National policy is a purposeful activity to regulate relationships between nations and ethnic groups, enshrined in relevant political documents and legal acts of the state.
This is a system of measures carried out by the state aimed at taking into account, combining and realizing national interests and resolving contradictions in the sphere of national relations. In theory and practice, it should be taken into account that national policy is closely interconnected with social, regional, demographic and other areas of political activity. IN various systems connections they relate as general and special, whole and part. This is expressed in the fact that national policy includes social, economic, linguistic, regional, migration, and demographic aspects. At the same time, in a multinational state, when implementing state policy in any sphere of public life, it is necessary to take into account national-ethnic aspects.
An important task of a multinational state is to optimize interethnic relations, i.e. search and implementation of the most favorable options interactions between 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) collisions. 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 associated with 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 and conflict. In these conditions, coordination of national interests is necessary as a prerequisite for their implementation, which is the meaning of national policy. Its main purpose is to manage interests through the interests of nationalities.
National policies differ in purpose, content, direction, forms and methods of implementation, and results.
The goals of national policy can be national consolidation, interethnic integration, rapprochement, and fusion of nations. Along with this, national policy is aimed at national isolation, isolation, upholding ethnic “purity,” and protecting the national from foreign influence.
According to the direction, national policies are distinguished as democratic, peacemaking, creative, progressive and totalitarian, militant, destructive, reactionary.
In terms of forms and methods of implementation, national policy is characterized by non-violence, tolerance, and respect. Along with this, national policy can be carried out in the form of domination, suppression, repression, by a violent, rude, humiliating method, by the “divide and conquer” method.
According to the results of national policy, interethnic relations are distinguished, on the one hand, by agreement, unity, cooperation, friendship, and on the other hand, they are characterized by tension, confrontation, and conflict.
National policy should be developed based on the characteristics of the country and the level of its socio-economic development.
A necessary condition for an effective, efficient national policy is its scientific nature, which presupposes 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. Determining the goals of national policy, choosing ways, forms and methods for achieving them need to be based on a truly scientific analysis of ongoing processes, qualified forecasts, and assessments of available policy alternatives.
In the practical implementation of national policy in regions and republics it is necessary differentiated approach. In this case, one should take into account natural and climatic conditions, socio-historical features of the formation of the ethnic group, its statehood, demographic and migration processes, the ethnic composition of the population, the ratio of titular and non-titular nationalities, confessional characteristics, features of national psychology, the level of ethnic self-awareness, national traditions, customs, relationships of the titular ethnic group with other socio-ethnic communities, etc.
The functions of national policy are:
goal-setting function: defining goals and objectives, developing activity programs in accordance with the interests of all nations and ethnic groups of the country;
organizational and regulatory function, i.e. function of regulating the activities of social and political institutions, public groups, national organizations and movements, population groups, etc.;
the function of integration, the rapprochement of national-ethnic communities based on common interests and goals;
the function of resolving interethnic contradictions, developing effective ways and methods for resolving interethnic conflicts;
prognostic function, including the development of preventive measures to prevent possible complications and aggravations of the ethnopolitical situation in the country or region;
function of educating people in the spirit of internationalism, respect for the national dignity of everyone, high culture interethnic communication, intransigence towards the manifestation of nationalism and chauvinism.
A long-term program, the core of national policy, is its scientifically developed concept. The concept defines the strategic goals and objectives of national policy, ways, forms and methods of solving national problems, scientific and practical support for the main directions of national policy.
In the Russian Federation, the concept of national policy was adopted in June 1996. The main conceptual provisions of national policy in the Russian Federation are equality of peoples, mutually beneficial cooperation, mutual respect for the interests and values of all peoples, protection of the rights of indigenous peoples and national minorities, equality of human rights and freedoms regardless of nationality and language, freedom to use their native language, free choice language of communication, education, training and creativity.
The highest goal of the national policy of the Russian Federation is to create for all the peoples of Russia, on the basis of respect for human rights and peoples, the necessary conditions for their full social and national cultural development as part of a single multinational state.
More on the topic NATIONAL POLITICS:
- Chapter 5. The idea of cultural-national autonomy in modern national politics.
