The national question and its structure. Russia: a national question

The national question and its structure are studied from economic, demographic, ethnographic, political science and other points of view. The study of ethnic systems is necessary for a better understanding of the characteristics social development modernity.

As you know, people went through several stages in their ethnic development. The human race has evolved into a nation. At the same time, the opinions of many sociologists agree that this can be called a large social group that has developed on certain territory and has a common historical past, literary language, and certain features of the psychological structure. It should be noted that most nations were formed in the era of capitalism.

There are countries in the world whose territories are inhabited by many different nationalities. Russia is one of the but it is very difficult to name the exact number of nationalities living on its territory. More than 94% are made up of ten numerically large nations.

Unlike some other states (for example, America), where representatives of various nationalities have an ancestral homeland and the opportunity to “re-emigrate,” in Russia the majority of nationalities are indigenous people.

According to analysts, the national question has worsened after perestroika. In Russia, according to surveys, at the beginning of 1989, more than seventy percent of residents treated representatives of different nationalities equally. Thus, the country was characterized by a high degree of national tolerance. The level of interethnic interaction was also relatively high. Thus, more than 40% spoke positively about marriages between representatives of different nationalities. In addition, more than fifty percent were members and almost 90% had representatives of other nations among their friends. There was also a negative attitude towards people of other nationalities. It was expressed by about three percent of the indigenous population. More than eight percent believed that there should be no representatives of other nationalities in the region.

During the years of perestroika the situation has changed a lot. The national question became aggravated in connection with the struggle for popular sovereignty. Armed groups began to appear and controlled the behavior of the population. With the development of nationalist movements, serious clashes arose more and more often. As a result, so-called “ethnocratic states” began to form. In them, representatives of another nation experience enormous difficulties in obtaining citizenship, and therefore are forced to emigrate.

One should not think that the national question has also resolved itself. On the contrary, the situation has become even more complicated. In some territories, relations between indigenous and non-indigenous residents have worsened, and refugees have appeared. Federalization and disintegration in Russia, Kazakhstan and other states had a great impact on the national issue.

At the same time, the centralization of the economy was noted. In such conditions, the question of justice in the nation inevitably arose. Thus, in almost every republic a suspicion was formed that it was receiving much less than it was giving.

As mentioned above, the national question is a problem relating to various spheres of society. At the same time, one of the most important directions is the study of processes and phenomena that reflect spiritual development people - their traditions, language, culture. With the internationalization of social and economic sphere The spiritual component of life remains, in some way, a repository of national identity, traditions, and spirit.

For Russia, with its diversity of languages, traditions, ethnic groups and cultures, the national question, without any exaggeration, is of a fundamental nature. Any responsible politician public figure must be aware that one of the main conditions for the very existence of our country is civil and interethnic harmony.

We see what is happening in the world, what serious risks are accumulating here. The reality of today is the growth of interethnic and interfaith tension. Nationalism and religious intolerance are becoming the ideological basis for the most radical groups and movements. They destroy, undermine states and divide societies.

Colossal migration flows - and there is every reason to believe that they will intensify - are already being called a new “great migration of peoples”, capable of changing the usual way of life and the appearance of entire continents. Millions of people are looking for better life leaving regions suffering from hunger and chronic conflicts, poverty and social instability.

The most developed and prosperous countries, which previously prided themselves on their tolerance, have come face to face with the “exacerbation of the national question.” And today, one after another, they announce the failure of attempts to integrate a foreign cultural element into society, to ensure non-conflict, harmonious interaction of different cultures, religions, and ethnic groups.

The “melting pot” of assimilation is acting up and fuming - and is not able to “digest” the ever-increasing large-scale migration flow. This was reflected in politics in the form of “multiculturalism,” which denies integration through assimilation. It elevates the “minority right to difference” to an absolute level, but does not sufficiently balance this right with civic, behavioral and cultural responsibilities towards the indigenous population and society as a whole.

In many countries, closed national-religious communities are emerging that refuse not only to assimilate, but even to adapt. There are neighborhoods and entire cities where generations of newcomers have already lived on social benefits and do not speak the language of the host country. The response to this model of behavior is the growth of xenophobia among the local indigenous population, an attempt to firmly protect their interests, jobs, and social benefits from “alien competitors.” People are shocked by the aggressive pressure on their traditions, their usual way of life, and are seriously afraid of the threat of losing their national-state identity.

Quite respectable European politicians are beginning to talk about the failure of the “multicultural project.” To maintain their positions, they exploit " national map" - they are moving into the field of those whom they themselves previously considered marginalized and radicals. Extreme forces, in turn, are sharply gaining weight, seriously laying claim to state power. In essence, it is proposed to talk about forced assimilation - against the backdrop of “closedness” and a sharp tightening of migration regimes. Bearers of another culture must either “dissolve into the majority” or remain an isolated national minority - even if provided with various rights and guarantees. But in fact - to be excommunicated from the opportunity successful career. I’ll tell you straight: it’s difficult to expect loyalty to your country from a citizen placed in such conditions.

Behind the “failure of the multicultural project” is the crisis of the very model of the “national state” - a state that has historically been built exclusively on the basis of ethnic identity. And this is a serious challenge that Europe and many other regions of the world will have to face.

Russia as a "historical state"

Despite all the external similarities, our situation is fundamentally different. Our national and migration problems are directly related to the destruction of the USSR, and in fact, historically - Greater Russia, which basically developed back in the 18th century. With the inevitable subsequent degradation of state, social and economic institutions. With a huge development gap between post-Soviet space.

Having declared sovereignty 20 years ago, the then deputies of the RSFSR, in the heat of the fight against the “union center,” launched the construction process “ nation states", and even within the Russian Federation itself. The "Union Center", in turn, trying to put pressure on opponents, began to play a behind-the-scenes game with the Russian autonomies, promising them an increase in "national-state status". Now the participants in these processes are shifting the blame onto each other But one thing is obvious - their actions equally and inevitably led to collapse and separatism, and they did not have the courage, responsibility, or political will to consistently and persistently defend. territorial integrity Motherland.

