The article describes how globalization affects the processes taking place within a particular state. The integration of federal states and the world community has an ambiguous, often contradictory effect on all aspects of people’s lives, causing both positive and negative changes. The continuing process of globalization is conceived as a close engagement both with individual countries and human society at large. In a globalized environment, ethno-national interests in the Russian Federation are strongly influenced by such factors as the unification of regional governance framework, regardless of the national interests of a titular nation that resides in a particular region. Thanks to new powers to advocate for greater openness of all activities undertaken by the State, both the world as a whole and the Russian society are becoming more than ever interdependent and mutually complementary. Therefore, in rebuilding external interaction, the internal relations between the center and its regions also change. The article attempts to question whether globalization affects the relations between the center and the regional entities in the Russian Federation. It actuates some common signs enabling to shape an idea of the process of globalization as such, an idea of its possible expressions in a federal state, since the relations between the center and the regional entities, being the core of Russian federalism, become closer and more multilateral. The study also raises the question of how the functions, rights, responsibilities, and powers of the center and regions correlate in creating an enabling environment for a decent life.
In recent years, globalization has already become one of the most widely used terms for describing the current state in the world. It spans a wide range of issues and phenomena (Arnett, 2002). This is a real-life phenomenon with effects spreading everywhere (Lapshov, 2006).
Globalization is the focus of research by representatives of social science and other sciences. Philosophers, economists, lawyers, historians, sociologists, cultural scientists, ecologists, geographers as well as representatives of technical sciences of nearly all states study globalization from various angles. A variety of definitions and attributes of globalization, provided by researchers, blows imagination with its diversity. Yet, exploring world globalization as an all-encompassing phenomenon, the science, so far, has not come to a generally accepted position regarding this socio-historical event (Moiseev, 2015).
Recently, many books and scientific articles on globalization have been written. In the world scientific literature there is a fairly broad insight into various dimensions of globalization as a multilevel, multifaceted, fullfledged and historically promising phenomenon (Polikanova, 2012).
Globalization brings together a number of processes that operate in opposite directions. Most people believe that globalization is a process of “pulling out” the power and influence from local communities to the global level. However, the reverse can also happen. The outside power and influence is exerting increasing pressure on local communities. Globalization does not only “pull out”, but also “pulls in”. It “hogs the blanket” not only upward but also downward thereby creating new calls for autonomy at the local level (Lapshov, 2006). The evolving process of globalization can be viewed as a continuous engagement both with individual countries and human society at large (Turken & Rudmin, 2013).
Today one can talk about the global structure of political, economic and cultural relations, expanding any traditional boundaries to embrace separate societies into an integrated system (Kholina & Ponarina, 2016). The processes of globalization, understood as changes in social, political, economic and cultural spheres that are common for most states, in general, can be perceived as a kind of a major path towards the development of mankind. Being aware of the direction and nature of this path can help shape new principles of interaction between society and the State and build effective individual political trajectories to follow by states in a joint march towards the future (Evstifeev, 2010). In the political context, globalization, otherwise referred to as “mondialism”, seeks to establish supranational institutions of governance (Romanov, 2018).
A methodological analysis of globalization-induced risks should be carried out in terms of the integration of nation states into the world economic and political environment. With this in view, this risk is defined as the likelihood of undesirable political events that need to be considered, primarily in political coordination. In other words, political risk renders both the likelihood of undesirable destructive political events and the likelihood of acute political events due to government activities, which is typical of a number of countries in modern conditions. It is not fortuitous that researchers examine political risk in close inseparable consideration with the activities of national governments, as well as various political forces, parties, and movements both inside and outside the country that affect all spheres of state activity (Yaskevich, 2014).
The integration of federal states and the world community has an ambiguous, often contradictory effect on all aspects of people’s lives, causing both positive and negative changes. According to Gobozov (2019), it is not so much globalization, but integration that looks like an objective growth of human society with the State to act as an embodiment of infinite being of people and preservation of national identity. Through globalization, it is transformed into a primitive society, in which the national coloring, ethnic mentality, national culture, clothing, national languages, national states, national economies, etc. start to disappear (Gobozov, 2019).
Relationships going beyond national boundaries and intensive communication between Diasporas and their original homeland show that global connections have never had such a wide coverage in the history of mankind, nor have they had such a deep effect on themselves and the identity of nations (Hubert & Giancarlo, 2007).
In the context of globalization in Russia, ethno-national interests are strongly influenced by such factors as the unification of the system of regional management, regardless of the national interests of a titular nation living there. Being aimed at preserving collective identity, they somehow run counter to the processes of globalization. The issue of preserving the identity of nations is becoming increasingly acute. Collective rights are currently becoming an effective tool for protecting an ethnic community as it is from numerous destructive impacts, which is extremely important in view of globalization. Therefore, the promotion of identity should rely on the principles to protect the rights of those who bear it, i.e. groups and individuals, which equally refers to the promotion of human rights including the rights of nations and certain ethnic groups (Napso & Napso, 2015).
