Speech at a scientific seminar « State policy of nation-building in modern Russia » at the Center for Problem Analysis and State Management Design, 2011
“The foundation of a reasonable national policy in Russia should begin with the restoration of the equal status of different peoples and ethnic groups that live in Russia, and, first of all, with the restoration of the right to institutionalize the national identity of the system-forming nation of our state - the Russian people,” the author is convinced. This will be discussed on, which will take place on June 1 in St. Petersburg.
We invite you to participate and discuss. Register, come, send to the editor your thoughts and stories.
The discussion of not only the specific content of modern nationality policy, but also its basic concepts: “nation”, “national relations”, “national conflicts” is often conducted in an undertone, since national issues are inexplicably included in the category of “delicate”. For too long, the international shyness of Russian social scientists led to the fact that almost all components of national relations were among the “non-discussable subjects”, supposedly by default and so understandable to everyone.
The most serious problems that arose on ethnic grounds were presented mainly as local, private and insignificant conflicts (the only exceptions were, perhaps, the deportations during the Great Patriotic War and the two hundred years of persecution of Jews, especially under Soviet rule). At the same time, it was as if forgotten that the category of national relations is much broader than the category of national conflicts.
In my opinion, the national is among the inalienable values of every person, and national ideals are no less important for people than moral ideals. How these values are used in politics is another question. But for every reasonable person who knows his history, nationality means a lot. Moreover, from my point of view, it can be considered as the last value, which allows to maintain at least some foundations for the diversity of states and other communities in the period of globalization. It is possible that nationality may be the last stronghold in the identification of a person. There are different opinions about this. You can often hear how high-ranking people, well-known in science, say that the national question is nothing more than "toys for politicians", that the concept of a nation, an ethnic group is secondary. Life, however, proves otherwise. In Soviet times, when 120 nationalities coexisted on the territory of a single state (this is the number of only those peoples that were taken into account by statistics), the community of the Soviet people really existed and the national-state bonds were very strong.
What were they based on? From my point of view, on three fundamental positions.
Anyone who visited Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, and other Soviet republics in Soviet times could see that all the positions of the first, and often the second echelon of power, were occupied by people of the so-called "titular" nationality. This was a mandatory norm that created a sense of national significance among people with a “titular” affiliation, it was a kind of sign of external respect for the people, and such respect was to some extent confirmed by the fact that a person of a certain clan-tribe became the head of a shop, a factory director, a secretary of a district committee or the Central Committee of the party.
The second stabilizer of the Soviet national equilibrium was money. The unified state cauldron was distributed among the republics, and by no means evenly among the individual national "outskirts". Much more money was spent on the restoration of the Baltic states immediately after the war than on the restoration of the much larger and completely devastated territories of central Russia. The difference between these regions became immediately obvious: the Baltic republics had good roads, comfortable cities, and the post-war destruction, which was almost non-existent, was instantly eliminated.
Thirdly, there was a massive offensive of well-prepared cultural achievements of all the Union republics on the grateful field of Russian culture, and through it - to the all-Union, and indeed to the world cultural space. According to such a scenario, for example, films from Lithuania and Georgia received a multi-million viewer, and books - a multi-million reader. Moreover, books of excellent prose and excellent poetry by Russian writers and poets often waited until a volume from the national union republics, translated by those awaiting their turn, was skipped forward in state Russian publishing houses. And not a single award of a package of Stalin, Lenin, and then State Prizes was complete without the fact that people from the “oppressed outskirts” did not become laureates. It was absolutely correct national policy. The bad thing was that Russian culture and, to a certain extent, the culture of the peoples who were given national autonomies on the territory of the RSFSR, completely fell out of the sphere of this policy.
What is happening now on the fragment of the Soviet Union left by modern Russia? Outwardly the same, but in a more crude form and without any hint of cultural mutually enriching exchange. A third of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation are named on a national basis, and Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Udmurtia, and other national republics, in contrast to regions and territories, are proudly called states in accordance with the Constitution. The line of a certain division and distancing from the bulk of the Russian people is present today in the personnel policy of almost every one of these states. What is happening today with the second position - with money? Let me give you a few figures: in 2010, each citizen of Russia had 5,000 rubles. funds from the federal budget in the form of a variety of transfers. Now the same figures for the North Caucasus: Stavropol Territory - 6,000 rubles. per person per year (which is not surprising - Russian people live there). Republic of North Ossetia - 12,000; Kabardino-Balkarian Republic - 12900; Karachay-Cherkess Republic - 13600; Republic of Dagestan - 14800; Chechen Republic - 48200. One Chechen has 10 times more federal budget funds than a resident of Russia as such, and in total in the North Caucasus there are 6 times more national funds per capita than in Central Russia, the Far East, Siberia, etc.
It is not surprising that Grozny is becoming the most comfortable, most luxurious city in Russia, it is not surprising that only brick houses grow in the villages of Chechnya. All this is presented as some kind of compensation for the hostilities on the territory of Chechnya, but at the same time, not a single Russian person who was forced to leave the republic during the so-called ethnic cleansing of Dudayev received a single ruble of compensation for his abandoned home, for his abused women. This national policy of "two standards" is very, very dangerous.
More and more so-called nationally colored territories are becoming mono-ethnic. Chechnya, of course, is the leader in this list; Russians in this republic are either military personnel or builders. But after all, everyone understands that on the mono-ethnic territory of a multinational state, people do not have the opportunity to understand what it means to live in a multi-ethnic environment. Therefore, going beyond the limits of their small society, they begin to feel and, most importantly, behave differently. So-called inter-ethnic and national conflicts arise for one of two reasons: one side either feels extremely humiliated, or considers the other completely worthless. Today, the most humiliated side of all the peoples of our country are the indigenous Russian people. It is enough to look at the map of modern Russia from the point of view of the socio-economic development of the regions. The poorest and devastated territories are primordially Russian lands. There, representatives of other peoples do not see oppressors in Russian people, but the Russians themselves seem embarrassed to talk about the equality of people of different nationalities, they are afraid to speak out in defense of their national interests, fearing to be branded as Russian chauvinists or nationalists.
In addition, the Russian people have absolutely no national solidarity - it has been uprooted from our consciousness. A Tatar or a Kalmyk will try to provide all possible assistance to the "compatriot". A Russian person is unlikely to help his neighbor just because he is of the same nationality as him. Russian national solidarity is practically destroyed, and any attempts to recreate it, even at the local level, are perceived by domestic and foreign media as a violation of the rights of other peoples.
It seems to me that the foundation of a reasonable national policy in Russia should begin with the restoration of the equal status of the different peoples and ethnic groups that live in Russia, and, first of all, with the restoration of the right to institutionalize the national identity of the system-forming nation of our state - the Russian people. If this does not happen, the field of interethnic conflicts will only grow, the Russians will be in conflict as a worthless nation, without solidarity within itself, weak-willed and unpromising. I would not like to think that this is our national policy.
V.N. Leksin
MORE RELATED
The Russian Federation is one of the largest multinational states in the world, home to more than 150 peoples, each of which has unique features of material and spiritual culture. Thanks to the unifying role of the state-forming Russian people, on the territory
Russia has preserved a unique unity and diversity, a spiritual community and a union of various peoples.
The legacy of the past, the geopolitical and psychological consequences of the collapse of the USSR, the socio-economic and political difficulties of the transition period led to a number of crises and complex problems in the field of interethnic relations. They are most acute in areas adjacent to zones of open conflicts, places of concentration of refugees and internally displaced persons, in regions with problems of "divided peoples", in territories with a difficult socio-economic, environmental and crime situation, in areas where there is a sharp shortage of resources. life support.
Interethnic relations are also seriously affected by unemployment, especially in areas with surplus labor resources, the legal unsettledness of land and other relations, the existence of territorial disputes, and the manifestation of ethnocratic aspirations.