What the initiators of the “sovereignty venture” may not have been aware of, everyone else, including those outside the borders of our state, understood very clearly and quickly. And the consequences were not long in coming.

With the collapse of the country, we found ourselves on the brink, and in some well-known regions, beyond the brink of civil war, and precisely on ethnic grounds. With enormous effort and great sacrifices, we managed to extinguish these outbreaks. But this, of course, does not mean that the problem has been resolved.

However, even at the moment when the state as an institution was critically weakened, Russia did not disappear. What happened was what Vasily Klyuchevsky spoke about in relation to the first Russian Troubles: “When the political bonds of public order were broken, the country was saved by the moral will of the people.”

And, by the way, our holiday is November 4 - Day national unity, which some superficially call “the day of victory over the Poles,” is in fact “the day of victory over oneself,” over internal hostility and strife, when classes and nationalities realized themselves as a single community - one people. We can rightfully consider this holiday the birthday of our civil nation.

Historical Russia- not an ethnic state and not an American “melting pot”, where, in general, everyone is one way or another a migrant. Russia emerged and developed over the centuries as a multinational state. A state in which there was a constant process of mutual adaptation, mutual penetration, mixing of peoples at the family, at the friendly, at the service level. Hundreds of ethnic groups living on their land together and next to the Russians. The development of vast territories, which filled the entire history of Russia, was a joint undertaking of many peoples. Suffice it to say that ethnic Ukrainians live in the area from the Carpathians to Kamchatka. As well as ethnic Tatars, Jews, Belarusians.

In one of the earliest Russian philosophical and religious works, “The Word of Law and Grace,” the theory itself is rejected “ chosen people"and the idea of equality before God is preached. And in the Tale of Bygone Years the multinational character is described in this way ancient Russian state: “Just who speaks Slavic in Rus': Polyana, Drevlyans, Novgorodians, Polochans, Dregovichi, Northerners, Buzhanians... But here are other peoples: Chud, Merya, Ves, Muroma, Cheremis, Mordovians, Perm, Pechera, Yam, Lithuania , Kors, Narova, Livs - these speak their own languages."

It was about this special character of Russian statehood that Ivan Ilyin wrote: “Do not eradicate, do not suppress, do not enslave the blood of others, do not strangle foreign and heterodox life, but give everyone breath and a great Motherland, preserve everyone, reconcile everyone, let everyone pray in their own way.” , to work in our own way and to involve the best from everywhere in state and cultural construction.”

The core that holds the fabric of this unique civilization together is the Russian people, Russian culture. It is precisely this core that various kinds of provocateurs and our opponents will try with all their might to tear out of Russia - under completely false talk about the right of Russians to self-determination, about “racial purity”, about the need to “finish the work of 1991 and finally destroy the empire sitting on the neck among the Russian people." In order to ultimately force people to destroy their own homeland with their own hands.

I am deeply convinced that attempts to preach the ideas of building a Russian “national”, mono-ethnic state contradict our entire thousand-year history. Moreover, this shortest way to the destruction of the Russian people and Russian statehood. And any capable, sovereign statehood on our land.

When they start shouting: “Stop feeding the Caucasus,” wait, tomorrow the call will inevitably follow: “Stop feeding Siberia, Far East, the Urals, the Volga region, the Moscow region." It was according to these recipes that those who led to the collapse of the Soviet Union acted. As for the notorious national self-determination, which, while fighting for power and geopolitical dividends, politicians of the most different directions- from Vladimir Lenin to Woodrow Wilson - then the Russian people have long ago determined themselves. The self-determination of the Russian people is a multi-ethnic civilization, held together by a Russian cultural core. And the Russian people confirmed this choice over and over again - and not in plebiscites and referendums, but with blood. With its entire thousand-year history.

Unified cultural code

The Russian experience of state development is unique. We are a multinational society, but we are one people. This makes our country complex and multidimensional. Provides enormous opportunities for development in many areas. However, if a multinational society is infected with the bacillus of nationalism, it loses its strength and strength. And we must understand what far-reaching consequences can be caused by condoning attempts to incite national enmity and hatred towards people of a different culture and faith.

Civil peace and interethnic harmony are a picture created more than once and frozen for centuries. On the contrary, it is a constant dynamic, a dialogue. This is a painstaking work of the state and society, requiring very subtle decisions, balanced and wise policies that can ensure “unity in diversity.” It is necessary not only to observe mutual obligations, but also to find common values for all. You can't force them to be together. And one cannot be forced to live together according to calculation, based on weighing benefits and costs. Such “calculations” work until the moment of crisis. And at the moment of crisis they begin to act in the opposite direction.

The confidence that we can ensure the harmonious development of a multicultural community is based on our culture, history, and type of identity.

We may recall that many citizens of the USSR who found themselves abroad called themselves Russians. Moreover, they considered themselves as such, regardless of ethnicity. It is also interesting that ethnic Russians have never, anywhere, or in any emigration, constituted stable national diasporas, although they were represented very significantly both numerically and qualitatively. Because our identity has a different cultural code.

The Russian people are state-forming people - by the fact of the existence of Russia. The great mission of the Russians is to unite and consolidate civilization. Language, culture, “worldwide responsiveness,” as defined by Fyodor Dostoevsky, bind together Russian Armenians, Russian Azerbaijanis, Russian Germans, Russian Tatars. To consolidate into a type of state-civilization where there are no “nationals”, and the principle of recognizing “friend or foe” is determined by a common culture and common values.

Such a civilizational identity is based on the preservation of the Russian cultural dominant, the bearer of which is not only ethnic Russians, but also all bearers of such identity, regardless of nationality. This is the cultural code that has undergone serious testing in recent years, which they have tried and are trying to crack. And yet it has certainly survived. At the same time, it must be nourished, strengthened and protected.

