ABSTRACT

In a seminal article on comparative federalism published just over forty years ago, Anthony Birch observed that it was much better to approach the study of federal systems by trying first to identify the similarities between different systems than to begin with basic conceptual matters and definitions of federalism that served to underline their differences and made comparative analysis much more difficult to achieve.1 In this chapter I want to follow the line of reasoning adopted by Nancy Bermeo who believes that institutions – and by inference federal systems – ‘are best assessed from multiple vantage points’ so that ‘a fair analysis requires both comparative and historical perspectives’.2 To be effective, comparative federalism must be rooted in historical analysis so that important legacies, which establish lines of continuity indispensable to our understanding of contemporary change, are acknowledged and incorporated in current explanations. In the case of the Russian Federation, the Soviet legacy of federalism has

to be confronted and addressed as a historical and ideological specificity before any meaningful comparative perspectives can be assembled. As we shall see, most of the current problems, stresses and strains together with the contemporary challenges, trends and developments in Russian federalism can be ascribed to this troublesome legacy. The Russian Federation that came into existence during 1991-3 emerged in the most difficult and unpromising of circumstances, which certainly did not bode well for future democratic stability. It was also built upon an extremely fragile foundation, one that replaced the former Soviet federal state structure cemented by a unitary centralized single party system, which effectively controlled all the institutions of policy-making and policy-implementation together with all the lines of political communication. It was, in short, a federal facade. This means that we must be both careful and cautious in deciding pre-

cisely what comparative perspectives to choose. We are confronted by two conceptually and empirically distinct federations that existed in different historical epochs, one that endured for nearly seventy years, as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the USSR (1922-91), and the other as its putative

successor, the Russian Federation, formally for a mere fifteen years (1993-to date). There might be some lingering intellectual doubts about how accurate it is to construe the Russian Federation as the direct successor to the USSR but for our purposes in this chapter the period 1991-3 can be viewed as a convenient interregnum during which the preponderant Russian state reemerged from Soviet disintegration and reasserted itself with mixed success vis-à-vis the remnants of the former empire both within and without Russia proper. From this brief introductory survey we can appreciate that for many

observers the comparison that is most relevant is not so much with other federations as with Russia’s own past. In a sense it is impossible to compare it with federations outside Russia without first taking stock of its own albeit chequered federal experience. With this in mind the chapter will be divided into two main parts. The first part is itself subdivided into two sections, notably the enduring Soviet legacy of federalism in theory and practice followed by a second legacy, namely, the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the resurgence of Russia during 1991-3. We will begin with the Soviet legacy of federalism and we will examine the nature, meaning and political uses of this legacy and some of its implications for the Russian Federation. But we will also look subsequently at the USSR and the Russian Federation from the comparative perspective of the origins and formation of federations. This second section on the legacy of Soviet disintegration is important from the particular standpoint of its serious practical implications both for the Russian state and for the nature of Russian federalism. This approach, in turn, will enable us to place the Yeltsin era of Russian federalism that followed the initial federation building process (1993-2000) in an accurate historical perspective so that the succeeding, currently controversial, Putin era (2000-8) can also receive an even-handed contemporary assessment. The second part of the chapter will briefly explore the Russian Federation

from four distinct comparative perspectives, some of which emerge from the first part. These are identified in the following way: the federal bargain; historical legacies of centralization; ethnic diversity and multi-nationalism; and asymmetrical federalism. Together these four principal perspectives assist towards an overall assessment of the character and prospects for democratic stability of the Russian Federation from the standpoint of comparative analysis. The chapter will conclude with some thoughts and reflections about the extraordinarily difficult predicament that confronts political leadership in the Russian Federation in the new millennium. Let us begin our assessment with the Soviet legacy of federalism in theory and practice.