|
From time to time, the media discusses the idea of transferring Moscow capital's functions to other Russian cities, and to St. Petersburg in particular; recently, the idea has become an issue. We asked the respondents what they felt about this proposal.
As it turned out, the idea is disapproved of twice as often (48%) as it is approved (24%). Another 28% found it difficult to voice their attitude on such plans.
Nearly half of those surveyed (45%) believe that transferring the capital's functions would do Russia more harm than good, with the opposite opinion held by half as many respondents (23%). Another 32% were found it difficult to anticipate the consequences of this move.
The opponents of a partial transfer of Moscow's functions to St. Petersburg, as expected, are more likely to be found among Muscovites (58%) and residents of the Central Federal District (55%) – these very social-demographic groups more than others «benefit» from Moscow's capital status, especially in financial opportunities. This idea is also more likely than average to be opposed by two other socio-demographic groups – residents of megapolises (55%) and high-income groups (55%), the proportion of which in megapolises and Moscow is higher than in the residencies of other type. Residents of megapolises would seemingly display an interest in the transfer of Moscow's functions, because their native cities would get a chance to compete for the resources that capital status could grant them. But, as we shall see below, the opponents of a partial transfer of the capital's functions to St. Petersburg are more likely to be guided by considerations other than the benefits this status would grant them.
So, at the focus group discussions, including those held in Moscow, an argument was quite widespread, according to which allocation of the capital's function to other towns is not expedient from a practical point of view:
- «Suppose the Duma adopts a bill – a budget for the next year. The prime minister and finance minister are normally invited to the session. Shall they go to St. Pete for the first reading, or the second reading? How often shall they travel out there?»
(DFG, Voronezh).
- «Permanent connections are necessary. Inviting a politician over to parliament or vice versa means travelling, which is not an easy thing. When they are next door, it's much better.»
(DFG, Moscow).
- «The delivery of documents will take a long time.»
(DFG, Moscow).
Some respondents are sure that the transfer of capital's functions to other cities not only would cause extra expenses, but would lead to financial abuse:
- "
First female participant: This will increase expenditures.
Second female participant: Renaming a street or a town is a costly thing. But here...
First female participant: This is a cunning way to make money...
Second participant: Renaming streets and so on. This is a trap that suckers get into." (DFG, Moscow).
The proponents of the idea are more likely to be encountered among residents of St. Petersburg (45%) and those living in the North-Western Federal District (37%) – these groups appear to be more «interested.»
- "
Moderator: Should they be extended [St. Petersburg's capital functions]?
First female participant: Yes.
Second female participant: Yes.
Moderator: Why?
First participant: To draw investment.
Second participant: For developing tourism.
Third female participant: Construction may revive." (DFG, St. Petersburg).
Yet residents of the North-Western District and Petersburgers in particular don't unanimously support this idea. So, the number of those disapproving of the idea of assigning the «Northern capital» an official status is about equal to those approving of it: 48% in St. Petersburg and 38% in the North-Western District at large. Judging from the replies at focus group sessions, far from all respondents would be ready to tolerate the inconvenience:
- «I don't think the capital's function should be extended. The Moscow mess is irksome.»
(DFG, St. Petersburg).
- «This will be a mess. I served in Moscow and saw it: when government cars move, all the roads are blocked, which causes jams.»
(DFG, St. Petersburg).
This unwillingness to «pay» for the capital's status, despite the apparent benefits, is typical not only for Petersburgers, but also for residents of other megapolises, which partly explains the higher rate of disapproval for this idea in the given population group.
We should note that the proponents of this idea are not unanimous on whether this move would be good for the nation. So, 40% of those sharing it either believe that the transfer of the capital's function to other cities would be harmful for Russia, or have difficulties anticipating the consequences of such a move.
Question: Would the transfer of Moscow's functions to other cities do more good or more harm to Russia?
groups of surveyed (%)
| |
All respondents |
Transfer of capital's functions to St. Petersburg... |
|
approved |
disapproved |
|
More good |
23 |
60 |
10 |
|
More harm |
45 |
20 |
71 |
|
Hard to answer |
32 |
20 |
19 |
|
The situation where a large number who favor the idea of transferring capital functions to St. Petersburg are not convinced that this move would be good in many ways stems from a critical stance on Moscow. Approval in this case is caused not so much by the notion of real benefits, as by dissatisfaction with the way Moscow handles its capital functions.
- «A bureaucratic octopus that concentrated everything in itself, sucking everything and adopting foolish laws contradicting each other. As a result, it doesn't work.»
(DFG, St. Petersburg).
- «I expect the allocation of functions to help to some extent, because Moscow is played out.»
(DFG, St. Petersburg).
- «I would hand some authority over to St. Pete. Moscow should be unloaded.»
(DFG, Voronezh).
In other cases, support for reducing Moscow's authority stems from provincial perceptions of Moscow as a sort of «region-dependant,» which can be clearly seen from responses to the open-ended question on the capital's functions, and answers given at the focus group sessions:
- «The capital lives for itself»; «all Russia works for the capital, while they relax»; «it lives for itself and is fed by the whole country.»
(open-ended question).
- «I worked in the Academy of Sciences for 15 years and traveled around those institutions – they are mostly subjected to Moscow. And Moscow makes obstacles for transferring these funds. Why do we earn money here, and they take it away, and then we have to fight to get it back?»
(DFG, St. Petersburg).
- «Moscow flourishes. If Voronezh had so much money, it wouldn't have been worse than Moscow, or possibly better. The regions who feed Moscow are not to be forgotten.»
(DFG, Voronezh).
In this case, the agreement to transfer some of the capital's functions is often determined by the position to «let them get less,» rather than by possible benefits from this move. It should be stressed that the proponents of the idea, apart from the seemingly interested residents of the North-Western region, are more likely than average to be encountered among inhabitants of the Far Eastern Federal District (43%), who would hardly win from such an allocation of the capital's functions. However, the way the Far Easterners responded to the question is not surprising, taking into account that the region is traditionally know for its extremely negative attitude toward the federal center, and Moscow in particular. And some elements of «envy» for the resources possessed by Moscow apparently determine a higher than average rate of approval for the alienation of Moscow's functions among residents of large cities (30%, against 24% in the sample).
Yet, both proponents and opponents of this idea appear to be guided not only by pragmatic thoughts or peculiar notions of a fair allocation of resources. The capital is thought of by some respondents as being not so much as a source of material resources, but essentially as a symbol and embodiment of power.
As a matter of fact, these very interpretations of the capital's functions – political, financial, managerial and legal resources of power – prevail in responses to the open-ended question:
- the country's management (15%);
- concentration of power (14%);
- collecting and allocating funds (6%);
- law-making (2%);
- creating conditions for the work of the president, government, and administration (1%).
The focus group participants also see the main function of the capital as concentrating power or the resources of power.
- «Power. Whatever the case, this is a political center, first of all.»
(DFG, Moscow).
- «Because power is concentrated mostly in the capital.»
(DFG, Moscow).
- «Central power must be concentrated in the capital.»
(DFG, St. Petersburg).
- «The capital is the city that symbolizes the state, where all government bodies are situated.»
(DFG, Voronezh).
Because the term «capital» in the public consciousness is closely associated with the word «power,» attitudes on the allocation of capital and consequently power functions to some extent are determined by the understanding of how power must be allocated. Should it be concentrated in one center, or spread across many? It should be noted that the public mind allows for the possibility of numerous sources of power with great difficulty, which has been determined by recent and more remote historical experiences. This is apparently the reason why the idea of allocating the capital's functions between different cities is not widely supported.
- «How can power be spread across the nation? The management center is one, whether you want it or not.»
(DFG, Moscow).
- «It will be inconvenient, if power is dispersed across the towns. It turns out that we'll have different capitals – political, economic, and so on. Everything must be concentrated in one town.»
(DFG, St. Petersburg).
Yet at the focus group sessions, some respondents allowed for such an allocation of power resources, but as the population poll shows, this opinion is not widespread:
- «There are different power models. It can be strongly centralized – like under Ivan the Terrible. Or power can be spread across the country, as in democratic states. But this is impossible, unfortunately.»