Education plays a huge role here. The choice of educational program and the diversity of education are our undoubted achievements. But variability must be based on unshakable values, basic knowledge and ideas about the world. The civic task of education and the educational system is to give everyone that absolutely obligatory amount of humanitarian knowledge, which forms the basis of the self-identity of the people. And first of all, we should talk about increasing educational process the role of such subjects as the Russian language, Russian literature, National history- naturally, in the context of all wealth national traditions and cultures.

In some leading American universities in the 1920s, a movement for the study of the Western cultural canon developed. Every self-respecting student had to read 100 books according to a specially created list. In some US universities this tradition continues today. Our nation has always been a reading nation. Let's conduct a survey of our cultural authorities and create a list of 100 books that every Russian school graduate should read. Don’t memorize it at school, but read it yourself. And let's make the final exam an essay on the topics we read. Or at least we will give young people the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and their worldview at Olympiads and competitions.

The corresponding requirements must be specified and public policy in the field of culture. This refers to tools such as television, cinema, the Internet, and mass culture in general, which shape public consciousness and set behavioral patterns and norms.

Let us remember how Americans, with the help of Hollywood, shaped the consciousness of several generations. Moreover, introducing values that are not the worst, both from the point of view of national interests and from the point of view of public morality. There's a lot to learn here.

Let me emphasize: no one is encroaching on the freedom of creativity - we are not talking about censorship, not about “official ideology,” but about the fact that the state is obliged and has the right to direct both its efforts and its resources to solving conscious social and public problems. Including the formation of a worldview that holds the nation together.

In our country, where in the minds of many it has not yet ended Civil War, where the past is extremely politicized and “torn” into ideological quotes (often understood different people exactly the opposite), subtle cultural therapy is necessary. A cultural policy that, at all levels—from school textbooks to historical documentaries—would form an understanding of the unity of the historical process in which a representative of each ethnic group, as well as a descendant of a “red commissar” or a “white officer,” would see his place. I would feel like the heir to “one for all” - contradictory, tragic, but great history Russia.

We need a national policy strategy based on civic patriotism. Any person living in our country should not forget about their faith and ethnicity. But he must first of all be a citizen of Russia and be proud of it. No one has the right to put national and religious features above the laws of the state. However, the laws of the state themselves must take into account national and religious characteristics.

And, of course, we count on Active participation in such a dialogue between traditional religions of Russia. At the heart of Orthodoxy, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism - with all their differences and features - are basic, common moral, ethical, spiritual values: mercy, mutual assistance, truth, justice, respect for elders, the ideals of family and work. These value guidelines cannot be replaced by anything, and we need to strengthen them.

I am convinced that the state and society should welcome and support the work of traditional religions of Russia in the education and enlightenment system, in the social sphere, and in the Armed Forces. At the same time, the secular character of our state must, of course, be preserved.

National Policy and the Role of Strong Institutions

Systemic problems of society very often find a way out in the form of interethnic tension. We must always remember that there is a direct relationship between unresolved socio-economic problems, the defects of the law enforcement system, the ineffectiveness of government, corruption and conflicts on ethnic grounds.

It is necessary to be aware of what risks and threats are involved in situations that are fraught with transition to the stage of national conflict. And accordingly, in the harshest way, without regard to ranks and titles, evaluate the actions or inactions of law enforcement agencies and authorities that led to interethnic tension.

There are not many recipes for such situations. Do not build anything into a principle, do not make hasty generalizations. It is necessary to carefully clarify the essence of the problem, the circumstances, and resolve mutual claims in each specific case where the “national question” is involved. This process, where there are no specific circumstances, should be public, because the lack of operational information gives rise to rumors that aggravate the situation. And here the professionalism and responsibility of the media are extremely important.

But there can be no dialogue in a situation of unrest and violence. No one should have the slightest temptation to “press the authorities” on certain decisions with the help of pogroms. Our law enforcement agencies have proven that they cope with the suppression of such attempts quickly and accurately.

And one more fundamental point - we, of course, must develop our democratic, multi-party system. And now decisions are being prepared aimed at simplifying and liberalizing the procedure for registering and operating political parties, and proposals are being implemented to establish the election of regional heads. All these are necessary and correct steps. But one thing cannot be allowed - opportunities for the creation of regional parties, including in national republics. This is a direct path to separatism. Such a requirement, of course, should be made for the elections of regional heads - anyone who tries to rely on nationalist, separatist and similar forces and circles must be immediately excluded from the election process within the framework of democratic and judicial procedures.

The problem of migration and our integration project

Today, citizens are seriously concerned, and frankly, irritated, by many of the costs associated with mass migration, both external and internal to Russia. The question also arises: will the creation lead to Eurasian Union to an increase in migration flows, and therefore to an increase in the problems existing here. I think that we need to clearly define our position.

Firstly, it is obvious that we need to improve the quality of the state’s migration policy by an order of magnitude. And we will solve this problem.

Illegal immigration can never be completely eliminated anywhere, but it should and can certainly be minimized. And in this regard, clear police functions and powers of migration services need to be strengthened.

However, a simple mechanical tightening of migration policy will not produce results. In many countries, such tightening only leads to an increase in the share of illegal migration. The criterion of migration policy is not its rigidity, but its effectiveness.

In this regard, the policy regarding legal migration - both permanent and temporary - must be extremely clearly differentiated. Which, in turn, implies obvious priorities and favorable regimes in migration policy in favor of qualifications, competence, competitiveness, cultural and behavioral compatibility. Such “positive selection” and competition for the quality of migration exist throughout the world. Needless to say, such migrants integrate into the host society much better and easier.

Second. Internal migration is developing quite actively in our country; people go to study, live, and work in other regions of the Federation, in large cities. Moreover, these are full citizens of Russia.