- Lecture 14. NATIONAL AND ETHNIC ASPECTS OF MUNICIPAL POLICY
National policy is a theoretical and actual practical problems modernity. This is a complex phenomenon that covers all spheres of society. It also has relative independence as a system of measures carried out by the state aimed at taking into account and realizing national interests. State national policy includes the strategic tasks of the life of the state; it is a policy for realizing the interests of the entire nation. This is how it is commonly understood throughout the world.
The state's internal policy towards ethnic communities and inter-ethnic relations is usually called ethnic policy or policy towards ethnic minorities. National policy is also a purposeful activity to regulate ethnopolitical processes, containing at its core a theory, goal, principles, main directions, and a system of implementation measures. The main task of the state national policy is to harmonize the interests of all peoples living in the country, to provide a legal and material basis for their development on the basis of their voluntary, equal and mutually beneficial cooperation. Taking into account ethno-national characteristics in the life of society should be carried out within the boundaries of respect for human rights. The path to harmonization of interethnic relations lies largely through culture.
The main achievement of Russian nationality policy in the 90s of the 20th century is the development of the “Concept of State National Policy of the Russian Federation,” which was approved by the Decree of the Government of Russia in May 1996 and approved by Decree of the President of Russia No. 909 of June 15, 1996. This concept identifies the following key problems that require solutions:
1. development of federal relations that ensure a harmonious combination of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and the integrity of the Russian state;
2. development of national cultures and languages of the peoples of Russia, strengthening the spiritual community of Russians;
3. ensuring political and legal protection of small peoples and national minorities;
4. achieving and supporting stable, lasting interethnic peace and harmony in the North Caucasus;
5. support for compatriots living in the CIS and Baltic countries, promoting the development of ties with our compatriots from neighboring countries;
Ethnopolitical issues have risen in importance to the level of defense and foreign policy. In the second half of the 90s of the twentieth century. The federal government to some extent managed to prevent the growth of ethnic separatism, localize it and create conditions for the decline of ethnic extremism. But the concept of the state national policy of 1996 did not become an effective guideline for the authorities state power in solving ethnopolitical problems. In the 90s, in general, state national policy was, on the one hand, reactive in nature, being late to respond to problems and conflicts that had already emerged; on the other hand, it was fragmented, aimed at solving only individual problems, taken out of the general political context. Taking these circumstances into account, the state national policy of Russia at the beginning of the 21st century should be preventive, anticipating the most dangerous ethnopolitical problems, and holistic, providing for the solution of these problems within the framework of a single program.
However, despite all the shortcomings of this concept of national politics, it can be defined as more democratic than that carried out in previous decades. This can be seen through ideologemes that express the essence of national politics and national relations. For example, it does not contain the previously widely used formula of “nations and nationalities” and proposes the concepts of “Russian nation” or “multinational people of Russia” for use. Thus, it is given a political meaning (that is, we're talking about about citizens of Russia), and not ethnic.
In most countries of the world, the term “nation” has a political, civil meaning. In our domestic tradition, a nation is understood as the highest type of development of an ethnic group, that is, a socio-cultural community. Nowadays, an understanding of the nation as a political community is gradually gaining ground among Russian researchers. The ideologeme “Russian nation”, if used tactfully and skillfully, can become one of the values that promote integration Russian society.
Or another example. The country's previous constitutions declared the equality of all nations and nationalities. The new documents speak of the equality of rights and freedoms of citizens, regardless of gender, race, nationality, language, or attitude to religion. It is stipulated that the state must create equal social and political conditions allowing you to preserve and develop your culture. But the realization of equality of peoples in life is unrealistic.
The position is also quite democratic regarding ethnic identification: the right of every citizen “to determine and indicate his national identity without external coercion.” As it turned out later, in some regions of Russia citizens want to maintain the usual “coercion,” that is, leave the fifth column in their personal document.
In general, the concept of state national policy is progressive in nature, but it is also half-hearted and vague, which narrows its capabilities in terms of resolving and resolving diverse ethnic problems, and in some situations even aggravates them. There is a tendency to replace national politics with solving conflict problems on an interethnic basis. But national policy, in principle, cannot be aimed at solving problems today, be measures of a temporary nature, albeit relevant for the country.
