俄羅斯的聯邦制與民族自治--以1990年代為中心的分析

Abstract

俄羅斯作為一個多民族的聯邦國家，自一九九一年獨立以後採行市場改革與民主制度，轉型後面臨國家、民族與民主化的多重挑戰。民主轉型是一條冗長而複雜的道路，而且通常不是一條坦途。俄羅斯也不可避免要面對這樣的挑戰。俄羅斯的聯邦制度承繼了前蘇聯的遺緒，前蘇聯的民族區域自治政策相當程度的影響了俄羅斯的聯邦制度。聯邦制度被許多人視為是一種能容納民族多元文化的制度化機制，但是採行聯邦制的俄羅斯一開始就面對蜂擁而至的民族分離勢力，統一成為議題而非共識，聯邦制度與民族自治的關係與發展成為攸關俄羅斯未來的一項重要問題，本文就選擇俄羅斯的聯邦制與民族自治作為論文主題，而以一九九○年作為分析的中心。\n 本文研究架構從新制度主義的研究途徑來探討後共時期的俄羅斯，我們在文中有三項主要的分析架構。首先，我們選擇由轉型學中的一項相當顯著的概念－「協議轉型」，來省視它的民主化過程。我們使用政治學家卡爾對協議的探討，他分析協議內涵包括基礎性與管理性，對於協議有進一步的瞭解。同時，他使用策略與主導力量的變數作出了民主轉型的類型表，本文作者則修正其類型表增加兩項變數，從使用策略與主導力量的角度來分析俄羅斯轉型過程中，涉及聯邦制度與地區自治的幾項協議，包括《聯盟條約》、《聯邦條約》、《俄羅斯聯邦憲法》、《俄韃條約》、《公民協定》與《權力分享協定》作為分析對象；此外，也將俄羅斯轉型初期地區力量最為凸顯的韃靼斯坦與車臣兩個民族共和國，以及本文所分析的三個個案－喀爾瑪克、布里亞特與圖瓦，也一併置於類型表中作分析。這些協議除了《公民協定》以外，其餘協議對於俄羅斯聯邦制度的發展以及俄羅斯聯邦與地區的關係都有影響。我們在此發現，除了《俄羅斯聯邦憲法》是屬於「菁英與群眾合作」的「強制接受」的類型外，其餘都是「協商妥協」中的「菁英優勢」類型。雖然絕大多數的協議都是以協商妥協的方式通過，但是因為國家根本大法憲法以強制方式通過，也是造成俄羅斯後來政局不穩定的最主要因素之一。其次，我們從多位政治學者對聯邦制度的理論探討，包括不對稱聯邦制度的分析，來探討俄羅斯聯邦制度的安排，由俄羅斯聯邦憲法對於中央與地區的權力劃分來詳細分析俄羅斯聯邦制度的特徵。從學者分析不對稱聯邦制度模式會有衝突的潛在性，對聯邦制度的發展不具正面的功能，甚至可能會危及聯邦的統一，對俄羅斯聯邦制度的不穩定可以提供部分的解釋功能。最後，我們從策略運用的角度來分析俄羅斯聯邦與地區的關係，將俄羅斯由獨立初期至一九九○年代末期，聯邦政府與地區（特別是民族共和國）所運用的策略，由策略型式、時間演進與光譜分布，來研究一九九○年代俄羅斯聯邦政府與地區的關係發展梗概。從一九九○年代初期的「主權的遊行」到一九九四年以後的「雙邊條約的遊行」的現象發展中，可以發現從時間演進與光譜分布來看，俄羅斯聯邦政府是節節敗退，先懷柔與施惠，最後才祭出武力作為施壓。而自一九九四年的第一次車臣戰爭以後，地區分離力量已有所收斂，地區轉而爭取經濟與自治權益居多，直至普丁總統上任以後，才著手積極整頓聯邦政府與地區的幾項爭議問題。\n本文使用新制度主義研究途徑探討俄羅斯聯邦與民族自治，以一九九○年代為分析中心，並以喀爾瑪克、布里亞特與圖瓦三個共和國作為個案探討對象。文中以俄羅斯獨立至葉爾辛下台作為主要的研究分析期，詳實分析俄羅斯聯邦發展過程中如何處理民族問題，以期對多民族國家處理民族問題的做法有更深一層的瞭解。全文分為六章。第一章緒論。敘述研究動機、所使用的研究途徑、研究架構與章節分配。第二章探討民族主義與俄羅斯，敘述俄羅斯與民族主義的關係，對俄羅斯民族主義的特徵、蘇聯的民族理論與政策與蘇聯解體的民族因素，先作背景因素的探討。第三章分析俄羅斯的民主化與聯邦制。對俄羅斯獨立初期的民主轉型，特別是以協議轉型作為分析重心。分析俄羅斯獨立以後的多項協議的內涵與重要性，再從聯邦制的理論來分析俄羅斯所採取的聯邦制內涵與特徵。第四章分析俄羅斯聯邦中央與地區的關係。以俄羅斯的民族政策、俄羅斯聯邦中央與地區的關係，以及地區精英作為觀察中心。第五章選擇喀爾瑪克、布里亞特與圖瓦三個民族共和國作為研究個案，這三個共和國是蒙古族後裔或與蒙古族族源接近的民族所聚居的共和國，文中比較分析三個共和國在俄羅斯獨立以後的策略以及與中央的互動。第六章結論。先評估俄羅斯的民主化與聯邦制度的優缺點，再從普丁總統上任以後對俄羅斯聯邦制度的改革、俄羅斯作為多民族聯邦國家與民主鞏固的關係作前景的探討。\n本文認為俄羅斯聯邦制度承繼了前蘇聯的制度遺緒，再披上現代民主的形式，使得俄羅斯的聯邦制難以調適民主化以後的變革。一九九○年代聯邦政府處理地區－特別是民族共和國－的分離勢力捉襟見肘。聯邦政府對分離力量收斂以後所代之而起的地區爭權趨勢，也始終未能理順，導致普丁總統上任以後對地區勢力不斷採取抑制方式。本文認為俄羅斯聯邦制度需作結構性的調整，以適應未來的改革，否則地區力量會隨著中央的衰頹東山再起，對俄羅斯長遠的發展並不利。

As a multi-ethnic federation nation, Russia, since its independence in 1991, initiated market reform and embarked on establishing a democratic system. In the process of this transformation, it had to confront many challenges related to ethnicity and democratization. Democratization is a long and complex process and, more than often, not an easy road. Russia too, hence, was not exempted from facing such challenges.\nThe federalism of Russia has inherited some remnants of its legacy from former Soviet Union. Former Soviet Union’s policy of regional autonomy based on ethnicity has had substantial degree of influence on Russia’s federalism. The federalism is regarded by many people as a systematic mechanism which is able to accommodate a multi-ethnic culture. However, Russia, at the very onset of adopting this system, had to confront many forces which supported ethnic separation. Unification became a mere agenda not mutual consensus. The relationship between federalism and ethnic autonomy and development became an important issue for the future of Russia. This paper hereby chooses the federalism of Russia and ethnic autonomy as the topic of the thesis, and selects the 1990s as the focal point of this analytical study.