At the same time, those who come to regions with other cultural and historical traditions must respect local customs. To the customs of the Russian and all other peoples of Russia. Any other behavior - inappropriate, aggressive, defiant, disrespectful - must meet with an appropriate legal, but tough response, and first of all from the authorities, who today are often simply inactive. We need to see whether all the norms necessary to control such behavior of people are contained in the Administrative and Criminal Codes, and in the regulations of internal affairs bodies. We are talking about tightening the law, introducing criminal liability for violation of migration rules and registration standards. Sometimes a warning is enough. But if the warning is based on a specific legal norm, it will be more effective. It will be correctly understood - not as the opinion of an individual policeman or official, but precisely as a requirement of the law, the same for everyone.

Civilized frameworks are also important in internal migration. This is also necessary for the harmonious development of social infrastructure, medicine, education, and the labor market. In many “migration-attractive” regions and megacities, these systems are already working to the limit, which creates a rather difficult situation for both “indigenous” and “newcomers”.

I believe that we should tighten the registration rules and sanctions for violating them. Naturally, without infringing on the constitutional rights of citizens to choose their place of residence.

Third is strengthening judicial system and construction of efficient law enforcement. This is fundamentally important not only for external immigration, but, in our case, also for internal, in particular migration from the regions North Caucasus. Without this, objective arbitration of the interests of various communities (both the host majority and migrants) and the perception of the migration situation as safe and fair can never be ensured.

Moreover, the incapacity or corruption of the court and police will always lead not only to discontent and radicalization of the society receiving migrants, but also to the rooting of “disputes over concepts” and a shadow criminalized economy among migrants themselves.

We cannot allow closed, isolated national enclaves to arise, in which it is often not laws that operate, but various kinds of “concepts.” And first of all, the rights of the migrants themselves are violated - both by their own crime bosses, and corrupt officials from power.

It is corruption that fuels ethnic crime. From a legal point of view, criminal groups built on national, clan principles are no better than ordinary gangs. But in our conditions, ethnic crime is not only a criminal problem, but also a problem state security. And it must be treated accordingly.

Fourth is the problem of civilized integration and socialization of migrants. And here again it is necessary to return to the problems of education. We should talk not so much about the focus of the educational system on solving issues of migration policy (this is far from the main task of the school), but first of all about the high standards of domestic education as such.

The attractiveness of education and its value is a powerful lever and motivator of integration behavior for migrants in terms of integration into society. Whereas the low quality of education always provokes even greater isolation and closedness of migration communities, only now long-term, at the generational level.

It is important for us that migrants can adapt normally to society. Yes, in fact, the elementary requirement for people who want to live and work in Russia is their willingness to master our culture and language. Starting next year, it is necessary to make it mandatory to acquire or extend migration status by taking an exam in the Russian language, in the history of Russia and Russian literature, and in the fundamentals of our state and law. Our state, like other civilized countries, is ready to form and provide migrants with appropriate educational programs. In some cases, mandatory additional professional education at the expense of employers.

And finally, fifth, is close integration in the post-Soviet space as a real alternative to uncontrolled migration flows.

The objective reasons for mass migration, as already mentioned above, are colossal inequality in development and living conditions. It is clear that a logical way, if not eliminating, then at least minimizing migration flows, would be to reduce such inequality. A huge number of different kinds of humanitarian, left-wing activists in the West are advocating for this. But, unfortunately, on a global scale, this beautiful, ethically impeccable position suffers from obvious utopianism.

However, there are no objective obstacles to implementing this logic here, in our historical space. And one of the most important tasks of Eurasian integration is to create for the peoples, millions of people in this space, the opportunity to live and develop with dignity.

We understand that it is not because of a good life that people move far away and often earn the opportunity for human existence for themselves and their families far from being in civilized conditions.

From this point of view, the tasks that we set both within the country (creation of a new economy with effective employment, reconstruction of professional communities, uniform development of productive forces and social infrastructure throughout the country) and the tasks of Eurasian integration are a key tool through which we can introduce migration flows back to normal. Essentially, on the one hand, send migrants to where they will least cause social tension. And on the other hand, so that people in their native places, in their small homeland, can feel normal and comfortable. We just need to give people the opportunity to work and live normally at home, in native land, an opportunity that they are now largely deprived of. IN national policy There are no and cannot be simple solutions. Its elements are scattered in all spheres of life of the state and society - in the economy, social sphere, education, political system And foreign policy. We need to build a model of a state, a civilizational community with such a structure that would be absolutely equally attractive and harmonious for everyone who considers Russia their Motherland.

We see directions for future work. We understand that we have historical experience that no one else has. We have a powerful support in mentality, in culture, in identity that others do not have.

We will strengthen our “historical state”, inherited from our ancestors. A state-civilization that is capable of organically solving the problem of integrating various ethnic groups and faiths.

We have lived together for centuries. Together we won the most terrible war. And we will continue to live together. And to those who want or are trying to divide us, I can say one thing - you won’t get it.

(Excerpts from one of Vladimir Putin’s program articles published in the Russian press during the election campaign for the Russian presidential election in 2012)

The most convincing theoretical interpretation of the nature of the national-ethnic phenomenon seems to me to be the theory of ethnogenesis. Ethnicity is a group of people naturally formed on the basis of an original behavioral stereotype, existing as a system that contrasts itself with other similar systems, based on a sense of complement (a subconscious feeling of mutual sympathy and community of people, which determines the division of society into friends and foes). Ethnic groups are formed and developed under the influence of both natural and sociohistorical factors, interaction with other ethnic groups, the transmission of an original stereotype of behavior through inspiration - the reproduction of culture. This theory is based on various features that characterize an ethnic group (culture, natural factors, sociohistorical), while other theories characterize the nature of the national-ethnic phenomenon, relying on a certain feature:

Racial-anthropological approach (characterizes the origin of races, its characteristics, differences);

The Merkai theory of nations states that the nature of nations is social, biological factors do not play a significant role;

Language theory and ethnomethodology argues that the main difference between nations is language, and it plays a key role in the life of nations;

Ethnocentrism - states that an ethnic community arises on the basis of the universal property of human nature to divide the world into “us” and “strangers” and use a sense of solidarity, sympathy and unity towards members of the “own” group, and hostility and unity towards “strangers”. aggression. It is impossible to find out a theoretical interpretation of the nature of a national-ethnic phenomenon based only on any specific feature. If this happens, then it is given great attention any one, specific feature, while others in this moment as if they were absent. And if you choose any other approach listed above, then it is impossible to obtain a complete picture of the nature of the national-ethnic phenomenon.