The concept of state nationality policy currently being implemented in Russia constitutes the theoretical basis for state regulation of interethnic relations. However, as the results of expert surveys show, its rating among specialists is by no means high. Thus, participants in the founding congress of the Assembly of Peoples of Russia, held in July 1998, appreciated it as follows: “The fact that the concept of state nationality policy provides every basis for a consistent political solution to the problems of interethnic relations was noted by only 5% of respondents; 56% believe that it still remains a document declared, but not implemented in the practical activities of power structures at various levels in the Center and locally” (1, p.7). Due to the unsatisfactory level of the 1996 concept, its theoretical development continues.
In order to create legislative framework, which comprehensively ensures the implementation of the state national policy of the Russian Federation in relation to all peoples, federal laws “On National-Cultural Autonomy” (No. 74 - Federal Law of June 17, 1996), “On Guarantees of the Rights of Indigenous Minorities of the Russian Federation” ( No. 82 - Federal Law dated April 30, 1999), Unified List of Indigenous Minorities of the Russian Federation. Other laws are being prepared and heard. For example, in February 2001, parliamentary hearings were held on the draft law “On the Fundamentals of the State National Policy of the Russian Federation,” and on May 25, 2001, on the draft federal law “On the Russian People.” Taking into account the problems that have arisen in the practice of the activities of national-cultural autonomies of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of the Russian Federation has developed a project “On introducing amendments and additions to articles 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 20 Federal Law“On National-Cultural Autonomy,” which proposes to supplement the legal mechanisms for the implementation of rights and freedoms in the field of national-cultural development.
National policy must take into account not only an analysis of the dialectic of national interests in their concreteness, but also take into account changing national sentiments. The draft federal law “On the Fundamentals of State Ethnic Policy of the Russian Federation” highlights the following basic principles of state ethnic policy:
Preservation of state integrity and federal structure of the Russian Federation;
Equality of rights of citizens and peoples of the Russian Federation to national development;
Recognition of the unity of Russian society;
Free determination by every citizen of his nationality;
Compliance of laws and other regulations in the field of national policy with generally accepted principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation;
The inevitability of punishment for inciting ethnic hatred, insulting honor and dignity on ethnic grounds;
Recognition of the unifying role of the Russian people, their language and culture;
Interaction between state authorities of the Russian Federation and state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local governments with public associations, national-cultural autonomies of all levels, national ethnocultural public organizations, communities.
The basic principle of modern state national policy is the equality of rights and freedoms of man and citizen, regardless of his race, nationality, language, attitude to religion, membership of social groups and social movements. Other principles can be identified that can form the basis of state national policy:
The principle of national parity and interethnic partnership is the recognition of all peoples of Russia as state-forming peoples and the affirmation that no one people can have a preemptive right to control over territory, institutions of power and natural resources;
The principle of national self-organization means the creation by the state of conditions that allow representatives of different nations to independently determine and realize their national and cultural needs;
The principle of national paternalism is the responsibility of authorities at all levels to protect human rights in the national sphere and provide support to the least protected ethnic groups, categories of ethnic refugees, and displaced persons.
Nowadays, the following aspects of national policy are distinguished: territorial, demographic, economic, social, cultural, sociolinguistic, confessional, psychological. The draft federal law also identifies 5 main blocks of interrelated areas of state national policy. This:
Promoting the national and cultural development of peoples;
Promoting the formation of equal rights of citizens and peoples to national development;
Improving federal relations;
Prevention of interethnic, including ethnopolitical and ethnoterritorial, conflicts and crisis management these conflicts;
Support for compatriots living outside the Russian Federation.
Theoretically, equality of peoples means the rejection of division into titular and non-titular people, national minority or majority and other oppositions. In a strictly terminological sense, the equality of peoples means the rejection of the practice of consolidation in one form or another, including in a purely symbolic form. different status national subjects of the Russian Federation.