The key issues that need to be addressed are:
development of federal relations that ensure a harmonious combination of the independence of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and the integrity of the Russian state;
recognition and consideration of the interests and objective position of the Russian people, which is the backbone of the Russian statehood, found itself in the most difficult situation;
development of national cultures and languages of the peoples of the Russian Federation, strengthening of the spiritual community of Russians;
ensuring political and legal protection of small peoples and national minorities;
achieving and maintaining stability, lasting interethnic peace and harmony in the North Caucasus;
support for compatriots living in the CIS member states, as well as in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, promoting the development of their ties with Russia.
In the Russian Federation, in June 1996, the Concept of State National Policy was adopted, which is a system of modern views, principles and priorities for the activities of state authorities in the field of national relations, taking into account the new historical conditions for the development of Russian statehood, the need to ensure the unity and cohesion of Russia, strengthen interethnic harmony and cooperation between its peoples, update and develop their national life , languages and cultures.
The main conceptual provisions of the national policy in the Russian Federation are the equality of peoples, mutually beneficial cooperation, mutual respect for the interests and values of all peoples, intransigence towards ethno-nationalism, political and moral condemnation of people who seek to achieve the well-being of their people by infringing on the interests of other peoples. The democratic, humanistic concept of national policy is based on such fundamental principles as internationalism, protection of the rights of indigenous peoples and national minorities, equality of human rights and freedoms regardless of nationality and language, freedom to use one's native language, free choice of the language of communication, upbringing, education and creativity . The most important principle of the state national policy of the Russian Federation is the preservation of the historical integrity of the Russian Federation, the prohibition of activities aimed at undermining the security of the state, inciting social, racial, national and religious discord, hatred or enmity.
The supreme goal of the national policy of the Russian Federation is to provide conditions for the full-fledged social and national-cultural development of all the peoples of Russia, the strengthening of the all-Russian civil and spiritual and moral community based on the observance of human and peoples' rights as part of a single multinational state. This implies the strengthening of trust and cooperation between all Russian peoples, the development of traditional interethnic contacts and ties, the effective and timely resolution of emerging contradictions in the sphere of interethnic relations on the basis of ensuring a balance of national interests, the interests of the subjects of the Federation and the ethnic groups inhabiting it.
In accordance with the concept of the national policy of the Russian state, the following main tasks are defined.
In the political and public sphere:
strengthening Russian statehood by deepening and developing new federal relations;
uniting the efforts of all parts of the state system of civil society to achieve interethnic harmony, affirm the principle of equality of citizens of different nationalities, strengthen mutual understanding between them;
provision of legal, organizational and material conditions conducive to the consideration and satisfaction of the national and cultural interests of peoples;
development of state measures for early warning of interethnic conflicts;
resolute struggle against any manifestations of aggressive nationalism.
In the socio-economic sphere:
implementation of the economic interests of peoples on the basis of taking into account their traditional forms of management and work experience;
leveling the levels of socio-economic development of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation;
implementation of social employment programs in labor-surplus regions, measures to lift "depressed" regions, primarily in Central Russia and the North Caucasus;
rational use of the diversity of economic opportunities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, their natural resources, accumulated scientific, technical and human potential.
In the spiritual realm:
formation and dissemination of ideas of spiritual unity, friendship of peoples, interethnic harmony, cultivation of a sense of Russian patriotism;
dissemination of knowledge about the history and culture of the peoples inhabiting the Russian Federation;
preservation of the historical heritage and further development of the national identity and traditions of interaction between the Slavic, Turkic, Caucasian, Finno-Ugric, Mongolian and other peoples of Russia within the Eurasian national and cultural space, creating in society an atmosphere of respect for their cultural values;
providing optimal conditions for the preservation and development of the languages of all the peoples of Russia, the use of the Russian language as a national language;
strengthening and improving the national general education school as a tool for preserving and developing the culture and language of each nation, along with fostering respect for the culture, history, language of other peoples of Russia, world cultural values;
taking into account the relationship of national customs, traditions and rituals with religion, supporting the efforts of religious organizations in peacekeeping activities.
Interethnic relations in our country will be largely determined by the national well-being of the Russian people - the most numerous ethnic group. The needs and interests of the Russian people must be fully reflected in federal and regional programs and constantly taken into account in the political, economic and cultural life of the republics and autonomous entities of the Russian Federation. The need for state support is provided to compatriots abroad, primarily through the provision of material and cultural assistance to them, especially ethnic Russians living in neighboring countries.
In state national policy, it is necessary, first of all, to realize that the national question cannot occupy a secondary place or be the subject of speculation in the political struggle. In the course of its resolution, society faces ever new tasks. Actions in this area must be coordinated with the real state and prospects of national relations in the Russian state. When conducting state national policy, it is necessary to rely on scientific analysis and forecast, taking into account public opinion and assessing the consequences of decisions made. Only then can national politics become a consolidating factor.
Control questions and tasks
1. What is meant by national policy?
2. What are the goals and objectives of a democratic national policy?
3. What forms and methods of implementation of the national policy are known?
4. Find out what are the relationships between national and regional policies and what are their differences.
5. Are issues of migration and demographic policy included in the national policy?
6. Is it possible to manage in a multinational state without a national policy?
7. Analyze the specifics of managing ethno-national processes.
8. Consider the algorithm for the preparation and implementation of management decisions in the field of ethno-national relations.
9. What are the main objectives of the national policy in the Russian Federation?
10. Has the state concept of national policy adopted in 1996 brought practical results?
11. What are your thoughts on improving the national policy in the Russian Federation?
Literature
1. Abdulatipov R.G. Principles of national policy. - M., 1994.
2. Abdulatipov R.G. Russia on the threshold of the 21st century: the state and prospects of the federal structure. - M., 1996.
3. Public service of the Russian Federation and interethnic relations. - M., 1995.
4. Medvedev N.P. National policy of Russia. From unitarism to federalism. - M., 1993.
5. National policy of Russia: history and modernity. - M., 1997.
6. Will Russia share the fate of the USSR. - M., 1993.
7. Tavadov G.T. Ethnology. Dictionary reference. - M., 1998.
8. Tishkov V.A. Essays on the theory and politics of ethnicity in Russia. - M., 1997.
9. Ethnicity and power in multi-ethnic states. - M., 1994.
10. Ethnos and politics. Reader. - M., 2000.
Introduction
Features of the ethnic structure of the population and the national-state structure in the Russian Federation
Constitutional foundations of national policy in the Russian Federation
Achievements, problems and priorities of the modern national policy of the Russian Federation
1 Interaction between the federal center and national autonomies: legal principles and practice
2 Problems of regional separatism and nationalism. Origins and ways of resolving the Chechen conflict
3 Problems of migration and xenophobia in Russia
Conclusion
Introduction
The beginning of the 20th century in the history of the peoples of the North Caucasus (Kabardians, Balkars, Ossetians, Ingush, Chechens, Karachais, etc.), as well as other peoples of the Russian Empire, was marked by grandiose socio-political events associated with the Russian-Japanese and World War I and three revolutions.
The great-power colonial policy in the North Caucasus at the beginning of the 20th century is an integral part of the internal policy of St. Petersburg throughout the entire territory of the Russian Empire. Naturally, a comprehensive objective scientific analysis of this policy is of great interest to Russian historical science.
The relevance of this study lies in the fact that, despite a number of solid scientific works that address certain issues of national politics and interethnic relations in the North Caucasus at the beginning of the 20th century1, so far there have been no special and generalizing works covering the beginning of the 20th century (since 1906 to 1921). Meanwhile, a similar approach to the study of national politics and interethnic relations at the beginning of the 20th century. is, in my opinion, of great scientific and practical importance, as it helps to recreate a more complete picture of the plight of the peoples of the North Caucasus as part of the Russian Empire. An objective analysis of national politics and interethnic relations in 1906-1921 helps to recreate the state of crisis in which the statehood of tsarist Russia was on the eve of the two revolutions of 1917. This is all the more important because in modern Russian society there are politicians, writers, artists (for example, V.V. Zhirinovsky, A.I. Solzhenitsyn and others), who believe that in pre-revolutionary Russia there were no oppressions of non-Russian peoples, and consider the right of nations to self-determination almost a criminal invention of the Bolsheviks. They also consider the right of the nation to self-determination as the biggest threat to the integrity of modern
Russian Federation and advocate the elimination of the national statehood of non-Russian peoples, including the North Caucasus. Supporters of such a concept of the political development of the Russian Federation are trying to reduce the rights of non-Russian peoples only to cultural and national autonomy, referring to the low effectiveness of the administrative-territorial system that has developed over the years of Soviet power, which allegedly hinders the socio-political development of the country. They propose to return to the pre-revolutionary principle of the arrangement of Russia, in which, in my opinion, they mistakenly see an incentive for the political development of a multinational state. It should be emphasized that such "concepts" and "plans for the development of the country", if they are implemented, will lead to serious complications in interethnic relations, the federal structure of the Russian Federation. Such "concepts" and "plans", in my opinion, are capable of destroying our multinational federative country, the experience of which is indeed unique and instructive.
The object of research is national policy.
The subject of the study is the implementation of national policy in the Russian Federation.
The purpose of the work is to analyze the modern national policy in the Russian Federation.
Consider the features of the ethnic structure of the population and the national-state structure in the Russian Federation.
analyze the constitutional foundations of national policy in the Russian Federation.
Consider the interaction between the federal center and national autonomies: legal principles and practice.
consider the problems of regional separatism and nationalism. Origins and ways of resolving the Chechen conflict.
The versatility of the topic was determined by a comprehensive methodology of work, the use of both general scientific and private methods: functional, comparative, historical, logical, systemic, sociological, structural, institutional, etc.
Structurally, the work consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, a list of references and references.
1. Features of the ethnic structure of the population and the national-state structure in the Russian Federation
Russia is a multinational country, more than a hundred peoples live in it. Most of them are indigenous peoples and nationalities for whom Russia is the main or even the only habitat. In addition, there are representatives of more than sixty peoples whose main place of residence is outside the Russian Federation.
The indigenous peoples of Russia make up 93% of the population, of which over 81% are Russians. Over 6% of the population are the peoples of the countries of the near (5%, for example, Ukrainians, Armenians, etc.) and distant (1%, for example, Germans, Koreans, etc.) abroad.
Ethnographers unite the indigenous peoples of Russia into several regional groups that are close not only geographically, but also, to a certain extent, cultural and historical. The peoples of the Volga region and the Urals - Bashkirs, Kalmyks, Komi, Mari, Mordovians, Tatars, Udmurts and Chuvashs - account for less than 8% of the country's population (almost 4% of them are Tatars - the second largest people in Russia). The traditional religion of the Tatars and Bashkirs is Islam, the Kalmyks are Buddhism, and the rest are Orthodoxy.
The peoples of the North Caucasus: Abazins, Adyghes, Balkars, Ingush, Kabardians, Karachays, Ossetians, Circassians, Chechens, peoples of Dagestan (Avars, Aguls, Dargins, Kumyks, Laks, Lezgins, Nogais, Rutuls, Tabasarans and Tsakhurs) - make up less than 3% population of Russia. In addition to the majority of Ossetians who are Christians, they traditionally profess Islam.
The peoples of Siberia and the North - Altaians, Buryats, Tuvans, Khakasses, Shors, Yakuts and almost three dozen so-called small peoples of the North - are 0.6% of the total population of the country. The Buryats and Tuvans are Buddhists, the rest are Orthodox, with strong remnants of paganism and simply pagans.
For more than a hundred years (since 1897) in Russia (Russian Empire - USSR) 9 censuses have been conducted, and in all eight Soviet censuses the question was raised about what nationality / nationality the person being enumerated belongs to, and information about the national / ethnic composition of the population has always been published. The next census was scheduled for 1999, but did not take place and was postponed to 2002.
Thus, there is no reliable information about the national composition of the Russian population ten years after the last 1989 census. However, given the importance of the issue, one can try to estimate the number of different peoples of Russia using calculations based on current statistics on population movements.
Russia, as the heir to the USSR, is one of the few countries where an identity document contains a record of nationality. Birth and death records also contain a record of the nationality of the deceased or the parents of the born, and the statistical authorities develop data on the natural movement by nationality.
Before the war, these developments were timed to coincide with the population censuses (1926-1927, 1936-1939), and since 1958, data on the nationality of births and deaths have been developed annually. These are the total numbers of births and deaths (including children under 1 year old) of men and women for several main (cross-cutting) nationalities, determined for each former Soviet republic. In Russia (RSFSR), such nationalities were Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians (since 1958), Kazakhs, Tatars and Jews (1958-1968 and from 1976 to the present), Armenians (1958-1968, 1978-1980). In some regions, mainly in autonomous formations, data on some other nationalities were also developed.
Starting from 1988, with the introduction of electronic information processing throughout Russia, in addition to the above, titular nationalities of the former Soviet republics, as well as Germans, were also developed. And starting from 1991, the titular nationalities of the republics within Russia (the former autonomous republics and regions) were added to them. Now the most general data on the natural movement of 49 nationalities are allocated throughout the territory of Russia. Starting from 1988, the state statistics bodies also develop the national composition of migrants, including abroad and from abroad.
Thus, by summing up the natural and migratory growth of any people / nationality for the period that has passed since the census, and adding it to the census population, it is possible to calculate the population of this people for any date. However, there are several sources of inaccuracy in estimating demographics by nationality/ethnicity.
The first is a banal underestimation of demographic events. Although the underestimation is small in Russia as a whole, it can be significant for individual peoples. This is the case, for example, with peoples whose appreciable part of the population leads a nomadic way of life. Traditionally, there is a large underestimation among Islamic peoples (according to our estimates, Chechens underestimated up to a third of natural population growth in the 1960s). Ceteris paribus, undercounting is more noticeable in rural areas.
The second is the problem of comparability of current statistics, when the nationality of participants in demographic events is determined (ideally) by a document (passport), and census data, during which nationality is recorded by self-determination. Often these definitions do not match.
The third is elementary errors in information processing. Since the demography of individual peoples was not considered particularly important, the corresponding data were almost not published and not analyzed by state statistics, the materials of individual territories were summarized without proper control, and the total amount often concealed inexplicable jumps in indicators across regions.
In addition, calculations made on the basis of data on demographic processes do not take into account ethnic processes in any way, and they, along with natural movement and migration, also serve as one of the components of the population dynamics of peoples and can manifest themselves through a direct change in ethnic self-determination during the census (for example, during the 1989 census in Yakutia, about 1.5 thousand people showed themselves to be Evenks and Evens, in earlier censuses they considered themselves to be other peoples, most likely Yakuts (For two tens of thousands of Evenks and Evens of Sakha Yakutia, this is a very noticeable number). The probability of such a change is higher for peoples subject to assimilation.In Russia, peoples such as ethnically close Belarusians and Ukrainians, as well as Jews, Karelians, Mordovians, Germans, representatives of many other peoples of the countries of near and far abroad living in a foreign Russian environment are strongly assimilated by Russians. .
Ethnically mixed family marriages serve as an important channel for assimilation processes. (This channel is the only one for official, i.e. documentary assimilation, since an entry about nationality in a teenager's passport is made on the basis of an entry about nationality in the parents' documents. Such hereditary attachment to nationality goes back to the instructions of the NKVD in 1938). Namely, Ukrainians and Belarusians, as well as Germans, Jews, representatives of Finnish-speaking peoples (Karelians, Mordovians, Komi and Udmurts) have the largest proportion of children born in mixed marriages (40-90%).
The possibilities of the proposed method for calculating the national composition for 1999 can be tested on the material of earlier decades, when the results of the calculation can be compared with the direct results of the censuses. Such a check was performed for Russians and Ukrainians, for whom natural increase data were available. This can be done only for the entire USSR, since there were no data on inter-republican migration by nationality at that time.
The examples cited point to the importance of ethnic processes, without taking into account which estimates of the dynamics of the number of peoples will be obviously inaccurate. But we nevertheless decided to carry out such assessments, believing that they would show the general direction of changes in the ethnic structure of Russia correctly. Of course, the next population census will give a more accurate answer to the question of what happened to the number of peoples in Russia, and what contribution to its change was made by the actual ethnic processes.
Affects natural growth and mortality. The differences here are not as noticeable as in the birth rate, and the series ranked by life expectancy does not coincide with the ranks of population growth. According to our assessment, the smallest peoples of the North and Tuvans have the shortest life expectancy, followed by other peoples of Siberia, Kalmyks and Kazakhs, Finnish-speaking peoples (except Mordovians), Russians, Mordovians and non-Finnish peoples of the Volga region, East Slavic peoples, Germans, Jews and Armenians, peoples of the North Caucasus.
This series would correlate well with indicators such as the proportion of the urban population and the level of education, if it were not for the two biggest exceptions - the Russians are too low in it and the North Caucasian peoples are too high.
Migration growth is positive for most peoples. But it is especially large (relatively) among Armenians, Tajiks, Azerbaijanis, Ossetians, Georgians and Lezgins. If for the peoples of Transcaucasia this is a continuation of old trends, spurred on by interethnic conflicts and the economic crisis, then for Tajiks it is almost exclusively a consequence of the civil war in their homeland, because other Central Asian peoples experienced either an outflow from Russia or a weak inflow into it. For the Slavic peoples, migration only partially compensates for the natural loss. And only for two peoples from this list - Jews and Germans - it was a decade of mass emigration. For Armenians, by contrast, it was a decade of mass immigration. As a result, the Armenians, who ten years ago were almost as numerous in Russia as the Jews, now outnumber the Jews by almost 600,000.
But for most peoples, the dynamics of numbers is determined by natural movement (if we leave aside the assimilation processes). Of course, such population dynamics also affected the national structure of the country as a whole.
2. Constitutional foundations of national policy in the Russian Federation
The norms of the Laws adopted in recent years ("On guarantees of the rights of indigenous peoples of the Russian Federation"; "On the general principles of organizing communities of indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East"; "On territories of traditional nature management of indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federations" and others) regulate culture, economy, property rights. However, E. Trofimov, chairman of the State Duma Committee on Nationalities of the 4th convocation, noted that Law N 122-FZ "has emasculated everything related to financial support, especially federal national-cultural autonomies", "and the Water and Land Codes have emasculated this (the right to land and natural resources in the territories of traditional residence. - A.Yu.) to the end".
A number of analysts are alarmed by the fact that the Concept of State National Policy, which was supposed to be corrected on behalf of the President, has "hung". And in parallel with it, the Law "On the Fundamentals of State Policy in the Sphere of Interethnic Relations in the Russian Federation" is being promoted as a fundamental one.
This Law is called the basic law, but there is a real threat of "ethnic bias" in the legislation governing national policy. Replacing "state national policy" with "state policy in the field of interethnic relations" may turn out to be not just a change in terminology, but an emasculation of the content side of national policy, reducing the entire spectrum of national development and interaction to a narrow niche of proper interethnic relations and ethnocultural development.
There is a connection between such approaches and the dominance of multicultural constructivist discourses in Russian science and journalism.
Thus, a number of authors have a sharply negative attitude towards the use of the term "nation" itself and the ethnic basis of this concept. “Simultaneous use of the word ‘nation’,” writes, for example, A. Kustarev, ‘as a synonym for the concepts ‘state’, ‘people’, ‘republic’, ‘society’, ‘public’ and, in its original meaning, as a synonym for all concepts relating to ethnogenetic communities ("relatives", "tribe", "race"), interferes with an adequate understanding of all the problems associated with this. "The concept of "nation" is too repressive, that is, it imposes certain practices on society and the individual, the effectiveness of which for the public good is doubtful or even negative. The vagueness and emotional load of this concept make it easy to manipulate it in racist, xenophobic and repressive rhetoric. It would be most reasonable to do withdraw it from circulation - "forget about the nation," as Valery Tishkov put it."
Let's try to understand the logic of this position. By getting rid of the concept of a nation in the ethnogenetic sense, "abolishing" ethnicity as archaic, in fact, a whole class of political problems is declared non-existent. So, for example, these are the problems of divided nations (Russian, Ossetian, Lezgi), the problems of the status of the Russian language and Russian-speaking compatriots. Compatriots, within the framework of this logic, become simply invisible, turning from discriminated minorities and diasporas into material for civil nations in societies with strong ethnocratic tendencies. "Forget about the nation" means in practice to forget about these and other problems.
As an opposite example, one can name the policy of Hungary, China, France, and a number of other states that carefully maintain ties with ethnic compatriots, legally preserve their representation in government bodies, and often, regardless of citizenship, strengthen the ties of the respective ethnic diasporas with their homeland. The practical benefits of such a policy, as shown by international experience, are too high to be ignored.
Another urgent task of the state national policy is the neutralization of ethnic parties, ethnocratic tendencies in political life.
Ethno-nationalism, being at present a relatively marginal political phenomenon, is trying to compensate for its own weakness with increased aggressiveness, speculation on real problems, mistakes and omissions of the state national policy, in every possible way ethnicizing any problem.
It is alarming that ethnicity today is recognized and considered almost exclusively from the point of view of the threats hidden in it to the unity of Russia and the prerequisites for ethnic conflicts. It seems timely to consider the other side of ethnicity: as a constructive cultural, moral and political resource for the development of the country.
3. Achievements, problems and priorities of the modern national policy of the Russian Federation
3.1 Interaction between the federal center and national autonomies: legal principles and practice
At the same time, the controversy on national issues that has become more acute in science and journalism does not always clarify the problems and the difference in approaches. But it is undoubtedly an indicator of the awareness of the significance of national issues, the desire of various ideological currents and political forces to defend their own interpretations of the situation, assessments and options for resolving problems.
In this situation, the task of synthesizing different approaches is far from simple. The approach to policy development should not become one-sided, turn into a dogmatic rejection of multivariance, into the imposition of simplified solutions-schemes.
No less important for political practice is the task of not getting bogged down in disputes about the definition of the concepts of "nationalism", "nation", "ethnos", "civilization", "empire", "national state". This is not about neglecting the theory or key concepts of science, but about the dangers of confronting supporters of different scientific schools who are quite capable of constructively cooperating.
This formulation of the problem is methodological in nature. It makes it possible to identify the pros and cons of each policy option, to understand the difficulties faced by political decisions, lawmaking, and political practice in the field of interethnic relations.
It is necessary to show the connection between different interpretations of ethnopolitical realities, methods of categorization and goal-setting priorities in the process of developing and implementing state national policy.
It is expedient to separate different classes of problems in the problematic field of the current ethnopolitical situation.
1. Properly ethnic problems associated with the reproduction and development of the ethnic and cultural identity of the peoples of Russia. Strictly speaking, ethnic or interethnic relations and conflicts are the relations between nations and peoples in their ethno-cultural identity. At the interpersonal level, interethnic relations in the strict sense are manifested when people position themselves as "ethnophores" - carriers of systemic ethnocultural qualities. Clashes that are criminal in content, for example, are not "inter-ethnic conflicts" just because the conflicting criminals belong to different nationalities. Often the label "ethnic" is attached to phenomena in which the ethnic specificity of communities and individuals does not play a role.
The problem of dominance in the media or in children's programs of Western cultural products disguised as children's programs and advertising publications can also have an ethnic aspect. Globalization in the information sphere can deform the channels and mechanisms of transmission and reproduction of ethnic, traditional cultural values in the society. The threat to ethnic reproduction is aggravated in a situation where for the generation of children the images of the heroes of traditional fairy tales, epics, songs cease to be significant structures of mentality and identity.