What is the essence of the national question? What are the features of its manifestation in Russia?

I see the essence of the national question in the fact that it comes down to the problem of national inequality, oppression and exploitation of one nation by another. Currently, this issue is very acute in Russia. Take, for example, Russia's relationship with Chechnya. Currently, Chechnya is “independent”, but Russia does not let it leave its territory. After all, it was Chechnya that decided that Russia is an oppressor, forcing them to live not according to its laws. Therefore, they decided to secede from the Russian Federation in order to have independence, and to do and live as they themselves want, and not as they are told.

Evaluate the arguments presented in defense of the recognition of the right of nations to self-determination, firstly, from the point of view of logic and, secondly, from the point of view of political practice, paying special attention to the experience of Western states that so actively defend it in international relations.

Every nation has the right to be protected from other nations in a state or to further create its own national state. However, from a logical point of view this is impossible. If many states are created in which each nation will live separately, this may lead to catastrophic consequences: constant wars, destruction of one nation by another, growth of extremism. All this can lead to the destruction of nations and the degradation of humanity completely as individuals.

For Russia, with its diversity of languages, traditions, ethnic groups and cultures, the national question, without any exaggeration, is of a fundamental nature. Any responsible politician or public figure must be aware that one of the main conditions for the very existence of our country is civil and interethnic harmony.

Colossal migration flows - and there is every reason to believe that they will intensify - are already being called a new “great migration of peoples”, capable of changing the usual way of life and the appearance of entire continents. Millions of people are leaving regions suffering from hunger and chronic conflicts, poverty and social instability in search of a better life.

Quite respectable European politicians are beginning to talk about the failure of the “multicultural project.” In order to maintain their positions, they exploit the “national card” - they move into the field of those whom they themselves previously considered marginalized and radicals. Extreme forces, in turn, are sharply gaining weight, seriously laying claim to state power. In essence, it is proposed to talk about forced assimilation - against the backdrop of “closedness” and a sharp tightening of migration regimes. Bearers of another culture must either “dissolve into the majority” or remain an isolated national minority - even if provided with various rights and guarantees. In fact, you will be cut off from the possibility of a successful career. I’ll tell you straight: it’s difficult to expect loyalty to your country from a citizen placed in such conditions.

Russia as a "historical state"

Despite all the external similarities, our situation is fundamentally different. Our national and migration problems are directly related to the destruction of the USSR, and in fact, historically, of Greater Russia, which was formed at its core back in the 18th century. With the inevitable subsequent degradation of state, social and economic institutions. With a huge gap in development in the post-Soviet space.

Having declared sovereignty 20 years ago, the then deputies of the RSFSR, in the heat of the fight against the “union center,” launched the process of building “national states,” even within the Russian Federation itself. The “Union Center,” in turn, trying to put pressure on its opponents, began to play a behind-the-scenes game with the Russian autonomies, promising them an increase in “national-state status.” Now the participants in these processes are shifting the blame onto each other. But one thing is obvious - their actions equally and inevitably led to collapse and separatism. And they did not have the courage, responsibility, or political will to consistently and persistently defend the territorial integrity of the Motherland.

And, by the way, our holiday on November 4 is the Day of National Unity, which some superficially call “the day of victory over the Poles,” in fact, it is “the day of victory over oneself,” over internal hostility and strife, when classes and nationalities realized themselves as a single community - one people. We can rightfully consider this holiday the birthday of our civil nation.

Historical Russia is not an ethnic state and not an American “melting pot” where, in general, everyone is one way or another a migrant. Russia emerged and developed over the centuries as a multinational state. A state in which there was a constant process of mutual adaptation, mutual penetration, mixing of peoples at the family, at the friendly, at the service level. Hundreds of ethnic groups living on their land together and next to the Russians. The development of vast territories, which filled the entire history of Russia, was a joint undertaking of many peoples. Suffice it to say that ethnic Ukrainians live in the area from the Carpathians to Kamchatka. As well as ethnic Tatars, Jews, Belarusians.

In one of the earliest Russian philosophical and religious works, “The Word of Law and Grace,” the very theory of the “chosen people” is rejected and the idea of equality before God is preached. And in the “Tale of Bygone Years” the multinational character of the ancient Russian state is described in this way: “Just who speaks Slavic in Rus': the Polyans, the Drevlyans, the Novgorodians, the Polochans, the Dregovichs, the Northerners, the Buzhans... But here are the other peoples: Chud, Merya, all, Murom, Cheremis, Mordovians, Perm, Pechera, Yam, Lithuania, Kors, Narova, Livs - these speak their own languages."

I am deeply convinced that attempts to preach the ideas of building a Russian “national”, mono-ethnic state contradict our entire thousand-year history. Moreover, this is the shortest path to the destruction of the Russian people and Russian statehood. And any capable, sovereign statehood on our land.

When they start shouting: “Stop feeding the Caucasus,” wait, tomorrow the call will inevitably follow: “Stop feeding Siberia, the Far East, the Urals, the Volga region, and the Moscow region.” It was precisely these recipes that were followed by those who led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. As for the notorious national self-determination, which, while fighting for power and geopolitical dividends, was repeatedly speculated upon by politicians of various directions - from Vladimir Lenin to Woodrow Wilson - the Russian people have long ago determined themselves. The self-determination of the Russian people is a multi-ethnic civilization, held together by a Russian cultural core. And the Russian people confirmed this choice over and over again - and not in plebiscites and referendums, but with blood. With its entire thousand-year history.

Unified cultural code

The confidence that we can ensure the harmonious development of a multicultural community is based on our culture, history, and type of identity.