(DFG, Moscow).
- «It shouldn't necessarily be concentrated in the capital. Some dispersion of power would not be bad – something in the capital, something in other large cities.»
(DFG, St. Petersburg).
It should be noted that apart from the perception of the capital's functions as a resource and a source of power, in the public's opinion, there also exist other interpretations, although they are not so widespread. So, in the opinion of 5%, the main role of the capital is to be the center of the country's life.
- «The center of all affairs in Russia»; «Moscow attracts everyone»; «most important events take place in this town»; «everything flows to Moscow.»
Another 2% of those surveyed believe that the capital must represent the cultural and scientific life of the country, and the same number think the capital must represent the country for the rest of the world.
In the opinion of the DFG participants, it is these functions, not political ones, that the capital should «share» with other towns:
- «It would be better if culture was in one place, agriculture in another, in different capitals. But the only thing I'm convinced of is that political power must be concentrated in one center.»
(DFG, Moscow).
- «I don't think they should all be concentrated in one city, they can be spread across other towns, those leading in a certain field. For example, Novosibirsk as a scientific center, Petersburg as a cultural center.»
(DFG, St. Petersburg).
- «In a political sense, this would be a city with leadership: the president, government, deputies from the regions. St. Petersburg is seen as a cultural capital, with museums, exhibitions. So, there can be many centers in Russia.»
(DFG, Voronezh).
At the focus group, after being prompted by the moderator, the respondents fantasized a great deal about which Russian towns could become capitals, «representing» various industrial sectors:
- «The city of Togliatti is a leading auto producer.»
(DFG, Moscow).
- «Izhevsk, an arms producer, can be made a capital.»
(DFG, Moscow).
- "Orel is a flax-producing center "
(DFG, Moscow).
- "Voronezh is an agricultural center "
(DFG, Voronezh).
Nevertheless, most of the respondents found it difficult to imagine a situation where Russia would have several capitals.
- "
Moderator: How would you feel about a town becoming a capital – agrarian, financial or whatever? Is it possible?
First female participant: It might be possible theoretically, but I can hardly imagine it.
Moderator: It is real?
Second female participant: Not yet.
Third female participant: No" (DFG, St. Petersburg).
It is worth noting that the image of Moscow as the capital is deeply rooted in the public consciousness. For most of the focus group participants – Muscovites and residents of other cities alike – Moscow is imagined as nothing but the capital:
- "
Moderator: Moscow is Russia's capital – is this a natural thing?
Participant: Sure. It historically grew as a capital.
Female participant: Moscow must be the capital. We are accustomed to it." (DFG, Moscow).
- "
Moderator: What is Moscow for the Russian state?
Female participant: This is a state symbol, one of the symbols" (DFG, St. Petersburg).
- "The capital is Moscow, where I dreamed of living, studying and working. It's the pride of Russia, the heart of Russia "
(DFG, Voronezh).
- "Moscow is the capital, the heart"
(DFG, Voronezh).
As a matter of fact, Moscow is thought of by respondents as being the city most suitable for the role of the country's capital. So, in responding to a question on which towns are best suited to perform the capital's functions, most respondents (61%) named Moscow. By rate of mentions, other towns are far behind the present capital: St. Petersburg is mentioned one and half times less often (39%). This apparently stems from the fact that St. Petersburg is perceived as the «second capital» – this city is often called the «northern capital,» «cultural capital,» «criminal capital,» and so on. 10% mentioned Yekaterinburg, 9% mentioned Novosibirsk, 8% named Nizhny Novgorod, while other towns received from 1% to 4%.
As for the regional elite, their opinions on this issue, in contrast to public opinion, were about equally split: slightly under half of the surveyed experts approve of this idea, with about the same number disapproving of it. Slightly less than half of the experts believe this move would do Russia good, with about the same number believing it would do harm. At the same time, only one-quarter of the experts could adequately imagine the breakdown of public opinion on this issue, anticipating that from 41% to 60% would feel skeptical about transferring Moscow's functions to other cities.
|