National policy will only become a consolidating factor if it reflects the diversity of interests of the peoples of Russia, including the most important, perhaps ethnocultural ones. When implementing national policy in the spiritual sphere, it is necessary to implement the following tasks by society and the state:
Formation and dissemination of ideas of spiritual unity, friendship of peoples, interethnic harmony, cultivation of Russian patriotism;
Dissemination of knowledge about the history and culture of the peoples inhabiting the Russian Federation;
Preservation of historical heritage, development of national identity of traditions of interaction between Slavic, Turkic, Caucasian, Finno-Ugric and other peoples of Russia in the Russian Eurasian-national-cultural space, creation in society of an atmosphere of respect for their cultural values;
Providing optimal conditions for the preservation and development of the languages of all peoples of Russia, the use of Russian as a national language;
Strengthening and improving national secondary school as a tool for preserving and developing the culture and language of each people, along with instilling respect for the culture, history, language of other peoples of Russia, and world cultural values;
Taking into account the mutual influence of national customs, traditions and rituals of religion, supporting the efforts of religious organizations in peacekeeping activities (2, p.25).
The Russian question is the most important within the framework of the Russian national question. “Interethnic relations in the country will largely be determined by the national well-being of the Russian people, who are the pillar of Russian statehood.” This provision defines the historical role of the Russian people, who, due to the corresponding national policy of the USSR, were not officially considered an object of national policy. Only in May 1945 was the merit of the Russian people in the war with Germany appreciated (see Appendix No. 1).
Until 1917, the official name of Russia was “All-Russian Empire”. Its Constitution also used the name “Russian State”. It was a multinational state with many religions, which had flexible constitutional forms that allowed for a variety of confederal relations (for example, with Finland, with part of Poland) and even principalities with their own monarchs, as, for example, in the case of the Khan of Nakhichevan. This multinational character was also reflected in the imperial passports, which not only accredited the imperial citizenship common to all residents of Russia, but also the nationality and religion of each citizen, in accordance with each individual’s own will. Among the citizens of the Russian Empire there were subjects of non-Russian and even non-Slavic nationalities, who were listed as Russian in their passports according to their at will. As a result, the name “Russian” was used in the broadest sense of the word: all Russian citizens who called themselves that way were called Russian, even if they had a different ethnic origin. Russian culture and the Russian state did not recognize national and racial discrimination, since they were anti-racist in spirit.
Problems of the national and cultural development of the Russian people are becoming more and more relevant. This happens because Russia’s national construction concept has not included national program of the Russian people, since there is no state policy in relation to the Russian people - a policy that would declare the Russian people united throughout Russia, the former USSR and throughout the world, as the Third World Council of the Russian People did. Without this policy, Russia will continue to fragment. This question is raised with particular urgency, including in connection with the painful transformation in a number of national-state formations of the Russian Federation of Russians as an ethnic majority into an ethnic minority.
The Russian people’s lack of their own statehood, different from the all-Russian one, introduces objective contradictions into the state structure of Russia as a federation. According to international standards, a state in which at least 67% of the population is represented by one nationality is mononational. From this position, Russia is, although a multiethnic, but mononational state. The Russian people, making up the majority of the country's population, are a system-forming nation in Russia. The national security of the state as a whole largely depends on the position and national well-being of Russians. For Russians, the priority now is to improve their position in society, i.e. improving the quality of life across the entire spectrum existing problems national existence - from socio-economic to spiritual and moral. Moreover, the dominant ones are the needs to increase national solidarity and the level of state protection of Russians.
In November 1998, parliamentary hearings were held “On the concept and development of the state program for the national-cultural development of the Russian people,” held by the State Duma Committee on Nationalities Affairs. In the speech of the first deputy. Minister V. Pechenev recognized the fact of belittling the role of the largest people in the country and a proposal was made about the advisability of considering the issue of the proportional principle of forming power structures. At the hearings it was noted that national relations pose a considerable danger to the country today. As a result of the absence of the Russian program and the implementation of the “Law on Sovereignty,” the historical national space of the Russian people, the Russian language has been torn apart, and a blow has been methodically struck across the entire territory of Russia to the reviving Orthodoxy. Meanwhile, Orthodoxy is the spiritual bond of the nation.
