The Disintegration of the State - Russian Perspectives (Frank Harrison) In order to speak of politics in the modern era - an era which began with the French Revolution - one must consider the supremacy of the bureaucratic state. This era has seen how all previous political unions have been replaced by the state. The city dweller has become the base of all social analysis. It is taken for granted that patriotism is a good thing and the capacity of governments to mobilise their citizens and resources has become the measure of their efficiency, legitimacy and a form of self-justification. Such a model is to be found equally in the East as in the West. Soviet and North American patriotism have become the choice of their respective political elites. Kropotkin pointed out that the new economic forms of political organisation would become associated with a new economic order brought into being by the industrial revolution. This Statist view has come to dominate the modern mind. This naked and little questioned power - accepted as the norm - is responsible for the crimes of colonialism, the domination of the third world by the developed world. However, there is some resistance to recognising this model of the State. Inequality, class struggle, regional and linguistic conflicts and indifference threaten the legitimacy of this political sphere. Pluralism doesn't always function smoothly, that is to say, when pluralism doesn't function neither does the sate. The authority of the State is rejected: Catholics in Northern Ireland, Kurds in Turkey, Serbs in Bosnia etc. are starting to grasp for a new political reality. This is the current crisis of the State. The State is seen as the enemy in the ghettos of the USA, in the Sik temples in India, on a Catholic street in Belfast and when it appears in any place in the former Russian Federation. Each State requires certain conditions to be fulfilled in order to sustain its authority, these are: - a culture of obedience - a recognised source of authority - Corporatism and a sense of commitment in the Civil and Armed Services. - an ability to give privilege to the interrelated elites (political, cultural, economic, military...) - quasi governmental organisations who co-ordinate necessities and expectations in such a way so that the government can act as intermediary - an ability to generate state interests which supersede local conflicts (relating to, for example, religious/linguistic conflicts and/or standard of living expectations) All these mechanisms taken together lay the foundations of the psychological and organisational adhesion of any given State. In the former USSR it was the Communist Party which formed the nucleus of these integrated mechanisms until it collapsed (over the last three years). The first question which arises for those who are pleased to see the collapse of a State should be: Out of the Russian Federation will there be formed a new federation of States or is a new Russian imperialism a possibility? Will there be a return to centralism in Russia or are there other options? The collapse of the State should be a cause of celebration since we have been 'brainwashed' with the concept of the State to the point that Yeltsin, having declared himself the new Russian dictator, the West applauds and is pleased that Russia is back on the road towards reunification. Fortunately they are mistaken. Previous speakers have shown an interest/concern with nationalism. I find myself in agreement with someone who in the 1930s who was asked if he would betray the State or his friend answered, 'I hope I would betray the State' because I would never betray my friend. For me nationalism is the same as tribalism. In my written work I claim that the modern State is the product of the French Revolution. Kropotkin wrote that the factor which characterised the dehumanisation of society was the technical structure. However,. the State dominates our consciousness, it is the 'norm' it is accepted as the natural state of things. But the State exists by the skin of its teeth. Wherever you will find a state you will find it owing its existence to the lies of political propaganda and the powers of its police. When the lying ends the state collapses as it has done in Russia. It collapsed in the former USSR but it has also collapsed in the Russia of today; today Russia is neither a government nor a nation; today it is made up of 89 governments. The capacity for integration lies only in the Communist party. When the Communist Party lost its legitimacy so did the State. Does the Russian State have the power to reintegrate itself if it doesn't exist? My answer is NO. The Russian State as the Soviet State no longer exist and will not exist again. However, the dominant factor is the remaining reunificatory capacity within the old Soviet Union within contemporary Russia. In this I feel we can see an example of the failure of the modern State. I think and I hope that the elites of all states are trembling. This cannot be seen as a victory for anarchism but rather the end of the capacity of such politics to promote integration. When we look towards Russia we see total institutional confusion, Moscow and its politics are pure theatre; the Supreme Court, the Presidency, Yeltsin etc... are mere actors. They entertain us because they have no power. But what of the future? I suggest five possibilities. The first is 'Military Fascism'; the military could come to represent an active force for reunification, I don't think this will happen. Today there are more officers that soldiers in the armed forces and the youth are voting with their feet. They will not enlist. Moreover the military are very divided. Nor does the economy give them money for equipment. Today these forces have neither the personnel, the material nor the unity/solidarity