with the autonomous republics of more
funding, more rights and opportunities, and regions and autonomous districts receive even less. The
most painful for any government is to limit the independence in any field, and especially in the
economic sphere. [11. 89]. And today there are the privileged and disadvantaged regions of real
rights. You also need a clearer and more rational division of powers of regional governments and
local authorities, enhancing the rights and responsibilities of local authorities.
An effective model of relations center - regions depends on the region itself. Strong regions said Salikov MS interested in that ideal-typical model, which in American practice is called
dualistic federalism. For all that, the story of American federalism has shown that in a situation of a
sharp deterioration in the overall socio-economic situation, as it was during the Great Depression,
the regions are interested in developing a constructive relationship with the center and help from
him. [12]
Federated and center-periphery relations in multinational Russia inevitably translated into the
sphere of inter-ethnic and inter-confessional relations. Prof. rights. KS Hajiyev, arguing that the
cause of the majority of ethnic conflicts that have shaken and continue to shake our country is
rooted in defiance of the true interests of the people, their values, traditions, customs, and in the
curtailment of their legitimate rights to self-determination, the social, economic, spiritual and other
problems ... ..Pred Russia faces the task of maintaining its integrity, without prejudice to the
interests of the republic, autonomous regions, territories and regions. The way to achieve this goal
the author sees the rejection of Unitarianism and the transition to a genuine, real federalism. [2, p.
Known experts give reasoned proposals on improvement of the international, federal and
center-periphery relations. According to N. Medvedev: "The meaning of national policy in Russia is
to provide multiple forms of its rule on the basis of a modern model of the federation. This model of
government - the federation, which is based on the constitutional and contractual terms that allow to
implement the right of peoples to self-determination. "[9, p.162]. Under the self-determination is
defined here as the freedom of every nation to live by their own laws, under the control of their
elected authorities themselves, to control their destiny in its sole discretion, without prejudice to the
freedom and the legitimate interests of other nations. [2, p. 233]
Challenges of our time require the country's democratic development, which in the conditions
of the spatial dimensions of Russia and its multi-ethnic composition can be realized only in the
federalism of the modern type, supplemented by a strong and responsible local government.
1. Hajiyev K.S. Politics: Textbook for high schools. Logos, Moscow, 2001.
2. Hajiyev K.S. Political science. Manual for teachers and graduate students. M.: SOROS International Relations, 1994.
3. Jakeli L.T. Key issues of territorial arrangement of Georgia and the experience of foreign
countries. Federalism and Regionalism: Priorities of the XXI century / / Materials of the
international scientific conference. Vladikavkaz: Vladikavkaz Institute of Management, 2007
4. Zubov A.B. Unitarianism or Federalism (To the Question of Future Organization ofRussia’s
State Expanse)./ / Polis, 2000. № 5.
5. Ivanov V.N., Yarovoy O.A. The genesis of Russian federalism. Moscow, 2001
6. Ilyin
application 18.04.2014]
7. Constitution of the Russian Federation. M.: Omega-L, 2007.
8. Kuchukov M.M .The dilemma of Russia's future and the problems of the genesis of
subjectivity. Humanities and social - political problems of modernization of the Caucasus.
Collection of scientific papers / Ed. Ed. Sampiev IM Nazran, 2011.
9. Medvedev N.P. Russia's national policy. M., 1993
10. Russian federal: Problems and Prospects. Monograph / ed. Ivanov V.N. Moscow, 2001
11. Sagaitova L. Regional identity: social determinants and constructivist media activities (for
example, the Republic of Tatarstan). Center and regional identity in Russia / Ed. B. Hellmann
and T. Hopf. St. Petersburg.; Moscow: Publishing House. The Europe University at St.
Petersburg; Letniy Sad, 2003.
12. Salikov M.S. Comparative Federalism of United States and Russia. Abstract of diss.
candidate of law sciences. Ekaterinburg, 1998. Http: [electronic resource] [Date of application 15.04.2014]
13. Sampiev I.M. Institutionalization of self-determination in the political processes in postSoviet North Caucasus. Magas, 2010.
14. Modern political process in Russia: Training manual / authors V.I. Kovalenko, E.N.
Moshchelkov, A.V.Fedyakin etc. M.: MNEPU 2002.
15. Andrew Heywood. Politics: Textbook for universities. Translation from English ed. Professor
G.G. Vodolazova, associate V.Y. Bedskogo. Moscow, 2005
1. Гаджиев К.С. Политология: Учебник для высших учебных заведений. М., 2001.
2. Гаджиев К.С. Политическая наука. Пособие для преподавателей и аспирантов.
3. Джакели Л.Т. Основные вопросы территориального устройства Грузии и опыт
зарубежных стран. Федерализм и регионализм: приоритеты XXI века // Материалы
международной научной конференции. Владикавказ: Владикавказский институт
управления, 2007.
4. Зубов А.Б. Унитаризм или федерализм (к вопросу о будущей организации
государственного пространства России) // Полис, 2000. №5.
5. Иванов В.Н., Яровой О.А. Генезис российского федерализма. М., 2001.
6. Ильин
обращения 18.04.2014]
7. Конституция Российской Федерации. М., 2007.
8. Кучуков М.М. Дилемма будущего России и проблемы генезиса субъектности.
Гуманитарные и социальные - политические проблемы модернизации Кавказа.
Сборник научных статей / Отв. ред. Сампиев И.М. Назрань, 2011.
9. Медведев Н.П. Национальная политика России. М., 1993.
10. Россия федеративная: проблемы и перспективы. Монография / Под общей ред.
Иванова В.Н. М., 2001.
11. Сагаитова Л. Региональная идентичность: социальные детерминанты и
конструктивистская деятельность СМИ (на примере республики Татарстан). Центр и
региональные идентичности в России / Под ред. В. Гельмана и Т. Хопфа. СПб.; М.,
12. Саликов М.С. Сравнительный федерализм США и России. Автореф. дисс. канд. юр.
ресурс] [Дата обращения 15.04.2014]
13. Сампиев И.М. Институциализация самоопределения народов в политических
процессах на постсоветском Северном Кавказе. Магас, 2010.
14. Современный политический процесс в России: Учебно-справочное пособие / Авт.сост. В.И. Коваленко, Е. Н. Мощелков, А.В. Федякин и др. М.: Изд-во МНЭПУ, 2002.
15. Хейвуд Эндрю. Политология: Учебник для вузов. Перевод с английского под ред.
профессора Г.Г. Водолазова, доцента В.Ю. Бедьского. М., 2005.
August, 18, 2014
Размер файла
209 Кб
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа