The capital of Moscow

A few days ago, on June 17, at the opening of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, President Dmitry Medvedev put forward the idea of ​​transforming Moscow into a special Federal District: “ To improve the development of the Moscow metropolis, for the purposes of the financial center and simply facilitate the life of a huge number of people, the issue of expanding the borders of Moscow can also be considered. That is, the creation of the“ capital federal district ”, which goes beyond the traditional borders of Moscow. Moreover, with the transfer beyond these boundaries of a significant share of administrative functions of the federal level and, accordingly, state institutions . ”

Moscow mayor Sergei Sobyanin supported this idea: “ This is the President’s decision, he and the government will determine which institutions will have to be transferred to new places. As for urban structures, I believe that it is worthwhile to seriously think about it .”

In turn, the speaker of the Moscow City Duma Vladimir Platonov also spoke out in favor of this project: “ The Mosgor Duma supports this proposal, especially since the need to expand the boundaries of the capital has risen for a long time, since the metropolis performs a large number of functions. It is normal that the city is growing and developing, the population density in Moscow is increasing, so new territories are extremely necessary for the comfortable life of the townspeople .” At a briefing in St. Petersburg, Presidential Assistant Arkady Dvorkovich commented on this decision: “ The metropolitan district will be created more wider than the Moscow Ring Road. Government and other government agencies should be brought out for these borders .”

At first glance, the Moscow expansion project as a region cannot have any objections: De Facto Moscow has long expanded and it remains only to consolidate this expansion of De Jure. Moscow has long turned into a separate “region”, whose capital is identical to the capital of the whole country. However, the same position of this project requires special discussion, namely, the removal of state institutions of the federal level outside the Moscow Ring Road. The question is not so much how far from the epicenter of the capital can be sent these institutions, how much the federal level institutions are meant and are the main centers of the federal government - the State Duma, the Council of the Federation, the Government and, finally, the very residence of the President of the Russian Federation with its administration? I specifically write the word president with a capital letter, since in this case it is not just about the position, but about the institute.

It is worth noting that ideas of this kind have long been voiced among liberal reformers and, unlike many other well-known ideas, did not cause their opponents at least some intelligible reaction. The silence of the “conservatives” is explained, firstly, by the fact that this project has always remained at the level of a dreamy wishes close to utopia; Secondly, because there is no consensus on this issue among the “conservatives” themselves. The idea of ​​transferring the federal government from the capital's center outside the capital itself has an openly opposition fleur : since the stay in the center of Moscow is prestigious and convenient by definition, the move for Moscow from this center is perceived as a kind of exile. At the same time, the ideological preferences of the power itself in this situation do not matter: for any radical liberal, any power is too conservative and therefore is not worthy to be in the center of the native capital, just as for any radical conservative, any power is too liberal and is also unworthy of being in the “heart of the capital”.

In this sense, the desire of many oppositionists to expel power from the center of Moscow is no less infantile than their demand to deprive the first persons of the state of any privileges, starting with the “flashing lights”. In another case, such an extravagant idea can be perceived as a purely psychological desire to solve internal problems due to external manifestations. Roughly speaking, to move all the furniture in the apartment instead of really changing your life. But then try to prove that nothing has changed if the desk has stood in the room all your life, but now it was taken to the corridor? reasons.

Meanwhile, the idea of ​​this transfer has its own truth. It is no secret that a significant number of machines and pedestrians in the center of Moscow are associated with the presence of those very administrative institutions of the federal level here and that well -known automobile “traffic jams” on the roads and crusts in the transport prevent the authorities themselves , so “ideally” all these authorities can be collected in a separate territory where they will not interfere with anyone, no matter how they will be constrained by anything.

On this occasion, it is worth noting that the idea of ​​removing power beyond the borders of the table city itself has a very large story, and it often justified not only with pragmatic, but even with mystical considerations - we recall at least the thoughts of Rustam Rachmatullin about the “opprint projects” of the removal of power from his former center. In this case, you can be sure that our power was not guided by any mystical and aesthetic considerations, but appealed to that very obviousness - Moscow is overloaded and it needs to be unloaded, and when the layman is sitting in a “traffic” for half an hour, it is not up to mysticism, and even more so not to aesthetics. But still, how can one manage without one and the other when it comes not about anything, but about the capital of Russia?