Education plays a huge role here. The choice of educational program and the diversity of education are our undoubted achievements. But variability must be based on unshakable values, basic knowledge and ideas about the world. The civic task of education and the educational system is to give everyone that absolutely obligatory amount of humanitarian knowledge, which forms the basis of the self-identity of the people. And first of all, we should talk about increasing the role of such subjects as the Russian language, Russian literature, and national history in the educational process - naturally, in the context of the entire wealth of national traditions and cultures.

State policy in the field of culture should also set the corresponding requirements. This refers to tools such as television, cinema, the Internet, and mass culture in general, which shape public consciousness and set behavioral patterns and norms.

In our country, where in the minds of many the civil war has not yet ended, where the past is extremely politicized and “torn” into ideological quotes (often understood by different people to be exactly the opposite), subtle cultural therapy is needed. A cultural policy that, at all levels—from school textbooks to historical documentaries—would form an understanding of the unity of the historical process in which a representative of each ethnic group, as well as a descendant of a “red commissar” or a “white officer,” would see his place. I would feel like the heir to “one for all” - the contradictory, tragic, but great history of Russia.

We need a national policy strategy based on civic patriotism. Any person living in our country should not forget about their faith and ethnicity. But he must first of all be a citizen of Russia and be proud of it. No one has the right to put national and religious characteristics above the laws of the state. However, the laws of the state themselves must take into account national and religious characteristics.

And, of course, we count on the active participation of Russia’s traditional religions in such a dialogue. At the heart of Orthodoxy, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism - with all their differences and features - are basic, common moral, ethical, spiritual values: mercy, mutual assistance, truth, justice, respect for elders, the ideals of family and work. These value guidelines cannot be replaced by anything, and we need to strengthen them.

National Policy and the Role of Strong Institutions

The problem of migration and our integration project

Today, citizens are seriously concerned, and frankly, irritated, by many of the costs associated with mass migration, both external and internal to Russia. There is also the question of whether the creation of the Eurasian Union will lead to an increase in migration flows, and therefore to an increase in the problems existing here. I think that we need to clearly define our position.

Firstly, it is obvious that we need to improve the quality of the state’s migration policy by an order of magnitude. And we will solve this problem.

I believe that we should tighten the registration rules and sanctions for violating them. Naturally, without infringing on the constitutional rights of citizens to choose their place of residence.

The third is strengthening the judicial system and building effective law enforcement agencies. This is fundamentally important not only for external immigration, but, in our case, also for internal, in particular migration from the regions of the North Caucasus. Without this, objective arbitration of the interests of various communities (both the host majority and migrants) and the perception of the migration situation as safe and fair can never be ensured.

It is corruption that fuels ethnic crime. From a legal point of view, criminal groups built on national, clan principles are no better than ordinary gangs. But in our conditions, ethnic crime is not only a criminal problem, but also a state security problem. And it must be treated accordingly.

It is important for us that migrants can adapt normally to society. Yes, in fact, the elementary requirement for people who want to live and work in Russia is their willingness to master our culture and language. Starting next year, it is necessary to make it mandatory to acquire or extend migration status by taking an exam in the Russian language, in the history of Russia and Russian literature, and in the fundamentals of our state and law. Our state, like other civilized countries, is ready to formulate and provide appropriate educational programs to migrants. In some cases, mandatory additional vocational training is required at the expense of employers.

And finally, fifth, is close integration in the post-Soviet space as a real alternative to uncontrolled migration flows.

From this point of view, the tasks that we set both within the country (creation of a new economy with effective employment, reconstruction of professional communities, uniform development of productive forces and social infrastructure throughout the country) and the tasks of Eurasian integration are a key tool through which we can introduce migration flows back to normal. Essentially, on the one hand, send migrants to where they will least cause social tension. And on the other hand, so that people in their native places, in their small homeland, can feel normal and comfortable. We just need to give people the opportunity to work and live normally at home, in their native land, an opportunity that they are now largely deprived of. There are no and cannot be simple solutions in national politics. Its elements are scattered in all spheres of life of the state and society - in the economy, social affairs, education, political system and foreign policy. We need to build a model of a state, a civilizational community with such a structure that would be absolutely equally attractive and harmonious for everyone who considers Russia their Motherland.

We see directions for future work. We understand that we have historical experience that no one else has. We have a powerful support in mentality, in culture, in identity that others do not have.

We will strengthen our “historical state”, inherited from our ancestors. A state-civilization that is capable of organically solving the problem of integrating various ethnic groups and faiths.

(Excerpts from one of Vladimir Putin’s program articles published in the Russian press during the election campaign for the Russian presidential election in 2012)

The problem of nationalism in post-Soviet Russia has become one of the most confusing, dangerous and conflicting. There are too many lies and malicious manipulation in it.

Healthy sovereign nationalism has been replaced by parochial national fascism and pseudo-Russianism. Young Russian citizens of different ethnic groups are taught that they are not one whole, but warring clans divided by blood. Behind each such pseudo-nationalism there is a Belkovsky - a manipulator who deftly uses the “divide and conquer” technology. In such an explosive atmosphere, it is extremely important to calmly and honestly deal with all the lies around this topic and find the only correct path to revive Russian self-awareness. Understand that Russian is not so much blood as it is a unique type of consciousness, way of thinking, spirit.

In the chapter “The leading role of the Russian people and the preservation of the identity of non-Russian peoples,” the authors of the 6-volume book “The National Idea of Russia” deal with the harmful pseudo-nationalist myths imposed on us over the past decades and reveal the technology for the destruction of the united Russian people. Current Russian Federation

inherited from the Soviet system a solid foundation for assembling a modern civil nation - stronger than that of mono-ethnic Poland. This foundation, however, is under threat. However, like any large system, a nation is capable of either developing and renewing itself, or degrading. She cannot stand still; stagnation means the disintegration of the connections that connect her. If this painful condition occurs at a time of great confrontation with external forces (like the Cold War), then it will certainly be used by the enemy, and almost the main blow will be directed precisely at the mechanism that binds peoples together into a family.