In the situation of globalization, the information revolution, information channels, starting with the content of school textbooks and ending with the plots of computer games, become no less significant ethnic translator than in Pushkin's time the fairy tales told to the little poet by his nanny Arina Rodionovna. According to many experts, the strength of national identity is becoming an extremely important competitive advantage that determines the future position and status of states and nations in the world.
It seems that the sharpness of the controversy around the introduction of the course "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" is caused precisely by the question: should the state school be an institution for the reproduction of civilizational and national identity, or should it be an institution built into globalization denationalizing projects that blur the formation of ethnic identity, block the transfer of ethnic values ? One of the fathers of a united Europe, the mondialist J. Attali, predicting the emergence of "global nomads" who do not need national roots, cultural traditions, state loyalty, assured that "the new man will be free from any" limiting influences ".
Thus, ethnicity can be considered and evaluated not only as a rudiment, but also as an important element in the formation of nations and peoples. Ethnic development in modern conditions is not only the conservation of ethnic archaism, but the preservation of continuity, the reproduction of time-tested values, institutions, and practices.
For small peoples leading a way of life based on traditional forms of management, the issue of preserving their own ethnicity is especially relevant.
ethnic national public policy
3.2 Problems of regional separatism and nationalism. Origins and ways of resolving the Chechen conflict
The study of separatism should begin with an analysis of the main views on this phenomenon in political and legal science.
Under separatism (from the French. separatisme - separate) in legal science, as a rule, is understood "the desire to separate, isolate; movement for the separation of a part of the state and the creation of a new state entity or for granting autonomy to a part of the country." A similar point of view exists abroad. For example, within the framework of the American political and legal school, the point of view was recognized, according to which separatism is understood as "the withdrawal of a social group and the territory it occupies from the jurisdiction of the state of which it is a part."
In our opinion, separatism is a special form of political and legal deviation and, thus, is a deviation from the generally accepted principles and norms of mutual coexistence and cohabitation in a single territory, which have been enshrined in legal norms and approved by the majority of the population. The deviant nature of separatism from the point of view of the legal aspect of this concept is expressed in its properties such as illegitimacy and illegality.
The illegality of separatism implies its characterization as "behavior that deviates from the current legal norm, judicial practice, or directly violates such a norm."
Remaining unchanged in ideological content and illegal in meaning and legal assessment, separatism can be carried out in different forms. Moreover, the illegal and antisocial nature of this phenomenon makes it possible to characterize the activity forms of its implementation as extremist (from the Latin exstremus - extreme), since the very factor of the illegality of a particular behavioral form implies the "extreme" of methods and methods for achieving the postulated goals. A characteristic feature of extremist forms of separatism are methods and methods that are in the nature of criminal acts: inciting national, racial, or religious hatred (Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation); organization of riots (part 1 of article 212 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation); hostage-taking (Article 206 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation); forcible seizure or forcible retention of power (Article 278); actions aimed at forcibly changing the constitutional order (Article 278 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), armed rebellion (Article 279 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), a wide range of crimes against life and health, etc. At the same time, the actions of extremist organizations carried out in the form of terrorist acts (Article 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), as well as the "wars for independence" and various kinds of "national liberation movements" unleashed by them, which often turn around for representatives of nations other than those to which the "fighters for independence" belong, genocide (Article 357 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
In the modern world, the goal of extremist activity is most often political and territorial isolation. It is the intention to "one's own" isolated territory, which is the material basis for the life of a social community, that characterizes the essence of modern extremist movements. This gives reason to characterize most of them as separatist. Thus, separatism and its extremist manifestations are aimed at achieving territorial independence, i.e., in fact, state sovereignty, for a specific ethnic or religious community. Moreover, the achievement of this goal is carried out contrary to the interests of other ethnic and confessional groups.
Extremism as a complex political and legal phenomenon can have different ideological overtones. First of all, ethnic and religious extremism is singled out.
In recent years, the problem of Islamic extremism has become much more urgent in the Russian Federation. This is due both to internal factors that gave rise to political instability and separatist tendencies in regions where Islam is traditionally the dominant religion (legal sovereignty of national subjects of the Federation, economic instability, the problem of employment, a sharp drop in living standards, an ideological vacuum, etc.), and and with external influence from states and organizations interested in destabilizing the political situation throughout Russia and in its individual regions.
The destructive role of extremist manifestations of national-ethical and religious separatism is determined by the fact that the latter are often decisive factors in inciting inter-ethnic and inter-religious conflicts.
In this sense, an inter-ethnic (inter-religious) conflict is an extreme form of sharp contradictions between people of different nationalities (of different confessional affiliations) rooted in objective laws of an economic, historical and political nature. At the same time, one of these patterns is the conditionality of the normal development of a cultural community (ethnic or religious) by material factors, which primarily include a separate territory. Therefore, "from the point of view of law, the subject of an interethnic conflict can be both territories and various elements of the legal status of representatives of a particular national-ethnic group, their property and non-property rights."
Concluding the analysis of the ethno-religious nature of separatism and extremism, as well as inter-ethnic and inter-religious conflicts as extreme manifestations of separatist intentions, it should be concluded that the multi-ethnic and multi-confessional composition of Russian society objectively produces ethnic and religious conflicts, as one of the forms of resolution of which by political leaders, building their programs on the postulates of separatism and extremism, it is proposed and, most likely, will be proposed to revise the existing borders and separate certain territories from Russia. The current situation predetermines the need to develop an effective state program to counter separatism, to develop an effective regulatory and legal framework, the basis of which should be the relevant principles enshrined at the level of the foundations of the constitutional system of modern Russia.
Two ways of solving the problem of settling the Chechen conflict are proposed: the first is to give independence to Chechnya and the second is to leave Chechnya within Russia on certain conditions. In our opinion, the first way is more difficult than the second. Why?
Legal difficulties. They will arise in connection with the legal formalization of Chechnya's independence. There is no legal basis for these actions. In addition, there were no precedents of this kind.
Difficulties associated with the separatists. Chechen separatists will not agree to independence without setting conditions on their part. They will demand compensation, transfer of property, and so on.
It is not clear from what moment to consider Chechnya independent. If Chechnya is considered independent from the moment when it was proclaimed as such by the separatists, then in this case Russia was at war with an independent state. Consequently, the question of compensation for the damage caused by the war will arise. In addition, Russia in this case will act as an aggressor.
international complications. If Chechnya gains independence, an undesirable precedent will be set in international law. The problem of separatism is peculiar not only to Russia, but also to other countries. The fact that Chechnya gained independence will cause an immediate reaction in the territory of the former USSR, as well as throughout the world.
Difficulties associated with building relations between Russia and independent Chechnya. One way or another, Russia will have to build relations with Chechnya. it is located directly next to Russia, is included in the circle of its interests and in the future can become a source of instability.
Difficulties in perception of the independence of Chechnya by the Russian society. Among others, in particular, the question arises: for what did Russian citizens fight and die.
Remaining a subject of the Russian Federation, Chechnya can have all the functions inherent in an independent state, with some exceptions (army, foreign policy). Subjects of jurisdiction, in accordance with Art. 71 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and subjects of joint jurisdiction, determined by Art. 72, can be transferred to the jurisdiction of a subject of the federation (Art. 78, clause 2).
Chechnya will have to pay taxes, but no one limits the amount of subsidies to it. For Chechnya itself, in our opinion, it is more profitable to remain part of Russia, because this practically does not limit it in anything, it provides benefits in the form of federal subsidies. Chechnya will not have problems of an international character, financing, as well as problems related to the restoration of the economy destroyed during the hostilities.