\nThe analytical framework of this paper exploits the approach of new-institutionalism to examine a post-Communist Russia. Our paper comprises of three key frameworks for analysis. First, we will pick one of the relatively distinct concepts of democratic transition-“Pacted Transitions” to analyze Russia’s democratization process. Let’s take the reference of political expert Terry Lynn Karl’s study on compromise. His analysis on pacts includes both basics and managerial, thus offering a much better understanding on pacts. At the same time, he employs strategy and leadership as variables to create modes of transition to democracy. The writer of this paper amends this chart to include two additional variables. From the aspect of strategy and leadership, we can analyze some of the compromises undertaken by the federalism and regional autonomies including the “Union Treaty,” the Federation Treaty, the Constitution of Russian Federation, “On Delimitation of Jurisdictional Subjects and Mutual Delegation of Authority between the State Bodies of the Russian Federation and the Russian Federation and the State Bodies of the Republic of Tatarstan,” the Civic Accord, the power-sharing agreements between Russian federal government and its subjects, etc, which Russia encountered during its transition process. In addition to these, this paper will also accommodate in its analysis chart the ethnic republics of Tatarstan and Chechnya - two most prominent regional forces during the initial period of Russia’s transition, plus three study cases on Kalmykiya, Buryat and Tuva.\nAll the above mentioned treaties and agreements, with the exception of the Civic Accord, had significant influence on the development of Russia’s federalism and the interrelationship between the Federation and the territories. Here we’ll discover that, except for the “Constitution of Russian Federation” which can be classified as “Imposition” in the mode of ”Cooperation between the elite and the mass”, the rest belong to the mode of “Compromise” in “Elite Ascendant”. Even though most of the agreements were conceived by way of compromises, but since the national constitution was passed and approved in a coercive manner, this has remained as one of the predominant reason for the subsequent instability of the Russian Federation. Secondly, while referring to the theories proposed by various political experts on the federalism, including studies on asymmetrical federalism, we can examine the arrangement of the Russian Federalism and analyze its characteristics from its constitution’s perspective on division of powers and jurisdictions between the center and the territories. From the analyses of these experts, wherein they infer that this type of asymmetrical federalism holds potential for generating conflicts and does not have any positive influence towards the development of the federalism, even to the extent of possible undermining of the federation’s unification, we can provide some explanation for the instability of the Russian Federation.\nFinally, let us inspect the development of relationship between the Russian Federation and the regions from the perspective of utilization of strategies - the strategies which were employed by the Federal government and the territories (especially the ethnic republics) from the time of Russia’s initial phase of independence till the late nineteen nineties, and through the type of strategies, time progression and the distribution of spectrum, understand the synopsis of this relationship.\nFrom the development of events since the “Parade of Sovereignties” in the early nineties till the “Parade of Bilateral Treaties,” after 1994, by referring to time progression and the distribution of spectrum we can understand that the government of the Russian Federation has been deteriorating progressively –at first posing benign and offering incentives, and then eventually resorting to oppression by military might. Since it’s first conflict with Chechnya in 1994, the secessionist forces in the regions have relatively quailed, with the majority of the territories rather claiming for economic rights and autonomy. It was only after the appointment of President Vladimir Putin that these problems between the federal government and the territories were intensively looked into and dealt with.