As soon as the ideas of progress and the unified socialist content of national cultures in the USSR were “repressed” ideologically at the end of perestroika, and then lost their political and economic foundations, aggressive politicized ethnicity came to the fore, and the “architects” blew up this mine under statehood, which was ripe the need to discuss the Russian national question.

Let us briefly recall the stages of maturation of this threat. The decision to shift the main direction of the information-psychological war against the USSR from social problems to the national question in the USSR was made in the Cold War strategy already in the 1970s. But the blinders of historical materialism did not allow the leadership of the CPSU to realize the scale of this threat.

It was believed that in the USSR “there are nations, but there is no national question.” In the 1970s an alliance of anti-Soviet forces emerged within the USSR and its external geopolitical enemy in cold war. During the years of perestroika, already with the participation of the ruling elite of the CPSU, powerful blows were dealt to the Soviet system of interethnic relations in all its sections - from economic to symbolic. The tools of all the great ideologies were used - liberalism, Marxism and nationalism, primarily Russian nationalism.

Prominent intellectuals took part in the information and psychological preparation for the collapse of the USSR, as they saw the solution to the national question. Here are a few brief statements from a huge stream of program messages. Historian Yuri Afanasyev: “The USSR is neither a country nor a state... The USSR as a country has no future.” Advisor to the President of Russia Galina Starovoitova: “The Soviet Union is the last empire that was embraced by the worldwide process of decolonization, which has been going on since the end of World War II... We should not forget that our state developed artificially and was based on violence.” The historian M. Gefter spoke at the Adenauer Foundation about the USSR, “this cosmopolitan monster,” that “the connection, thoroughly imbued with historical violence, was doomed” and the Belovezhsky verdict was logical. The writer A. Adamovich stated at a meeting at Moscow State University: “On the outskirts of the Union, national and democratic ideas basically converge - especially in the Baltic states.”

But “Westerners” alone could not legitimize in the eyes of a fairly large part of the intelligentsia the collapse of the country into “national apartments.” The “patriots” who rejected the imperial structure of Russia also played a significant role here.

Based on the ideas of ethnonationalism, they tried to prove that non-Russian peoples rallied around the Russian core Russian Empire, and then the USSR, deplete the vitality of the Russian people - roughly speaking, they “eat up” them. Representatives of the “right” wing of the destroyers of the interethnic community of the USSR expressed exactly the same theses as the extreme Westerner G. Starovoitov (sometimes their coincidence is almost textual).

The argumentation of the right-wing nationalists was immediately picked up by Lithuanian, Estonian and other separatists... But the most important thing that ultimately decided the fate of the Union: this argumentation and the very idea of \u200b\u200b“secession of Russia” were picked up precisely by those who considered the nationalists their main enemy - Russian democrats.

The national question in modern Russia

Thus, we're talking about about a large program with cooperative effects. It was carried out contrary to the clearly expressed will of the majority of the population. An important book, There Is an Opinion, based on a multifaceted analysis of polls from 1989–1990. it is concluded that at that moment the level of politicization of ethnic feelings was very low. In 1991, a referendum was held with a provocative question: should the USSR be preserved? Before this, the very posing of such a question seemed absurd and was rejected by mass consciousness; The very thought, the very possibility of the disappearance of the USSR, the Motherland, and the state seemed impossible. Raising such a question in itself already worked to form a mass idea of the possibility of collapse. This was provocative. The President of the country himself stated that the advisability of preserving the USSR is in doubt, and this issue must be put to a vote. As we remember, 76% of voters were in favor of maintaining Soviet Union. In republics with complex ethnic composition the value of the interethnic community system created in the USSR was felt especially acutely.

For example, 95% of citizens took part in voting in the referendum on the fate of the USSR in Uzbekistan, of which 93.7% were in favor of preserving the Union; in Kazakhstan the turnout was 89%, 94% said “yes”; in Tajikistan the turnout was 94%, 96% said “yes”. But the majority in Moscow and St. Petersburg voted against the USSR.

An important step was the announcement on June 12, 1990 of the “Declaration on the Sovereignty of the RSFSR.” This was a decisive action to dismember the USSR; it was not without reason that it was celebrated as the absurd “Russian Independence Day.” The Declaration of Sovereignty of 1990 was the first step towards the liquidation of public property and its division into national republics. The destruction of the social basis on which the “family of nations” gathered (“privatization” in the broad sense of the word) destroyed the entire building of an interethnic community.

At the same time, declarations were being prepared on the separation of parts of the RSFSR. On November 27, 1990, Checheno-Ingushetia adopted such a declaration. She already considered herself as sovereign state, the Declaration did not contain direct or even indirect references to its affiliation with the RSFSR. These two acts are a single bundle; they were written, one might say, by the same hand, at the same headquarters.

Having access to the levers of power and the media, the elite that began the division of the USSR undermined all mechanisms that reproduced the Soviet type of interethnic relations. Thus, in many republics a struggle was launched against the Russian language and alphabet (Cyrillic). It is known that such actions in the field of language are an effective means of inciting interethnic hatred.

The philosophy and technology of the collapse of the Union must be understood, since the Russian Federation in its national-state type is the same as the Soviet Union, only smaller.

Neither the philosophy of collapse nor the philosophers themselves have gone anywhere. Leonid Batkin, one of the “foremen” of perestroika, said after the liquidation of the USSR, reminding his comrades: “Who is the formula about a united and indivisible Russia intended for now? To the illiterate masses?

The anti-Soviet revolutions in the USSR and Eastern Europe, and a similar operation against Yugoslavia, relied to a large extent on the artificial incitement of aggressive ethnicity directed against the whole. The technologies tested in this large program are now being used just as effectively against post-Soviet states and attempts to integrate them. After the liquidation of the USSR, anti-Soviet separatism continues to feed the already anti-Russian nationalism of an influential part of the post-Soviet elite. Since it continues to be an important factor in the system of threats to Russia, its study remains an urgent task.