To respond to the question concerning the effect of globalization on relations between the center and regional structures in the Russian Federation, the present study highlights the diversity of signs, qualities, embodiments, advantages and disadvantages of globalization in the approaches and statements mentioned in scientific literature. The authors endeavor to outline globalization in such a way as to shape a general idea of the process itself, its embodiments in a federal state.
The study addresses the following issues:
- a one-way monitoring focus towards the compliance with laws and the implementation of decisions taken as per the activities of regional government bodies, which leads to an increased negative effect of globalization;
- the lack of effective control over the activities of federal bodies from the regions and society as a whole, which almost completely excludes uniform, mutually responsible cooperation of all levels of state power hierarchy as the most important constituent element of federalism;
- the emergence of a threat to the identity of federal entities and their population in the context of clearly globalized governance in federal relations.
The subject of the present study is the analysis of methods and mechanism of mutual control over the activities of federal and regional government bodies in the context of globalized governance in the framework of modern Russian federalism.
Purpose of the Study
The study aims to identify the dependence of the effect of globalization on the power- responsibility ratio between the center and its regions in the Russian Federation.
A holistic perspective of the study led to the use of various methods to analyze the effect of globalization on the nature of federal relations in the course of establishing the institution of mutual responsibility of the parties to federal legal relations in the Russian Federation. The main method is a system analysis of the problematic issues under study. Other methods were used to study and analyze the impact of globalization on the power-responsibility relationship between the center and regions in the Russian Federation, including general scientific dialectical and formal-logical methods of cognition, as well as analysis and synthesis.
Thanks to the new powers that advocated for a greater openness of the State, the world as a whole and Russian society become more than ever interdependent and mutually complementary. Therefore, in rebuilding external interactions, the internal relations between the center and its regions change as well (Turken & Rudmin, 2013).
International and Russian experience suggests that sooner or later polyethnic states inevitably face the need for decentralization of power, federalization and their constitutional consolidation, which can be seen in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. It is obvious that the main objective for a multinational state is the creation of effective constitutional legal mechanisms that would ensure, on the one hand, the independence for individual regions to organize their vital activity, including the promotion of ethno-national interests, and, on the other hand, their involvement in state-level challenges, thirdly, the integrity of the State (the unity of national and ethno-national interests) (Napso & Napso, 2015).
Ties and relations between the center and regional structures, being the core of Russian federalism, are undoubtedly becoming closer and more multilateral. Under these conditions, the traditional question arises as to how the functions, rights, responsibilities, and powers of the center and the regions correlate in creating favorable environment for a decent life. As it turns out, globalization affects this ratio by redeploying these powers towards the center. All decisions, agreements, normative acts concerning international cooperation are usually made at the federal level, before they are restated pertaining to the regions. The more federal authorities initiate the relations with international organizations and assume the commitments to comply with international legal acts, the broader rights and powers the center has, which in many other regions is not the case. Therefore, a systematic, standing dialogue between the center and the regions is needed, which would expand the participation of the regions in the adoption of federal regulations, create consensus and identify the needs of both federal and regional structures. Such a dialogue is needed in order to promptly identify any discrepancies, accommodate diverse interests of the state as a whole and of individual regions. A dialogue like that is possible at all levels, regarding all issues. Besides, it can serve as the basis for more cohesive, targeted actions initiated by the center and regions in tackling urgent matters of social development, thereby weakening the negative effect of globalization on the promotion of federalism.
Given that globalization is often declared as a process of transfer and approval of more liberal, more democratic standards of government and encouragement of relations between the center and region, it is reasonable that it raises great and justified hopes for eliminating distortions in relations between federal and regional powers and creating conditions conducive to the promotion of federalism. However, in fact, these declarations sometimes turn to be a front for imposing that sort of standards and values on national states, which reflect the interests of some states to the disadvantage of others, often including the Russian state.
In some cases, individual states and international organizations taking advantage of globalization and democratic rhetoric, monopolize the right to evaluate the state of democratic principles in the governance of other states and, under the pretext of democratic restorations, interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, thus further undermining the foundations of federalism. It makes sense that in interstate relations, as well as in relations with international organizations, there should be an equal dialogue, enabling to come up with solutions that would not harm the interests of individual states, to form such cooperation mechanisms that would allow the interests of both the State as a whole and the regions to be respected. Such mechanisms are designed to weaken the negative impact of both globalization and the central power on regional development. The basic principles to foster the functioning of such mechanisms are democracy, social justice, respect for human rights and freedoms, the rule of law, and every kind of preservation and promotion of the national identity of people. Deviation from these principles can entail irreversible deformations of federalism, undermine the trust and fruitful cooperation of central and regional authorities, reproduce the practice whereby laws, decisions are made by the center, while the regions are responsible for their implementation.
Provided that monitoring of law enforcement and implementation of decisions made is mainly aimed at the activities of regional governments, the negative impact of globalization is increasing and will continue to increase. A key issue in the development of Russian federalism in the context of globalization is becoming a rise in public accountability both for developing and adopting, and for implementing laws and decisions. Increasing representativity, involvement, transparency, efficiency and a wider transfer of powers is the most important direction of promoting federalism. Accepting, in principle, these directions of promoting federalism, their meaning is understood differently in practical work, though. There is a very different comprehension of responsibility ranging from a narrow meaning, associated solely with the provision of information, to a broad understanding, according to which federal and regional officials are personally responsible for the consequences of laws and decisions adopted.