3.3 Problems of migration and xenophobia in Russia
Today, migration processes are of particular relevance not only in the context of a powerful source of attracting cheap labor. As recent events in Kosovo, France and Denmark have shown, uncontrolled mass international migration of people alien in culture and language can lead to inter-ethnic and inter-confessional conflicts and destabilize society.
History knows many examples when mass ethnic migration acted as a significant instrument of geopolitics and subsequently threatened the territorial integrity of the host country.
In this regard, the situation of our country in the context of a long period of depopulation, the huge scale of illegal migration and the growth of ethnic and interfaith conflicts causes great concern. Thus, according to the FMS of Russia, the number of illegal migrants in the country in 2007 amounted to 5-7 million people. Despite a significant reduction in scale, this is still a huge figure. Illegal migration is a breeding ground for the shadow economy, corruption, national enclaves and criminal gangs. According to the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, the number of crimes committed by foreigners is steadily growing and has grown 130 times in 15 years. In 2007, 50.1 thousand crimes were committed by foreigners, of which more than 90% were committed by immigrants from the CIS. About 14% of labor migrants arriving in Moscow are carriers of dangerous infections: AIDS, tuberculosis, hepatitis, etc. Due to transfers, there is a significant outflow of capital abroad. In addition, antipathy and xenophobia on the part of Russian society is constantly growing towards migrants. In the first half of 2007, the number of crimes committed against foreigners amounted to 7.9 thousand.
Manifestations of Russophobia and ethnic conflicts are actively growing in individual subjects of the Southern Federal District. Of particular concern are the processes of depopulation in the border and strategically important regions of Russia, due to the long-term depopulation and outflow of the population to economically prosperous regions of Russia. Particular concerns are associated with the Far East. Instead of the gradually “washed out” Russian population, a large-scale migration of Chinese from the border regions is opposed, which, taking into account official claims for 1 million square meters. km of Russian territory and the overpopulation of China is a direct threat to the sovereignty of the Far Eastern regions of Russia.
All this can literally “blow up” Russian society at any moment, calling into question the territorial integrity and security of the country. The further existence of our state largely depends on the awareness and solution of these issues. Otherwise, Bernard Shaw's aphorism that "the only lesson that can be learned from history is that people do not learn any lessons from history" will apply to Russia as well.
Conclusion
The current ethnopolitical situation in the Russian Federation is a system of problems and contradictions of different levels, acuteness and complexity, which the state national policy is called upon to resolve.
The legal basis of the state national policy has been created, and there are norms that ensure interethnic and interethnic equality. Fundamental legislative acts have been adopted that establish guarantees for the rights of indigenous peoples, national minorities, the protection of the original habitat and traditional way of life of ethnic communities, the language legislation is being improved, the legal foundations for the ethno-cultural development of the peoples of Russia, etc. have been created.
But in general, the issues of ethnic development and interethnic relations are not the most acute challenge to the stability of the ethnopolitical situation in the country, the direction of the work of state bodies and departments.
Separatism is a special form of political and legal deviation and, thus, is a deviation from the generally accepted, enshrined in legal norms and approved by the majority of the population principles and norms of mutual coexistence and cohabitation in a single territory. The deviant nature of separatism from the point of view of the legal aspect of this concept is expressed in its properties such as illegitimacy and illegality.
The illegitimacy of separatism is due to the rejection of the value determinants and targets of a separatist nature by the majority of the country's population.
The multinational and multi-confessional composition of Russian society objectively produces ethnic and religious conflicts, as one of the forms for resolving which political leaders, building their programs on the postulates of separatism and extremism, are and, most likely, will be offered to revise the existing borders and separate from Russia those or other territories. The current situation predetermines the need to develop an effective state program to counter separatism, to develop an effective regulatory and legal framework, the basis of which should be the relevant principles enshrined at the level of the foundations of the constitutional system of modern Russia.
List of used sources and literature
1.Balayan G. Separatism: its content and features in Russia // Federalism. 2001. No. 3.
2.Belousov V., Belousov M. Actual problems of implementing the policy of the Federal Center in the North Caucasus // Power. 2001. No. 2.
.Bocharnikov I. The main directions of counteraction to separatism in the Russian Federation // Power. 2008. No. 11.
.Gellner E. Nations and Nationalism // Questions of Philosophy. 1989. No. 7.
5.Horowitz D. Irredentism, separatism and self-determination // National Policy in the Russian Federation. M., 1993. S. 147.
.Horowitz D. L. Structure and strategy of ethnic conflict // Power. 2007. No. 2.
.Grevtsov Yu.I. Sociology of law. Lecture course. SPb., 2001. S. 252.
8.Davitatze M.D. Activities of internal affairs bodies in the context of interethnic conflicts: Monograph. M., 1999. S. 10.
9.Democratization and images of nationalism in the Russian Federation in the 1990s. M., 1996.
.Kasyanenko M.A. Criminal policy of the state in the field of national relations // Security of business. 2011. No. 3. S. 57-65.
.Kustarev A. Nation: the crisis of the project and the concept // Pro et Contra. 2007. No. 3(37). pp. 71 - 72.
.Rybakovsky L.L. The concept of Russia's migration policy in the light of its national security // Migration Law. 2010. N 3. S. 9 - 12.
13.Yusupovsky A.M. Strategic problems of national development: to a comparative analysis of the priorities of state national policy // State power and local self-government. 2009. N 4. S. 56-60.
Tutoring
Need help learning a topic?
Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
For thousands of years in relations between peoples, the ruling elites have proclaimed a short and hard principle: "divide and rule." This rule was skillfully used by the rulers of Ancient Rome, colonial powers (England, France, Spain, Portugal, etc.) and empires (Austro-Hungarian, Turkish, etc.). In fact, the aims, principles and mechanisms of the policy applied in relations between peoples were reduced to this notorious formula.
However, the best minds of mankind have always dreamed of a society of true national harmony, in which peoples “forgetting to unite in a great family of strife” (A.S. Pushkin). But only in the 20th century, and only in individual states, did this dream come true. The priority here belongs to the USSR, Switzerland, Belgium, the Russian Federation and some other countries in which economic stability has been achieved and the national question has been basically resolved.
As world experience (positive and negative) shows, the solution of the national question and the achievement of international peace and harmony is possible only on the basis of a consistently democratic national policy.
1. Definition of the national policy, its objectives, principles and mechanisms for implementation
National politics- a system of measures taken by the state, aimed at taking into account, combining and realizing national interests, at resolving contradictions in the sphere of national relations.
National politics- this is a purposeful activity to regulate the relationship between nations, ethnic groups, enshrined in the relevant political documents and legal acts of the state.
Legal framework at the global level:
1. individual and collective rights. But there are contradictions between them, that is, sometimes it is impossible to determine what it is: individual or collective right
2. the right to the integrity of the state. There are several thousand ethnic groups in the world. Hypothetically, all of them can call themselves a nation and demand national rights. Consequently
3. The principle of national self-determination International law does not give an answer to this question, that is, states themselves determine their principles.
Types of ethnic policy
1. Genocide is a state policy aimed at the complete physical destruction of a race, an ethnic group. For example: the actions of the Nazis in relation to all whom they considered "subhuman" (Jews and all Slavic peoples).
2. Discrimination- any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, ancestral, national or ethnic origin, with the aim or effect of destroying or detracting from the recognition, enjoyment or exercise on an equal footing of human rights and fundamental freedoms in political, economic, social and cultural or any other areas of public life. Discrimination is recognized as existing in the presence of two elements: making distinctions based on ethnicity or ethnic origin, skin color - and restrictions in any form, as a result of making these distinctions, on the ability of one or those against whom these distinctions are made to enjoy fundamental rights and freedoms on an equal footing.
3. Assimilation the merger of one nation with another, with the loss of one of them of their language, culture, national identity. In many countries, under the conditions of national and religious oppression, forced assimilation took place: this was the case in the Austrian Empire, later in Austria-Hungary, in tsarist Russia. Similar processes are still going on in some capitalist countries (Spain, Greece). In a number of countries where there are national minorities, a natural A is taking place. In the USSR and other socialist countries, under conditions of complete equality of all peoples, some small peoples, having overcome centuries of economic and cultural isolation, merge with larger ethnic communities.