During the 1990s opponents Russian model national relations achieved two strategic successes.

Firstly, the politicized ethnic consciousness of non-Russian peoples was largely transformed from “Russian-centric” to ethnocentric.

Previously, the Russian people unconditionally recognized the role of the “big brother” - the core that holds together all the peoples of the country. Since the late 1980s. Efforts were made to awaken in non-Russian peoples a "tribal" consciousness - an ethnic nationalism reversed into the mythical "golden age" that was supposedly interrupted by annexation to Russia. This greatly complicates the restoration of centuries-old forms of interethnic relations and creates new splits.

Secondly, having managed to turn the national elites against the Union Center and achieve the liquidation of the USSR, they nurtured the worm of separatism, which continues to gnaw at the peoples of the post-Soviet states. Division of the USSR as a state Soviet people sharply weakened the coherence of those states that emerged after its collapse. The temptation of division goes deeper, and even peoples who have long ago realized themselves as united begin to diverge into subethnic groups.

As a result, there is a degradation not only of the community of the “big people” (Russia), but also of large ethnic communities - peoples such as, for example, the Mordovians or the Chuvash. Thus, the Mordovian national movement split into Erzya and Moksha. At first, in the mid-1990s, this was accepted as a “political misunderstanding.” But radical nationalists declared that Mordovians as an ethnic group do not exist and it is necessary to create an Erzya-Moksha republic from two districts. During censuses, many began to record their nationality using subethnic names.

A little later, similar processes began among the Mari: during the 2002 census, 56 thousand called themselves “meadow Mari,” and 19 thousand called themselves “mountain Mari.” The mountaineers were loyal to the authorities of the Republic of Mari El, and the rest went into opposition. In the same year, one of the movements called on the northern Komi to register in the census not as “Komi”, but as “Komi-Izhemtsy”. Half of the residents of the Izhemsky district followed this call.

Cracks have also appeared between the national blocs of the Russian Federation. For example, the Constitution of Tatarstan defined it as “a sovereign state, a subject international law", and the "Law on Subsoil" declared the subsoil of Tatarstan the exclusive property of the republic. Fear of a crisis forces people to unite along ethnic lines, into small “tangible” communities. This strengthened ethnocratic tendencies, which means the structural degradation of the nation.

Many ties that held inter-ethnic coexistence, cultural and economic relations between peoples were immediately broken; it broke the system itself information channels that united ethnic groups into a nation. A sign of ethnocracy is the over-representation in key positions in government of the peoples who gave the name to the republic. Thus, in Adygea, where Circassians make up 20% of the population, they occupy 70% of leadership positions. In Tatarstan, before perestroika, only 2% of enterprises were headed by Tatars, and in the late 1990s. - 65%. This, in general, leads to the archaization of the state system, revives the clan system of power, the claims to power of tribal formations, and interferes with the solution of the national question.

Territorial claims to neighboring peoples are also a manifestation of ethnocratic tendencies. For this, historical (often “ancient”) sources are used, even the rhetoric of social and ethnic racism. Russia's coherence is weakening as a result of "linguistic nationalism" - ethnocratic manipulation of language. According to the 1989 census, in Khakassia 91% of the population spoke Russian fluently, and 9% spoke Khakassian. However, in the 1990s. An attempt was made to introduce school education in the Khakass language. The attempt was unsuccessful, as was a similar attempt with the Komi-Permyak language. All this may seem like small manifestations of ethnonationalism, but these little things undermine interethnic ties and, moreover, are too reminiscent of elements and parts of a single process, one might even say, a systemic anti-Russian project.

One of the main threats modern Russia stands for the dismantling of its people gathered around the Russian core.

The loosening and weakening of the core leads to the collapse of the entire system of national relations. This crisis has driven Russia into a historical trap, from which it is possible to get out only by once again “gathering” its people as a subject of history with political will. This requires Russian civilizational nationalism. As they say, “nationalism creates a nation, not nationalism.”

Russian society is faced with a choice: what kind of Russian nationalism is preferable to acquire? There are two types of nationalism that are at odds with each other - “civil” or civilizational, which gathers peoples into large nations, and “ethnic,” which divides nations and peoples into smaller ones. ethnic communities(“tribes”)

Ethnonationalism consolidates the people with the image of the enemy and the collective memory of the intolerable insult or trauma inflicted by this enemy. It looks to the past. And civil nationalism builds ethnicity on a different ideological matrix, on general project future.

In Russia in the 90s. managed to suppress and discredit sovereign nationalism, which unites related nationalities into peoples, and peoples into a large nation. In return, ethno-nationalism is “pumped” into the mass consciousness, leading to the division or even pitting of peoples against each other and to the archaization of their culture. This threat, directly related to the operation to dismantle the Soviet people and its core - the Russians, continues to mature and give rise to new dangers derived from it, and actualizes the Russian national question.

From the experience of recent years it is clear that one of the tasks of the “cold” civil war at this stage is to undermine the civil nationalism of Russians and incite ethno-nationalism in them. This disruption is being carried out among the “boiling layer” of youth and intelligentsia. Given the weakness and liberal independence of the state, this is enough to suppress the will of the masses, incapable of self-organization. The shift of the majority of Russians to ethno-nationalism has not yet occurred, but they are constantly being pushed towards this. It is important how the attitudes of young people have changed: in the 1990s. she was more tolerant of other ethnic groups than people of older generations, and by 2003 an inversion had occurred.

Russian ethnonationalism is gaining popularity among the masses, but the attraction to ethnic and civic nationalism is in an unstable balance. There will likely be a shift in one direction or another in the coming years. Most likely, no political project will emerge based on Russian ethnic nationalism, but as a means of pitting the peoples of Russia against each other and deepening splits in the Russian core, this program poses an urgent and fundamental threat to Russia.

The national question and its structure. Russia: a national question

What is the essence of the national question? What are the features of its manifestation in Russia?

The national question in modern Russia

Similar articles

Read also