The capital of each country is not just a city where the local administration is located, it is a separate political symbol that defines national identity no less than symbols such as a flag, coat of arms or anthem. In the capital, everything is important - its location, its history, its name, finally, its appearance. The political mentality of the population and the history of the whole country directly depend on the transfer or renaming of the capital. Moscow became the capital of Great Russia not by chance at all, a number of objective prerequisites from geopolitical to purely religious ones contributed to this. And even when the emperor’s residence was in St. Petersburg, Moscow still remained the true capital of Russia, since the emperors went to the pioneers to get married to the kingdom, and the coat of arms of Moscow, not St. Petersburg, flaunted on the chest of the imperial eagle.

Also today, if in our state the question of national self-awareness is at least somewhat seriously, then the attitude towards Moscow should be not only as a city where for some reason the power is, but as a spiritual center of the entire Russian space. Any resident of Russia may not know with all the accuracy where the boundaries of his country pass - especially since the borders of the Russian Federation are not identical to the boundaries of historical Russia - but he should know exactly where its center is. Therefore, any devaluation and spraying of this center are extremely dangerous precisely for national identity, in this center in need. Of course, from this reasoning, in no case should it be that all possible centers of the federal level power should be in Moscow - it is enough to recall the Constitutional Court that has moved to St. Petersburg - but there are key centers of power: the State Duma, the Council of the Federation, the Government and, finally, the president himself.

Perhaps these fears will seem unnecessary to someone, since none of the authorities of the holding have yet said that the government itself will go beyond the MKAD, and even more so the president itself. However, in the same way, it was not stipulated which “ functions of the federal level ” will be postponed, and we, in turn, have the right to see here a certain tendency, which will be justified by such an ideology, from the point of view of which Moscow is nothing more than another city on the map of the Russian Federation, whose problems can be solved due to the loss of its own identity. After all , the fewer in Moscow the capital's functions, the less it remains the capital, and the idea to bring all the capital's functions beyond Moscow is meaningful to the capital's status of the city . Moreover, if this logic is brought to the end, it is quite possible that together with the new center of power, we simply get a new capital, in relation to which Moscow will remain only a very large suburbs. The new satellite city of Moscow will actually turn into the “capital” of Moscow itself ...

Again, these fears may seem unnecessary, but they are based on a simple sequence: the capital is located where the main residence of the head of state remains, but where is the guarantee that this residence will not become only the last (and maybe one of the first) in the chain of “metropolitan functions” that have gone beyond the Moscow Ring Road?

By the way, the idea of ​​transferring the President’s power from the Kremlin also has its convincing grounds, because the entire Kremlin is a grand museum ensemble that should be opened to modern citizens of Russia for walking and excursions. It is this argument that unites everyone who requires such a transfer. But is it necessary to say that the Kremlin for Moscow means the same as Moscow for the whole of Russia and, moreover, the Kremlin itself remains the main symbol of the capital itself ? And it is one thing when the government leaves the building that has not so entered the great history of the State Planning Commission or that was very included in the great history of the White House on Krasnaya Presnya, is a completely different matter when it leaves the Kremlin, thereby depriving it of political significance. Just as the anthem of the country cannot be reduced to a simple set of words, so the Kremlin cannot be reduced to the museum.

If the Kremlin as a symbol of the Russian government loses its power itself, then it will be a terrible blow to national self -awareness, comparable except with the transfer of the capital. But imagine that the trend of removing the “capital's functions” outside the capital will still continue to transfer the residence of the head of state outside the Kremlin and turn the latter into an open-air museum-is it possible even in this case to save the Kremlin as a center of public force? It is possible, but only then it is necessary to put the spiritual in place of political power and form the main residence of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia there , where, in fact, it was before the abolition of the patriarchate of Peter I.

Indeed, if the Russian authorities are tired of being in the center of the pioneer, but I want to leave the Kremlin at least some kind of social significance, then there is nothing better than, having opened the Kremlin’s territory for free walks, to leave the Patriarchal Chambers to the Patriarch of Moscow and turn the Kremlin into a general church center. Someone will immediately say that this will very remind the Vatican in Rome, however, this is still not a Vatican, if only because the Patriarch of Moscow is not a pope, and there can be no talk of any state in the state. Incidentally, the question of turning the Kremlin into an open -air museum, preserving the president’s power there and the return of the Patriarch power there must not be decided on the principle of “or, or”, all three appointments of the country's main fortress could be combined. In this case, I stipulate only the option in which the president’s power is still decided to go beyond the Moscow Ring Road after all other “metropolitan functions”.

In any case, the consolidation of the status of real power behind the Kremlin should be as serious imperative of Moscow politics as the recognition of the two -headed Byzantine eagle by the emblem of Russia. Otherwise, we will have to admit that no national symbols and shrines can be by definition, but there is only a business space and a recreation space . But even a rare liberal will agree with this.