Federalism and Local Politics in Russia

70 Andreas Heinemann-Grüder‘harmonization’ of republican constitutions was implemented at the expenseof the ethnic regions.A further question asked whether the status as a republic is seen as beneficialin receiving federal subsidies. Eight out of 31 respondents – equallydistributed among the republics – thought that the status as a republic isbeneficial. All others felt that the status does not pay off; the economicpotential of a region or the relationship of the leadership of the republic withthe federal government were more decisive. Very few felt that republicsshould not get any preferential treatment at all – but support should beneeds-based, not status-based.The deputies were additionally asked whether they would agree to changesin the current ethno-territorial make-up, either by splitting ethnic regions upor by merging them into larger units. Out of thirty-one respondents, fourapproved of a change of ethnic regions – that some ethnic regions withminimal autochthonous populations would only exist on paper as ethnicregions, for example the Yamalo-Nenets, the Khanty-Mansi, Komi orKareliya, and that furthermore regions with a similar ethnic compositioncould merge. The overwhelming majority of the respondents, however, thinkthat the ethno-territorial structure should be retained. Economically, achange of status could be reasonable, yet the republics were states, e.g. constitutiveunits of the federation. According to one respondent the ethnic‘subjects’ of the federation were a guarantee for the preservation of differentpeoples.The deputies were also asked whether each compactly settled group shouldhave its own republic, district or at least rayon. Out of thirty-one respondentsten were more or less unconditionally in favour of such a territorialityof ethnicity. Seven respondents qualified the quest for an own territory – theindividual situation should be taken into account, and any territorialityshould not be at the expense of other groups. Ethnically close peoples couldbe unified into one republic, and ethnic rayons would be justified in cases ofcompact settlement with a minimum group size of 10,000 ethnically distinctresidents. The duration of settlement should also be taken into account.Another respondent felt that ethnic groups would first have to deserve a territoryof their own. Among the proponents of ethnic territories we may alsocount those who plead for the retention of the current ethno-territorialmake-up, but who, given the potential for future conflict, were also againstthe formation of new ethnic units. Not a single deputy spoke out explicitlyagainst ethnic territories.The next question was linked to the former – how would the deputiesassess the idea of replacing ethnic regions by governments (guberniya), suchas occurred in tsarist times? All thirty-one respondents rejected this idea.Some responded that the guberniya would only result in more jobs forbureaucrats, and that the republics would lose their ability to support culturalpolicies. Federalism, it was also argued, would by definition consist ofethnic regions.