It is necessary to consider the issue of the Russian people in the general context of the state and prospects for resolving the entire complex of national problems on which the fate of Russian federalism depends. The very fact of holding parliamentary hearings on the issue “On the concept of the state program for the national-cultural development of the Russian people” suggests that Russian issues have finally ceased to be the subject of political speculation and are increasingly becoming, on the one hand, the subject of serious study, and on the other hand, it is a significant factor in national policy. It should be noted that, although the fundamental approaches to the problem of the Russian people today are determined by the “Concept of the State National Policy of the Russian Federation,” it alone is clearly not enough. Strong internal tension is accumulating in the Russian national environment, which simply needs to be relieved. I see one of the means of relieving such tension in the preparation of the “State Program for the National and Cultural Development of the Russian People.” I have no doubt that such a program is necessary.
In Soviet times, the national question was identified, in fact, only with the problems of the non-Russian population, national minorities. The Russian people were not only taken “out of the brackets” of national politics, but were declared by Lenin to be almost the main culprit of the inequality of nations that existed in the Russian Empire and became one of the reasons (although not the main one) of its collapse. From the false idea of the collective responsibility of the Russian people for national inequality in Russia came demands for the need to create at their expense a whole system of advantages for non-Russians. Russians in the Russian state found themselves in a virtually unequal position with other peoples. In Soviet times, an attempt to pose the Russian question as current problem caused rejection among some under the influence of international teaching, which proclaimed the fusion of nations as the goal of socialism; for others it was equated with the anti-Semitic machinations of the Black Hundreds; and still others (perhaps most of them were among the Russians themselves) did not notice this problem at all. Meanwhile, it is obvious that the general state of interethnic relations in Russia greatly depends on the well-being of the Russian people, who make up more than 4/5 of the country’s population. That is why in our country the main content of national relations objectively determines the Russian question. (3, p.130). The main misfortune of Russia, an expert on national processes R. Abdulatipov, believes that “national policy is not free from the influence of moneybags...” (8, p.5).
In February and May 2001, parliamentary hearings on the bill “On the Russian People” were held in the State Duma. The draft of the Committee on Nationalities Affairs of the State Duma of the Russian Federation states that the federal law “On the Russian People” defines the legal basis for the status and development of the Russian people, which historically played the main, unifying role in the creation of a single multinational Russian state. Making up the absolute majority of the country's population, it is still its basis today, and at the same time has no other form of statehood other than the all-Russian one. The law establishes fundamental legal principles for expressing and protecting the state interests of the Russian nation, preventing its depopulation, ensuring distinctive national and cultural development, achieving adequate representation of Russians in all federal and local legislative and executive branch, in educational institutions, culture and facilities mass media Russian Federation, restoration of the unity of the Russian people, destroyed as a result of the landslide collapse of the USSR (4, p. 10).
On December 17, 2001, a round table was held in the State Duma of Russia on the topic “Representation of peoples in government bodies and local governments.” The participants of this forum stated that one of the main and most effective forms implementation of the Concept of the State Ethnic Policy of the Russian Federation, the formation of a legal framework for regulating interethnic relations, the most important guarantee of stability in the country, a guarantee of interethnic harmony is the factor of representation of Russian ethnic communities in the government bodies of the Russian Federation, government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments. It was noted that during the formation of government bodies different levels it is necessary to take into account the ethnic factor, and in the representation of Russian peoples in the system of power, the principle of proportional representation must be maintained with the allocation of a certain representative quota for each of the peoples living on the territory of the subject of the Russian Federation. The need was emphasized to “strive for the eradication of the negative aspects of the process of ethnicization of state authorities and local self-government bodies, in particular, the “washing out” of Russian and Russian-speaking civil servants from the state apparatus. And consider the representation of the peoples of Russia as an integral part of the process of democratization of Russian society.”