Above all, globalization causes such changes in Russian federalism that bring about the enhanced centralism and weakened capabilities of regional powers. This is a fairly obvious trend in the development of Russian federalism. It is not fortuitous that lately much attention has been paid to strengthening a vertical line of power. In fact, in the process of strengthening vertical power, central federal power tends to be strengthened and regional, on the contrary, to be diminished.
Through the process of globalization, the Russian Federation is becoming even more asymmetric, more deformed towards the center at the expense of the regions. This situation seeds the idea of such measures that would weaken the negative impact of globalization on the promotion of federalism, help correct and maintain a balance of interests, rights and powers between the center and the regions. Improved and more effective tools are required to strengthen the relationship between the center and the regions, so that the national interests of the federal state become more organically intertwined with the interests of the regions, so that the vertical line of power is strengthened based on a fuller account of the interests of the center and regions with respect to bilateral and equal cooperation of federal and regional authorities. A systematic, standing dialogue is required between the center and the regions, which would expand the participation of the regions in the adoption of federal regulations, create a consensus and identify the needs of both federal and regional structures.
A virtual lack of effective control over the activities of federal bodies from the regions and society as a whole, almost completely excludes uniform, mutually responsible cooperation of all levels of state power hierarchy as the most important constituent element of federalism. An intervention strategy needs to be drawn up for the promotion of Russian federalism, which would weaken the negative effect of globalism and strengthen its benefits. First of all, there is a need for a steady, permanent, well-thought-out redistribution of powers in favor of regional and municipal authorities that will be more able to take into account various local needs and approaches. It is at this level that participatory democracy can be most sustainable, when there is significant political mobilization, when genuine federalism can be in place, and when solidarity and business cooperation are part of everyday life. Some decentralization, in order to provide for efficiency, should be accompanied by an increase in opportunities and resources, as well as the formation of effective mechanisms of democracy and citizen participation. Acting in this direction, one can create reliable barriers to prevent the destructive effect of globalization on the traditional values of Russian society.
- Arnett, J. (2002). The Psychology of Globalization. The American psychologist, 57, 774–783.
- Evstifeev, R. V. (2010). The State and Society in the 21st Century: Metaphors of Globalization and Globalization of Metaphors. Society and Power, 1(25), 4–9.
- Gobozov, I. A. (2019). State and National Identity: Globalization or Internationalization? Moscow: URSS.
- Hubert, J. M. H., & Giancarlo, D. (2007). Self, Identity, and Globalization in Times of Uncertainty: A Dialogical Analysis. Review of General Psychology Copyright by the American Psychological Association, 1, 31–61.
- Kholina, O. I., & Ponarina, N. N. (2016). Globalization of Human Society: from Isolation to Globalization. New Paradigms of Social Development: Economic, Social, Philosophical, Political, Legal, General Scientific Trends and Patterns. In Materials of the International Scientific-Practical Conference in 4 Parts. (рр. 108–110). Engels: Limited Liability Company “Academy of Management”.
- Lapshov, B. A. (2006). From the “Third Way” to the “Progressive Globalization”: Evolution of the Approaches of European Social Democracy to the Problems of Globalization. Actual Problems of Europe, 3, 183–216.
- Moiseev, A. A. (2015). Phenomenon of Globalization and International Community. The Age of Globalization, 2(16), 59–72.
- Napso, M. D., & Napso, M. B. (2015). The Right of the Individual and Human Right to Identity in the Realities of Globalization. The Age of Globalization, 2(16), 158–169.
- Polikanova, E. G. (2012). Phenomenon of Globalization, Variety of Definitions of the Concept of ‘Globalization’. International Research Journal, 6–2(6), 7–8.
- Romanov, M. I. (2018). Globalization as a Phenomenon of World Development. International Research Journal. Economics, 7(73), 112–116.
- Turken, S., & Rudmin, F. (2013). On Psychological Effects of Globalization: Development of a Scale of Global Identity. Psychology & Society, 5(2), 63–89.
- Yaskevich, Ya. S. (2014). Risk Society in the Context of Global Geopolitical Strategies. The age of globalization, 2(14), 65–77.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
21 January 2020
Print ISBN (optional)
Sociolinguistics, linguistics, semantics, discourse analysis, science, technology, society
Cite this article as:
Kazantseva*, O., Studenikina, S., Komova, N., Kulik, T., & Isakova, Y. (2020). Effect Of Globalization On Russian Federalism. In D. Karim-Sultanovich Bataev, S. Aidievich Gapurov, A. Dogievich Osmaev, V. Khumaidovich Akaev, L. Musaevna Idigova, M. Rukmanovich Ovhadov, A. Ruslanovich Salgiriev, & M. Muslamovna Betilmerzaeva (Eds.), Social and Cultural Transformations in the Context of Modern Globalism, vol 76. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 1488-1494). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.12.04.202