that they need. Today Military Fascism is not possible. Secondly 'Capitalism' as a system of recuperation didn't work, doesn't work and will not work in Russia. It is not a question of accepting or rejecting the capitalist ideology which has indeed been culturally rejected. The 'free enterprise economy' can only survive and grow if two conditions are fulfilled: 1) Give the workers higher levels of employment and remuneration 2) Have some comparative advantage vis a vis the rest of the world - an advantage used by the State to generate investment in the country and sell outside of its frontiers within the framework of monetary stability. But when the state industries are being shut down, unemployment is reaching 20 million and savings are annihilated by hyper inflation running at 1 000% pa economic dislocation is the outcome and we come to realise that capitalism is not the means for bringing about Russian reunification. Thirdly 'Constitutional Federalism'; the fragmentation caused in part by the economic decline has favoured the appearance of an initiative aiming at a 'constitutional solution' which consists in producing a document which defines the sharing of power in equal parts between the Centre and the Regions/Republics and also a Justice System which would have the power to resolve the various disputes between the factions and parties which make up the organisation of the State. On the 12 July 93 the delegates to the Constitutional Assembly gave their consent to such a document and gave the President the power to dissolve parliament and call elections. The Federal law took priority over the laws of the various Republics and the vice-presidency was abolished. However, the evidence suggests that the Regions and the Republics have no intention to subordinate themselves to Moscow; the leaders of the Republics have rejected the priority of the federal law. There was a tendency for the Republics to declare themselves independent. Amur, Vologda, Sverdlovsk, St. Petersburg and Primorsky Krai this summer. But there is no tradition of independence of this kind in Russia and the conflict between Yeltsin and the Constitutional tribunal is a part of the 'theatre' which the national Russian government is a part of today. Russia has collapsed and the new documents will not bring back the old system nor will they bring into being a new one. The political analysts indicate that Russia is in a pre-party state. There do not exist national political groupings and without these the state cannot resuscitate itself. In order for Yeltsin to win enough power he will have to draw on institutions and persons and move towards a form of power that we can call 'Civil Fascism' which is the fourth possibility. When I wrote this (July 93) I suggested that Yeltsin might attempt a 'coup d'etat', a constitutional seizure of power calling on the forces of democracy in Russia, but that this also would fail because such a constitutional fascism was based on the belief that only a minority was democratic. I believe that this plan is also destined to fail due to the fact that local organisations in Russia are not keen to collaborate with the 'actors' in Moscow. There will be no massive mobilisation of support for Yeltsin who, moreover, has never enjoyed majority support. In the April referendum only 6 out of 10 voted and of these only 6 out of 10 voted for Yeltsin. We are speaking of a man whose popularity in April was not that of the majority and whose popularity is currently in decline. The political logic of the old regime put the Communist Party in a position of 'infallible doctrine' to justify social and political authoritarianism. With the disappearance of this not only is there a political vacuum but also a distrust of secular ideologies. There is now the possibility of a call to the myths of nationalism, race, religion and blood especially if the situation deteriorates; crime rises and life expectancy falls. Fascism could come about in Russia due to the absence of politics. My conclusion as an anarchist is a positive one. I look towards the fifth possibility which will be as envisaged by Proudhon 'Decentralised Federalism'. Russia has this capacity which could serve as an example to other states. I am no expert on Spanish matters, but I understand that there was a strong federal tradition in this country before the dictatorship. The federalist capacity which exists in every state also exists in Russia but there is no guarantee that it will be successful. When a central regime admits its inability to control local authorities the development of a federalist system could prove the best solution for Russia in these times. The system is characterised by a multiplicity of local authorities and constant change in the political sphere at a local level. Vaclav Havel, president of the Czech Republic concluded that in this post-Leninist situation there exists the remains of an 'evil' in a moral sense reflected in racism, nationalism, aggression and crime. Havel is confident that once this 'evil' is eliminated a new social integration will come into being, I concur. I conclusion when I think of the possibilities which inspire me I think, not of Havel but of Bakunin and Proudhon. I suggest that we continue to focus on the ideals of the French Revolution properly speaking that is to say liberty, equality and fraternity. Bakunin said that he would not consider himself to be free as long as one single person did not enjoy liberty: 'if there is one person who is not free I am not free'. Perhaps we can say that the end of communism in Europe marks the beginning of history. There exists the possibility of outcomes other than those which prevail in Bosnia: an indication of the renovation of the anarchist solution understood in the Proudhonian sense of 'order without authority'.