During the discussion that unfolded in the meeting room, the following was stated: “The principle of national proportional representation is being violated everywhere with a huge infringement of the rights of Russians - take, for example, the national composition of the State Duma, where there are disproportionately few Russians. There are also problems in the formation of executive branch personnel. As noted by the head of the Department of Personnel Policy of the Civil Registry of Civil Registration, A.I. Turchinov, that as soon as a “national cadre” gets to the top of a ministry or department (let’s take the Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations or the now deceased Ministry of Nationalities), these authorities are immediately transformed, filled with personnel of the same nationality , displacing Russians and other workers. Chairman of the Committee on Nationalities Affairs of the State Duma V.I. Nikitin stated that in the national republics the displacement of Russians from all spheres of legislative and executive power has reached an obscene apogee, and this disproportion must be eliminated” (5, p. 2).
Previously, the Russian problem received almost no attention in management practice. In the State Concept it is mentioned only in connection with the task of using Russian as a national language. Until now, the problems of Russians cause unjustified shyness among managers and fears that any manifestations of interest in them could become a reason for accusations of chauvinism. Meanwhile, the possibility of preventing both peripheral ethnic separatism and interethnic conflicts largely depends on the resolution of this problem.
The Russian problem now has several main manifestations. This is the ongoing outflow of the Russian population from most regions of Russia, upsetting the existing balance of ethnopolitical forces and interests. And the lack of Russian participation in political life a number of regions, including those where they are numerically the largest ethnic community, both due to the political and legal restrictions existing in some republics, and due to their own weak political activity and self-organization. And the problem of adaptation of forced migrants from other countries to new living conditions in the regions of Russia. As well as a deterioration in the general psychological well-being of Russians.
In the national policy of Russia, the problem of indigenous small peoples (IMN) is acute. In Russia, according to the Unified List of Indigenous Minorities of the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of March 24, 2000 No. 255, 63 peoples are classified as indigenous peoples. This special group ethnic groups living in the places of traditional settlement of their ancestors. These peoples have a unique language, culture, economic activity and lifestyle in general, bearing the imprint natural conditions and historical path of development. Due to insufficiently thought-out government policies, indifference to their problems, paternalistic policies and industrial expansion, the identity of small peoples was under threat.
In recent years, the legislative framework for the legal status of indigenous peoples has been created. In 1993, the rights of these peoples were first enshrined at the constitutional level, when the state guaranteed their rights in accordance with generally accepted principles and norms of international law and international treaties Russian Federation (Article 69). In 1996, the law “On the fundamentals of state regulation of the socio-economic development of the North” was adopted. In 1999, the federal law “On Guarantees of the Rights of Indigenous Minorities of the Russian Federation” was adopted, and in 2000, the federal law “On general principles organizations of communities of indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East,” which enriched the legal basis for the status of indigenous peoples. But despite all the shortcomings of the legislation, the more serious problem is its implementation in practice.
The activities of indigenous minorities can also be regulated by the state not only through law, but also through agreement. The use of a public law agreement in regulating the activities of indigenous peoples has been successfully used abroad, for example, in Canada. In Russia, at the state level, such a possibility was first mentioned in the State Duma resolution of May 26, 1995 “On the crisis situation in the economy and culture of small indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation,” which proposes to consider the issue of creating a system of treaty relations of the Government of the Russian Federation with territorial associations of indigenous communities. Paragraph 8 of the Concept of State Policy on the delimitation of jurisdiction and powers between the federal, regional and municipal levels of government (February 2001) recognizes the possibility and necessity of concluding agreements on the delimitation of jurisdiction and powers between local governments and federal center.
Thus, at present, at the legislative level and in the public consciousness, the idea of contractual legal regulation of relations between indigenous minorities has been developed as a possible option for their existence in the modern world. Although little has been done in practical activities in this direction, nevertheless, the creation and work of public associations of indigenous minorities, primarily the Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East in the center and in the regions of their residence, the development of communities, attempts at cultural self-determination, creation Representative bodies of power from indigenous peoples and the struggle of indigenous peoples for constitutional rights “to their original habitat and traditional way of life” can ultimately lead to the creation of decent living conditions for indigenous peoples. Autonomous okrugs have become ineffective as a form of social patronage over indigenous peoples, and the autonomous status of okrugs is often used by the newcomer ethnic majority to exploit the natural resources of these territories.