4. Integrationism- eg. France. Any citizen is automatically French, losing his ethnicity.
5. Polyculturalism- recognition by the state of the nth number of ethnic entities on its territory. But when ethnic groups have different status, this can lead to ethnic conflicts.
National policy is implemented at the following levels:
- nationwide
- regional
- local
Also, national policy is a concentrated expression of social, economic, linguistic, migration, demographic and other policies.
National policy differs in purpose, content, direction, forms and methods of implementation, results.
VARIETY OF NATIONAL POLICY
National consolidation |
|
humanistic |
|
Orientation |
Democratic |
Forms and methods of implementation |
Violence, tolerance, respect |
results |
Concord, unity, cooperation, friendship |
An important task of a multinational state is the optimization of interethnic relations, i.e. search and implementation of the most favorable options for the interaction of subjects of interethnic relations.
The main thing in the content of national policy is the attitude towards national interests, taking into account their: a) commonality; b) discrepancies; c) collision. The commonality of the fundamental interests of individual subjects of interethnic relations and national interests on a state scale has objective grounds. The divergence of interests is connected with the objectively existing specific conditions and needs for the development of national-ethnic communities. When national and political interests are intertwined, their divergence can develop into a clash, a conflict. Under these conditions, coordination of national interests is necessary as a prerequisite for their implementation, which is the meaning of national policy: coordination of national interests as a prerequisite for their implementation,
National policy, like any other, can and should be considered from the point of view of determining certain parts, stages and priorities in it. However, this is very difficult, since in the real practice of interethnic relations one often gets the impression that this and not another problem is a priority and requires immediate attention and resolution. It seems to every nation, nation-state formation, region that it is their problems that are the most urgent, requiring immediate intervention and action.
National policy should distinguish between:
- strategic, long-term goals and objectives that require a conceptual approach, program planning.
- tasks of an immediate nature - stem from a long-term policy, regulate interethnic problems that arise from life, arising in the course of current events.
In multinational Russia, the strategic, program goal is:
- strengthening the unity and cohesion of all peoples on the basis of national revival and interethnic cooperation,
- strengthening federal relations and ties,
- the formation of a state-political and interethnic community - the Russians.
Actual tasks of the national policy for the nearest period:
- settlement of interethnic conflicts,
- reduction of tension in interethnic relations (where it exists), protection of the Russian and Russian-speaking population in the near abroad,
- solving the problems of refugees and internally displaced persons, etc.
The national policy strategy has been developed and substantiated in the concept of national policy and the state program for the national revival of interethnic cooperation between the peoples of Russia.
When developing a national policy, certain principles and guidelines must be taken into account. The most important of them are the following:
- National policy should be developed based on the characteristics of the country, the level of its socio-economic development.
- The policy in relation to nationalities should be associated with economic, social, cultural, educational, demographic and other types of state policy, in combination with which national policy can be implemented.
- the scientific nature of national politics, which involves strict consideration of the patterns and trends in the development of nations and national relations, scientific and expert study of issues related to the regulation of interethnic relations, reliance on a truly scientific analysis of ongoing processes, qualified forecasts, and assessments of available alternatives to the political course. Where issues of national policy are considered not on the basis of a scientific approach, but subjectively, errors and excesses are inevitably made.
- A differentiated approach to the practical implementation of national policy in the regions and republics. Should be considered:
- natural and climatic conditions,
- socio-historical features of the formation of an ethnos, its statehood,
- demographic and migration processes,
- ethnic composition of the population, the ratio of titular and non-titular nationalities,
- confessional characteristic,
- features of national psychology, the level of ethnic self-awareness, national traditions, customs, the relationship of the ethnic group with other socio-ethnic communities, etc.
National policy should cover all levels and forms of national relations, including interpersonal relations. It should be aimed at every person, every ethnic community, group, regardless of whether it has its own national-state formation, whether a person lives in “his” republic or in a foreign environment.
Finally, when forming a national policy, it is necessary to take into account the world experience in regulating interethnic relations and solving national problems. And you need to keep in mind both positive and negative experiences. At the same time, the principles of national policy must comply with international legal norms and acts.
Add-ons
Human rights (from the Constitution of the Russian Federation).
Article 19. 1. All are equal before the law and the court.
2. The state guarantees the equality of human and civil rights and freedoms regardless of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, place of residence, attitude to religion, etc. Any form of restriction of the rights of citizens on the grounds of social, racial, national, linguistic and religious affiliation is prohibited.
Article 22. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.
Article 23. Everyone has the right to privacy, personal and family secrets, the right to privacy of correspondence, telephone conversations, etc.
Art. 26. 1. Everyone has the right to determine and indicate their nationality. No one can be forced to determine and indicate their nationality.
2. Everyone has the right to use their native language, to freely choose the language of communication, upbringing, education, creativity. (Comm: Nationality is characterized by adherence to the culture of a defined people, as well as by language. Nationality is a person’s belonging to a particular people. The choice of nationality does not entail any consequences for a person, because they are guaranteed all the same rights and freedoms.
Art. 27. the right to free movement on the territory of Russia, as well as to travel outside its borders.
Freedom of thought and speech, freedom of religion, the right to participate in the management of state affairs, social security, free labor, the right to education.
Dear friends!Our website is powered by pure passion. We do not require registration, money for downloading books. So it was and so it will always be. But to host a site on the Internet, funds are required - hosting, a domain name, etc. Please don't be indifferent - help us keep the site alive. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! |
21. State national policy in the Russian Federation.
1. "Strategy of the state national policy of the Russian Federation until 2025".
2. Subjects of national policy.
3.Cooperation of authorities with national-cultural public organizations.
4. Strengthening the all-Russian identity and the formation of the Russian nation in the South of Russia.
5.Economic support for ethnic and cultural groups of the population.
6. Creation of conditions for the preservation of artistic values and cultures.
7. The problem of the effectiveness of national policy.
1. State national policy- this is a system of measures aimed at updating and further evolutionary development of the national life of all the peoples of Russia within the framework of a federal state, as well as at creating equal relations between the peoples of the country, the formation of democratic mechanisms for resolving national and interethnic problems.
December 19, 2012 President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin signed the Decree on the strategy of the state national policy of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2025. Until now, the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation B.N. Yeltsin of June 15, 1996 No. 909 "On Approval of the Concept of the State National Policy of the Russian Federation"
The strategy of the state national policy of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the Strategy) is a system of modern priorities, goals, principles, main directions, tasks and mechanisms for implementing the state national policy of the Russian Federation. Strategy developed in order to ensure the interests of the state, society, man and citizen, strengthen the state unity and integrity of Russia, preserve the ethno-cultural identity of its peoples, combine national interests and the interests of the peoples of Russia, ensure the constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens. The strategy is based on the principles of building a democratic federal state, serves as the basis for coordinating the activities of federal state authorities, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, other state bodies and local governments (hereinafter also referred to as state and municipal bodies), their interaction with civil society institutions in implementation of the state national policy of the Russian Federation. The strategy is aimed at enhancing all-round cooperation between the peoples of the Russian Federation and developing their national languages and cultures. The strategy is based on provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, generally recognized principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation, centuries-old political and legal experience of the multinational Russian state. Strategy developed taking into account state strategic planning documents in the areas of ensuring state (national) security, long-term socio-economic development, regional, external, migration and youth policy, education and culture, other documents affecting the sphere of the state national policy of the Russian Federation, as well as taking into account the continuity of the main provisions of the Concept of the state national policy of the Russian Federation of 1996. The state national policy of the Russian Federation needs new conceptual approaches, taking into account the need to solve newly emerging problems, the real state and prospects for the development of national relations. The implementation of the Strategy should contribute to the development of common approaches to solving the problems of the state national policy of the Russian Federation by state and municipal bodies, various political and social forces. Strategy has a complex intersectoral socially oriented character, designed to develop the potential of the multinational people of the Russian Federation and (the Russian nation) and all its constituent peoples (ethnic communities). 2. Subjects of national policy the state and socio-ethnic societies act. The state implements the national policy through the state authorities of the Russian Federation and the state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Societies participate in the formation and implementation of national policy through the representative bodies of the Russian Federation, local governments and public associations acting on the basis of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the legislation of the Russian Federation. At the federal level, the Ministry of Regional Development (Department of Interethnic Relations), the Ministry of Culture, and various executive bodies at the regional level (for example, in Dagestan, the Ministry for National Policy, Religious Affairs and Foreign Relations of the Republic of Dagestan) are responsible for the implementation of national policy.
