In the first few months of President Kuchma's administration, Kiev continued to lose control over its remaining levers of influence in Crimea. In particular, the central authorities initially did little to take advantage of the favorable play of forces that emerged when both Crimean President Meshkov and the Crimean parliament succeeded in largely discrediting themselves during the fall of 1994. There seemed a general lack of will in Kiev to face up to harsh realities, make difficult decisions, and devise and implement consistent policies concerning the country's regions. As a result, inertia or ad hoc policymaking prevailed in the capital, and with some exceptions the old Soviet-era administrative elites in the regions were accommodated, probably in the hope they best understood and could therefore best control developments in the regions on Kiev's behalf. The best example of this accommodation was President Kravchuk's consistent support for Mykola Bahrov, the former first secretary of the Crimean branch of the CPSU and one of Kravchuk's old colleagues.46 Given the great shortage of experienced administrators who could act as alternatives to the local power bosses, rapid changes in the composition of the latter were not feasible, but President Kravchuk's administration did little to encourage the emergence of new, reform-minded elites in the regions.
Ukraine's central authorities were also slow to devise other means of influencing the situation in Crimea, to include ensuring that Crimea's population had access to various points of view concerning current and future developments in the peninsula and Ukraine as a whole. There were also few efforts to support the development of high-quality independent media outlets in Ukraine and improve the professional standards of state radio and television broadcasts.47 The situation and quality of the media are far from satisfactory anywhere in Ukraine,48 and the inhabitants of Crimea are particularly lacking in the diversity of information necessary for them to make decisions in their own best interests. The peninsula is almost totally dominated by local media and broadcasts and periodicals from Russia that almost always portray Kiev's policies in a highly negative and tendentious fashion.49
Kiev's inability to effectively predict, analyze, and influence developments in Crimea is symptomatic of other significant weaknesses of the Ukrainian state. Thus there was a considerable danger in early 1995 that the emergence of a vacuum of power in Crimea could lead to a further destabilization of the situation in this region. For example, the predominantly pro-Russian senior officers of the Black Sea Fleet, who had increasingly linked the fate of that fleet to that of Sevastopol' and Crimea as a whole, could have taken advantage of this situation to increase their leverage on the local political scene.
Russia's representatives are well aware of these weaknesses (e.g., Ukraine's indebtedness to Russia, largely the result of a heavy reliance on Russian fossil fuels) and have readily taken advantage of them to push for major concessions from their Ukrainian negotiating partners. However, even moderate concessions will leave the Russian military and its political masters in a strong position in Crimea. They will possess an excellent opportunity to continue influencing local political developments and, if necessary, quickly project force throughout the Black Sea region, especially the south of Ukraine. Kiev's decision in March 1995 to abolish the post of President of Crimea and to annul the Crimean constitution as well as a number of Crimean laws that do not correspond to Ukrainian laws, represents the most decisive action to date taken by Kiev to control the situation in Crimea.50 Although the Presidium of the Crimean legislature and many of its deputies have protested Kiev's moves there have been no mass protests in Crimea, and a substantial minority of the peninsula's legislators have even supported Kiev's actions.51 However, although President Kuchma has indicated that Crimea will be allowed to maintain its autonomy, it still appears that Kiev has no coherent strategy to deal with Crimea's anomalous status in Ukraine and centrifugal trends in other regions of the country.
Discussions of regional issues in Ukraine are frequently placed in the context of a debate on the virtues or drawbacks of introducing federalism in Ukraine. However, on the whole this debate has been marked more by emotions and sloganeering, as well as considerable ignorance of the comparative experience of federal states, than by a sober analysis of the pros and cons of federalism for Ukraine.