\nThis paper utilizes the approach of new-institutionalism to analyze the Russian Federation and the ethnic autonomies. We choose the nineteen nineties period as the focus of this research and select Kalmykiya, Buryat and Tuva as the subjects for case studies. This paper allots the time beginning from the independence of Russia till the departure of President Boris Yeltsin as the primary time period for analysis, with in-depth look on ways to resolve ethnic conflicts while studying the process of development of the Russian Federation, with a hope to get a deeper understanding of how to resolve ethnic problems within a multi-ethnic nation.\nThe whole paper is comprised of six chapters.\nThe first chapter explains the motive of this study, the various approaches used for the study, the frameworks of this analysis and the distribution of the chapters. Taking the characteristics of nationalism in Russia, it’s ethnic groups and various related theories and policies instigating the disintegration of the former Soviet Union as the basis of study for its background aspects, the second chapter deals with nationalism and Russia, the interrelationship between the two.\nThe third chapter probes into Russia’s democratization and its federalism. It analyzes Russia’s early stages of transition to democracy with special reference to “Pacted Transition” as the focal point. Here we study the contents and significance of the various treaties and agreements of Russia and thereafter from the theories of the federalism, we analyze the essence and features of the federalism adopted by Russia.\nThe fourth chapter focuses on the relationship between the Russian federal government and the territories. Here we take Russia’s policies on ethnicity, the relationship between the federal government and the regions and the regional elites as the focus of our observation.\nThe fifth chapter partakes the republics of Kalmykia, Buryat and Tuva as case studies for this research. These three republics are either descendants of the Mongol or have close association with Mongoloid ancestry. In this chapter we take a look at the policies adopted after Russia’s independence and their interaction with the center.\nThe sixth chapter evaluates the pros and cons of Russia’s democratization and federalism. Thereafter, as the foreground of this paper, we study all the reforms in Russia, which are undertaken by the Russian Federation following the election of President Vladimir Putin, and the relationship between Russia, a multi-ethnic nation and its democratic consolidation.\nThis paper assumes that Russia has inherited the vestiges of former Soviet Union and at the same time adorning itself with a style of a modern democracy, making it very difficult to adapt to changes following its democratization. In the nineteen nineties, the Russian federal government was quite unsuccessful in handling the secessionist forces in the regions, especially the ethnic republics. The federal government was unable to restrain the trend in regional power struggles, which became fervent after the secessionist forces tempered down. This eventually led to the use of prolonged methods of suppression by President Vladimir Putin. This paper assumes that the Russian Federation needs to make major structural changes in its system in order to adapt itself to future reforms, failing which, the regional forces will once again rise up as the center weakens, thus proving unfavorable for the development of Russia in the long-run.