Parallel Patterns of Power? Local Government Reform in Late Imperial and Post Soviet Russia

Abstract

Throughout the reign of President Boris Yeltsin, the vast majority of scholarly attention from the West concentrated on national politics in Russia - the political and economic developments in and around Moscow. Thus, federal institutions, federal elections, federal executive-legislative relations, national political parties and national personalities, as well as national fiscal and economic policies were the main objects of study. Even in the study of Russia's disparate regions, the bulk of attention was most often directed towards how federal relations between, for example, Sverdlovsk and Moscow affected the federal government rather than Russian society as a whole. Of course, Russian transitology requires a sharp focus on national issues. Building even a semi stable democracy would require Russia to make significant progress in all issues noted above. Yet too often overlooked in all this academic output has been what is happening in the everyday lives of common people. Continual reports of wage arrears and declining living standards were shunted aside to focus on corporate governance and regression analysis. The pursuit of statistics to bolster the claim that Russia had crossed the valley of transition overshadowed the poverty and misery of everyday life. As in Russia's past, the means of reform took a back seat to the intended ends, as formulated and pursued by thinkers and theorists. Thus, for example, privatization was considered successful because 70% of enterprises fell under private control. But the very process of privatization, and the consequences of non production from racketeers with title to these same enterprises should have sent alarm bells ringing many years earlier. It is little wonder that after years of looking the wrong way, too many Western observers are now surprised that Russian politics and society seem so upside down. This study is based on two propositions. First, while scholars have been encouraged to utilise comparative analysis in the study of post Soviet Russia, it is important to note that the building and testing of theory may come at the expense of understanding the object of study. This is especially evident when scholars are more wedded to methodology and theoretical claims than to empirical evidence.