In particular, it has become popular among representatives of national-democratic and nationalist parties in Ukraine, to "demonize" the possible introduction of a federal system in Ukraine as inevitably leading to the strengthening of separatist movements in several of its regions. For example, a civic organization called "Mutual Understanding," recently launched by former President of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk, set as one of its goals
Consolidating the Ukrainian people and reaching a mutual understanding among the patriotic forces of society in the struggle against separatism, federalism, linguistic and cultural divisions, and in support of the unity and territorial integrity of our country.53However, many of the arguments against a federal system for Ukraine are based on rather flimsy logic. When pressed to explain the reasoning behind the apocalyptic scenario noted above, the opponents of a federal system for Ukraine frequently mention the worrisome precedent of the recent demise of federal states such as the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia. However, these were hardly typical federal political systems. For example, the literature on comparative federalism usually treats the USSR as a prime example of an authoritarian state that was only nominally federal and was actually more centralized than many unitary states.54
On a more emotional level, Ukrainian critics of federalism often try to discredit the idea by pointing out that a number of politicians in Russia have praised the virtues of introducing federal systems in Ukraine and other Soviet successor states. These politicians are perceived to have a hidden agenda, encouraging federalism in order to ensure weak neighbours that could readily be dominated by Russia or eventually be incorporated, in whole or in part, into a reborn Russian state or empire.55 Ukrainian critics of federalism also frequently consider regional elites to be potentially disloyal, harbouring ambitions of re-uniting their regions with the Russian "elder brother" or other neighboring states.56
There is some validity to these claims. For example, Russian officials negotiating the withdrawal of the 14th Army from the "Dniestr Republic" in Moldova strongly supported a federalization of Moldova that would provide Transnistria with considerable autonomy and the right to seek independence in the case of Moldovan integration with Romania.57 However, devoting too much attention to such external pressures clearly detracts from a sensible discussion of the merits and drawbacks of federalism and actually precludes consideration of the ways in which the introduction of federal structures can actually undercut the development of separatist movements. Instead one usually encounters a reflexive "fear of federalism" based largely on the conviction that Ukraine, as a weak state with numerous internal problems, simply cannot afford the luxury of undertaking major administrative-territorial reforms that might contribute to the country's destabilization.
The drastic deterioration of Ukraine's economy since independence has created a highly unfavorable setting for serious consideration of federal or other proposals for major territorial-administrative reforms. It is therefore understandable that after President Kuchma was elected in 1994, he and his associates focussed their attention on the crucial priority of promoting socioeconomic reforms. However, sooner or later the question of territorial-administrative reform will re-emerge, since Ukraine's present structure is a rather artificial legacy of the Soviet past.
In addition, the anomaly of an autonomous Crimea within an otherwise united Ukrainian state will continue to pose major problems for Ukraine unless an attempt is made to "regularize" Crimea's status. One option that would help resolve the Crimean anomaly, one frequently advocated by nationalist and some national-democratic politicians in Ukraine, is to revoke Crimea's present status as an autonomous republic within Ukraine and return it to the status of one of many provinces (oblasti) in a united Ukrainian state. However, such an initiative would meet with fierce resistance in Crimea. Given the extent to which the officers of the dominant Russian portion of the Black Sea Fleet have come to identify their interests with those of Crimea, there is a strong likelihood that the Black Sea Fleet, and in turn Russia, could be drawn into any resulting conflict between the Crimean and central Ukrainian authorities. A more feasible option is to allow Crimea to maintain autonomy and encourage a "creeping federalization" of Ukraine; this would satisfy some of the critics of radical federal experiments but gradually regularize Crimea's status. The example of Spain, which began a transition to liberal democracy in 1975 and engaged in a gradual form of federalization after a long period of authoritarian, centralized rule, could serve here as an interesting example for Ukraine.58 However, discussions on territorial-administrative reform in Ukraine will likely become more fruitful only after Ukraine evolves more in the direction of the model of a "civil society."
