Federalism and Local Politics in Russia

76 Andreas Heinemann-Grüdercounter Wahhabi fundamentalism. In Ingushetiya, a law allowing polygamyand elements of traditional justice was not rescinded. In Chechnya’s constitution,even the notion of sovereignty and republican citizenship was permitted.A loss of the Russian president’s confidence may in future justify firing agovernor. This opens up ample space for subjective judgement; it contradictsthe conception of due process. The term of an appointed governor is nolonger specified. The Russian president can nominate those who havealready served two or even three gubernatorial terms — and this is the carrotwhich makes incumbents give in. The appointed governors may take backsome of the duties transferred to the federal districts and thus be compensatedfor their loss of an independent source of legitimacy.Putin’s appointment of governors will restrict political access and expression,diminish popular control and accountability. It will provide institutionalincentives for nepotism and corruption, and it is therefore likely torevive resentment and frustration. 63 Added to the changes in electoral andparty laws, the political space open for contestation has been substantiallyreduced. If performance and efficiency depend on competition over strategiesand outcomes, they must perforce suffer because loyalty trumps competition.Governors will no longer have to search for a local base, but insteaddemonstrate obedience and look for access to the presidential administration.The appointment of governors will change the whole architecture andpatterns of political regimes in the regions. Furthermore, in the long run theKremlin alone will be held responsible for mischief in the regions.10 ConclusionsDo the recent developments in Russian federalism fit into a larger trend inthe development of multi-ethnic federations? In principle, one can observethat de jure asymmetries seem to be more pronounced at the early stages ofa federalization process in multi-ethnic states. Over time, they are mostlypushed back. This does not just hold true for Russia, but for Spain, Indiaand Nigeria as well. At the outset, federalization processes seem to be characterizedby a pointed juxtaposition of the central government and theregions which is transformed into differentiated regional attitudes vis-à-visthe centre.The Russian case illustrates that different forms of instutionalizing ethnicityreact to dynamically changing ethnic group characteristics. The Russiancase also provides evidence that probably all attempts to institutionalizeethnicity are of a temporary nature. Any arrangement will have to reactflexibly to changing socio-structural and demographic givens as well asshifting political identifications. The popular thesis according to which theinstitutionalization of ethnicity and the territorialization of ethnicity becomea resource of a ‘nationalizing nationalism’ and a hardening of groupboundaries is probably far too sweeping. The nominal discretion over a