It would be an exaggeration to say that the agreement took place smoothly. Tatarstan and Chechnya did not sign the document; Bashkortostan and the Tyumen Region consented to sign at the last moment, only after their opinion had been taken into account; and "The Minutes to the Federation Treaty on the Division of the Entities and Jurisdiction between the Federal Bodies of the State Power of the Russian Federation and the Authorities of the Regions, and the

Cities of Moscow and St.Petersburg of the Russian Federation" was signed, with amendments, by the Kaluga and the Leningrad regions, and the city of St.Petersburg.

On April 10, 1992 the Congress of People's Deputies of Russia adopted a resolution that the Federation Treaty was to be included into the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Thus, the Constitution established unequal subjects - the three federative treaties provide ample evidence for this (if the subjects are equal, then what is the sense of signing different treaties with them?):

1. "Treaty on the Division of the Entities and Jurisdiction between the Federal Bodies of the State Power of the Russian Federation and the Bodies of Power of the Sovereign republics within the Russian Federation" and "the Minutes" to it;

2. Treaty on the Division of the Entities and the Jurisdiction between the Federal Bodies of the State Power of the Russian Federation and the Authorities of the Territories, Regions, the Cities of Moscow and St.Petersburg of the Russian Federation", and "the Minutes" to it;

3. Treaty on the Division of the Entities and the Jurisdiction between the Federal Bodies of the State Power of the Russian Federation and the Bodies of Power of the Autonomous Area and Autonomous Districts within the Russian Federation".

Such a division was made regardless of the fact that the preamble of the first treaty stipulates the realization of "the priority of human rights and freedoms irrespective of nationality and place of residence, as well as the peoples' right to self-determination". In any case, the given formula (proceeding from the texts of the treaties) obtains an

essential limitation: all the nationalities of Russia, except for the Russians, (represented in the Treaty by faceless regions and territories, unlike those of the Bashkirs or the Yakuts) enjoy the right to "self- determination", and if so, then "the priority of the rights and freedoms regardless of nationality" turns out to be quite different;

- numerous vague wordings of the federative treaties. For example, the "Treaty on the Division of the Entities and the Jurisdiction between the Federal Bodies of the State Power of the Russian Federation and the Bodies of Power of the Sovereign republics within the Russian Federation" contains the following definition of the status of natural resources (article III, paragraph 3): "The status of federal natural resources shall be defined by mutual agreement of the federal bodies of state power of the Russian Federation and the bodies of state power of the republics within the Russian Federation." There are two alternatives here: the status of the resources is either federal or subject to negotiations, but not both. It would have been better to start with negotiations, and only after that to establish the negotiated status in such an important document as the

Federation treaty. These vague wordings contain references to the equally vague provisions of the Constitution of "the Russian Federation (Russia)".

The peculiarity of our federative treaties consists in the fact that the "Russian Federation", the subject which should be indicated in the treaty, and the rights of which should only be determined by the federation subjects, itself signs all three treaties as a subject (such could serve as examples of Bertrand Russell's notion of a "normal set"). According to Russell, a "normal set" is one which contains all of its elements, plus itself. The same true for our "federation". Recalling recent history, the same kind of formula ("9+1") was set forth during the so-called "Novo- Ogarevo process".

Another distinctive feature of our federative treaties is that the autonomous districts ("okruga" in Russian) and the autonomous oblast, which signed a separate Federation Treaty, are a constituent part of the Russian regions and territories, which signed a separate Federation Treaty among themselves. It was a paradox that several "unequal", and at the same time (considering the declarations) "equal" subjects of the federation coexisted within a region or a territory: the autonomous okrugs and the autonomous oblast, or the oblasts proper and the territories ("krai" in Russian). (Such a situation is far from harmless. In practice it is already driving us toward a situation in which, for example, the Taimir Autonomous District in the Krasnoyarsk Territory has actually succeeded separating from the Territory and, moreover the city of Norilsk has decided in favour of separating from the Krasnoyarsk Territory and joining the Taimir Autonomous District.)

In this connection one can formulate the question of whether "the Russian Federation (Russia)" is a federative state. Or is it still a unitary state?

The process itself of signing the treaties, and even their titles ("Treaty on Division of Authority..."), forces us to presume the latter.

However, this is a unitary state in the process of disintegration. If we speak not of the de jure situation but rather of that which exists de facto, then rapid destruction of traditional vertical institutions of government is a peculiar feature of the present condition of the state. This can be "read between the lines" in the "Treaties", but still - both in name and in deed - it is an attempt to preserve at least what remains of these institutions.

What matters is not the realization that the institutions of the central power - in whatever condition they are - the values obtained during Russia's centuries-long history, and the problem should be formulated as follows: during transition to a true federation, how must one transform the centralized state power, to prevent history from repeating itself by the collapse of the Union. What do the territories

and the central authority have to undertake in order to achieve this? The problem has not been even formulated (or, obviously, realized) in this way.

The actions of the central powers conceal a cowardly intention to preserve their power at any cost, and the hope that all this will "pass", that the republics and the regions rapidly acquiring rights will not be able to take away everything from the central power. In this sense the present federal authorities are mimicking the ways of the leadership of the USSR.

The fact that already adopted laws are still not coordinated with the Federation Treaty, and that Russia's ministries did not perform work on the division of jurisdiction between the federal and republican bodies of power in compliance with the respective Treaty, provides evidence of the unitary nature of the present state.

If one takes federation seriously, then it should be regarded as a product of a new form of state, and not just a simple redistribution of rights within the framework of the old order. If the latter is correct, then our federalism is a false one. Statements to the effect that "the Federation Treaty is a great achievement in the constitutional and legal solution of our national problems, and today it guarantees stability in Russia and creates substantial perspectives for constitutional reform in the country" (G.Burbulis) should be recognized as not conforming to reality.

Conversely, in its present form the Federation Treaty seems to be a document which through the vagueness of its wordings creates a convenient position as regards the conflicts on the territory of the Russian Federation.

It is still early to raise the issue of signing the Federation Treaty. Certain prerequisites should be fulfilled. A true Federation is still to be approached. In any case, movement toward one should start from below.

And only after responsible subjects of the Federation are formed, will it be possible to speak of the signing of a corresponding document (the same idea has been expressed recently, but in a slightly different form, by R.Abdulatipov, the Chairman of the Council of Nationalities of the Supreme Soviet of Russia: "one could sign ten Federation Treaties, but if politics, economics and culture do not produce the appropriate support, Russia will disintegrate. The separatism will be not only ethnic, but also regional").

Formation of such subjects is a long-term process, but we can attempt to accelerate it.

[previous] [CONTENTS] [next]