3. One form of self-determination is national-cultural autonomy.
National-cultural autonomy in the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as national-cultural autonomy) is a form of national-cultural self-determination, which is an association of citizens of the Russian Federation who identify themselves with a certain ethnic community that is in the situation of a national minority in the relevant territory, on the basis of their voluntary self-organization in order to independently resolve issues of preserving identity, developing the language, education, and national culture.
More than 530 national-cultural autonomies have been created in Russia: 16 federal, about 170 regional, more than 350 local NCAs (2006).
National-cultural movements are voluntary, self-governing associations created on the basis of the cultural interests of various ethnic groups with the aim of reviving or preserving values and cultural norms.
The concept of the state national policy of the Russian Federation created a legal basis in order to "form, within the framework of the current legislation, associations and other public associations that contribute to the preservation and development of culture, a fuller participation of national groups in the socio-political life of the country." The concept calls for “through national-cultural associations and associations” to apply to the legislative (representative) and executive authorities and state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in order to solve urgent problems of the livelihood of ethnic minorities.
In the South of Russia in the Caucasian republics, 89 national-cultural movements are currently registered.
National-cultural movements are focused on the revival, development and preservation of the identity of the culture of various ethnic groups, as well as their customs, traditions, and language. The principle of activity of national-cultural movements is the principle of equality - the proclamation of equality, as a result of subordination to state power, respect for fundamental human rights (personal, religious, cultural). In the South of Russia, the goals of national-cultural movements are to create conditions for cultural and original development. According to the form of organization, the national-cultural movements in the South of Russia are decentralized and do not take the form of a rigid hierarchical organization. Their structuring principle is self-organization, which is based on ethnicity and the development of cultural identity.
4. Among the potential risks, the problem of the identity system in the North Caucasus is of particular importance. In recent years, there has been an obvious trend towards their harmonization, when Russian, regional and ethnic identities have become complementary in the Southern Federal District. With the creation of the North Caucasus Federal District, on the contrary, a challenge to Russian identity in the North Caucasian macroregion objectively arises - the only district in Russia where Russians do not constitute an absolute majority of the population. There are reasons to believe that further territorial (district) identity will be formed as North Caucasian and fluctuate between Russian and general Caucasian.
If this dynamic of strengthening Caucasian identity continues in the long term, it will inevitably and contradictorily affect the relationship between Russian and regional identities. Nevertheless, the Government of the Russian Federation still considers the socio-economic factor as the main conflict factor in the region, and therefore in September 2010 approved the first "Strategy for the socio-economic development of the North Caucasus Federal District for the period up to 2025". Of course, the strategy proposed by A.G. Khloplnin, is ambitious, opens up opportunities for massive investments in the development of the North Caucasus Federal District, but it blurs the problem of Russian identity in the North Caucasus, which is not limited to financial and economic aspects, but has a defining value-cultural dimension, human dimension. At the same time, it seems impossible to ignore the religious aspects of what is happening in the Caucasus, where in recent years there has been a process of "spreading jihad" and a stable online community of Islamist militants has been formed. Trying to solve this problem, which is based on the constantly developing ideological doctrine of radical Islamism, as well as the problem of deformation of regional identity by purely material measures, by increasing the number of jobs does not seem quite right. Attempting to explain the growth of Islamist sentiment solely by economic issues leads to a dead end, since the indirect connection between these phenomena cannot be eliminated solely by the increase in the number of jobs. The absence of an alternative ideology, or at least attempts to formulate and form it by the state, complicates the situation in the North Caucasus region. Without solving this issue, it is also impossible to overcome the crisis of identities. In this regard, almost immediately after the publication of the Strategy, proposals began to appear on the need to rethink and improve it. In this regard, the "Strategy" of the development of the North Caucasus Federal District should be "sharpened" for the search for key mechanisms and technologies of regional management that reduce the reproduction of conflict factors that give rise to manifestations of separatism and terrorism. Regional conflictogenicity is a consequence of the dynamic development of society, the unevenness and diversity of the flow of modernization processes in the region (or their opposite forms - naturalization, deindustrialization, conservation, etc.). Therefore, for the North Caucasus, unlike other regions of Russia, a “Strategy” developed not according to a standard template, but the “Strategy” that will be oriented along the “all front” to reduce the effect of long-term, sustainable, “rooted” conflict-prone factors, which has an indispensable anti-terrorist orientation. Nevertheless, negative scenarios for the development of the situation in the North Caucasus are not fatal, and the problems of the North Caucasian Federal District are unsolvable. Their solution requires desire, political will, powers, resources, modern process management. Undoubtedly, the federal and regional authorities will have to reduce the degree of pressure on society from such negative attributes of Russian modernity as clannishness, embezzlement and corruption. And, of course, one cannot lose the positive results that were achieved in previous years in the formation and strengthening of an all-Russian identity in the regions of the country, including in the Russian South and the North Caucasus. 5. Article 19 (FZ "On National-Cultural Autonomies"). Financial support of national-cultural autonomies by state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. In order to preserve national identity, develop the national (native) language and national culture, and exercise the national and cultural rights of citizens of the Russian Federation who identify themselves as belonging to certain ethnic communities, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, in accordance with the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, have the right to provide in the budgets of the constituent entities Russian Federation financial resources to support the national-cultural autonomies.
To date, there are various FTPs that imply support for ethno-cultural groups of the population. For example, the FTP "Socio-economic and ethno-cultural development of Russian Germans", "Economic and social development of indigenous peoples of the North".
6. In Russia, the number of folklore ensembles is growing rapidly, more and more children are fond of playing national musical instruments, folk dances and songs. At present, there are more than 300 thousand amateur folk groups in the country, in which more than 4 million people take part, more than half of them are young people. Hundreds of groups take part in folklore festivals. In this regard, one of the priority areas of activity of the Ministry of Culture of Russia is state support for traditional folk art, support for the bearers of folk traditions. For this purpose, the Prize of the Government of the Russian Federation "Soul of Russia" is established for the contribution to the development of folk art.
Guarantees for the possibility of preserving artistic values are regulated by Article 13. “Ensuring the right of national cultural autonomies to preserve and develop national culture.” in the Federal Law "On cultural-national autonomies".
7. One of the reasons for the ineffectiveness of the national policy is the absence of a state body responsible for its implementation. For a number of years, these issues were dealt with by different departments, now the issues of national policy are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Regional Development. However, many experts consider this insufficient. "In a multinational Russia, there must be a Ministry of Nationalities." Particular attention should be paid to systematic educational and educational work with the younger generation. Another important fact is that today, in fact, no financial basis for national policy. There is no separate article in the federal budget devoted to this area. The Ministry of Finance ignores the requirements to provide for such expenses. Due to the lack of funding, it is not possible to conduct systematic monitoring of the ethnopolitical situation in the regions. Not supported by money, already adopted laws, for example, the law on national cultural autonomies, work inefficiently. In addition, it is necessary to appeal to the media with a call to prevent the dissemination in the media of statements and materials aimed at inciting ethnic enmity and hatred.