Certainly, one can seriously question the depth and sincerity of the interest in federalism of regional political elites, and the extent to which they are prepared to engage in the extensive, continuous negotiations and numerous compromises which are an integral part of any healthy federal system. In some regions, such as the Donets'k and Dnipropetrovs'k oblasts, local politics largely consist of the old Soviet nomenklatura practice of strongly defending local "clan" interests and fighting off other "clans" for influence in Kiev.59 In other regions, such as the Zakarpats'ka and Odessa oblasts, regional elites have simply tried to insulate themselves from the influence of Kiev and gain the maximum amount of economic autonomy. As one journalist noted with respect to the latter regions, "The idea of an open and honest dialogue with Kiev, and influencing it to engage in legal federalization has no support, and is not even enunciated." In combination with Kiev's failure to understand the extent of Ukraine's regional diversity, the result is that "federalization is perversely transformed into feudalization, and the dialogue of regions and cultures is transformed into conflict."60
Finally, any form of federalism introduced in Ukraine would have to be very flexible to accommodate the legitimate interests of the indigenous Tatar population of Crimea. In general discussions concerning Crimea, the Crimean Tatars unfortunately often are relegated to the status of a persistent "problem," which only complicates the already difficult situation in the peninsula. However, it should be emphasized that the Crimean Tatar leaders have been very consistent in advocating firm but peaceful means to achieve their primary aim, the re-establishment of a viable Crimean Tatar community in their homeland.
Thus the claims of the Crimean Tatars have more than just a moral basis, for their calm and measured behavior in the face of numerous provocations on the part of the local Crimean authorities has demonstrated that in some respects they are a stabilizing rather than destabilizing force. Certainly, the Crimean Tatars have shown themselves to be worthy partners in any dialogue between Kiev and Simferopol, and it would be a great mistake to fail to include them in such a dialogue.
The state-sponsored "homogenization" of all forms of sociopolitical activity during the Soviet period did a great deal to level regional differences in Ukraine. However, the historical legacies of the various regions of Ukraine are diverse, and the impact of these legacies has been supplemented by a renewed process of regional differentiation since Ukraine's independence. In fact, given the weak leadership displayed by the central authorities in recent years, it was inevitable that the regions largely go their own way in dealing with numerous local problems, and begin to depend more and more on their own resources. Decisive economic reforms will further encourage the process whereby the regions become more self-confident and self-reliant, diminishing their dependence on directives from the center and thus creating a more favorable setting for the possible federalization of Ukraine.
However, the importance of seriously addressing the option of a federal system for Ukraine has been stressed not because it is ideally suited to Ukraine, would be easy to implement, would satisfy all of its regions, and provides a fool-proof solution to the problems of regional conflict management, as Duchacek points out:
There is really no reliable way of answering the question as to when the constitutional federal recognition and guarantee of diversity may ultimately contribute to a sense of satisfaction and unity or when, on the contrary, the federal formula may reinforce the sense of a separate territorial destiny, including the possibility of going it alone. Occasionally the road to territorial disintegration has been paved with the best of federal intentions.61
Nonetheless, Ukraine's politicians need to engage in a more balanced discussion of Ukraine's neglected regional problems and the ways in which they can best be managed.62
In contrast to President Kravchuk's administration, which was marked by a dearth of dynamism and innovative thinking, President Kuchma's administration has shown great determination in formulating and beginning the implementation of long-overdue economic reforms. It has shown less initiative and creativity in dealing with regional issues; however, it is doubtful whether the regional status quo can be maintained much longer.
If President Kuchma and his advisors intend to introduce major territorial-administrative reforms it is understandable that they would want to lay the appropriate groundwork and ensure at least the preliminary cooperation of crucial regional elites before entering into substantive negotiations. However, there is little evidence of such groundwork, although there is a great need to finally break the self-destructive pattern whereby Kiev simply reacts (often with considerable delay and with limited effectiveness) to events in individual regions of the country.
The continued absence of a vigorous but reasoned debate on the virtues of a federal or quasi-federal variant of administrative-territorial reform in Ukraine is disturbing, because it allows the initiative to pass into the hands of those who advocate the strict subordination of all regions to Kiev's authority, with little recognition of their distinctive historical traditions and socio-economic characteristics. In addition, it is illogical to reject the idea of a federal Ukrainian state simply because it is advocated by many senior politicians in Russia, as well as regional leaders in Ukraine who are building personal fiefdoms or might harbour separatist ambitions. However, the longer a clear decision on Ukraine's territorial-administrative structure is delayed, the more this hesitation will embolden those in Russia and Ukraine who are looking for signs of weakness on the part of Kiev and who are ready and willing to exploit it.
| Return to Top | Return to Contents | Next Chapter | Previous Chapter |