Subject special attention Unregulated ethnic migration, both the ongoing outflow of a number of ethnic groups outside Russia and the illegal influx of migrants from abroad, should become national policy (See Appendix No. 2).
In national politics, two aspects stand out most: political and cultural. The political aspect is represented through the activities of state, including local, authorities, for example, through the allocation of relevant items in budgets, legislative acts, resolutions on specific problems (for example, on the return of religious buildings, the opening of classes or national schools).
The cultural aspect is the direct activity of national cultural centers, associations, national schools, the press, etc. National-cultural autonomy can be considered as an element of civil society. This is an extraterritorial entity, it is not endowed with any powers of authority, and its activities are determined in the field of ethnocultural problems. As an example, we can cite the fact that only in the Krasnodar region in 2003, three Georgian national-cultural public associations were registered with the justice department: in Novorossiysk - the Georgian cultural and educational society “Sakartvelo”, which has existed since 1997, in Krasnodar - the Krasnodar regional public organization“Georgian community “Iveria””, since 1999, in Sochi - Krasnodar regional public organization “Georgian cultural center “Iveria””, since 1999). Granting the NCA any political rights in current situation dangerous.
In the context of the rehabilitation of repressed peoples, the Ministry of the Russian Federation ensures the work of an interdepartmental commission on the problems of Meskhetian Turks living in Russia.
The Ministry of the Russian Federation as a state customer participates in the implementation of a number of federal target programs aimed at implementing state support cultural revival and development of the peoples of Russia: “Development of the socio-economic and cultural basis for the revival of Russian Germans for 1997 - 2006”, “Socio-economic development of the Republic of Kalmykia and the national-cultural revival of the Kalmyk people for 1997 - 2002” and other programs.
Ethnic problems are closely related to the problems of federalism, which gives them particular relevance. Life, including the experience of national politics in the USSR, has shown that artificial nation-building leads to contradictions between ethnic groups and the state. Ethnocratic processes cause obvious damage to the territorial integrity of Russia, affecting geopolitical processes. The problems of federalism are among the most complex and multifaceted. But they are key to the future fate of Russia. Without an optimally structured state national and regional policy, it is impossible to carry out any socio-economic and political transformations. While the situation in the sphere of federal and interethnic relations is unstable, it is impossible to overcome the systemic socio-economic crisis, but interethnic harmony still provides a minimum of stability and allows for activities in the direction of reform.
However, regarding federalism, there is no common understanding among its researchers that it is, first of all, a means of optimal regulation of interethnic relations, ensuring diverse forms of state building, taking into account the cultural and legal traditions of the peoples inhabiting Russia. All models existing in world practice for eliminating contradictions between the goals of ethnonational and general civil development within federal states come down to two main directions - adaptation and unification. Unification can manifest itself in the construction of a federation based on ethnic federalism or in the complete elimination of ethnicity from federal relations, i.e. on the so-called provincial federation. For us, ethnic federalism is unacceptable because it can increase the displacement of Russians and national minorities from the republics and give rise to ethnic cleansing. Gubernization of the federation is impossible (at least in the coming decades) due to the resistance of ethnic elites, who still have the opportunity to mobilize the population of the republics for an open struggle with the federal center. IN modern conditions It makes more sense “not to break the existing forms of federal relations, but to more fully adapt them to serve both national and general civil tasks of the development of Russian society. A similar approach can be implemented in the “ethnopolitical integration” scenario, which provides for the preservation of the ethnic specificity of the regions and “completing the framework” unified connections and relations within the federation” (6, p.217).
The state language has the greatest political significance, which the state provides support and develops. It is seen as a force that ensures stability and unity of society. Knowledge of the state language in many countries is included in the requirements for obtaining citizenship. According to the 1993 Constitution, the state language of Russia is Russian, although republics can establish their own official languages. The state language sometimes changes due to changes in the ethnic or social situation, or the loss of sovereignty by the state. So, in Byzantium from the 4th century. Latin dominated, from the 7th century. before the collapse of the empire - Greek. In countries with a numerically dominant language, the official language tends to be difficult to accept by ethnic minorities, and regional languages become more common. In ethnically diverse countries, the official language spreads more widely and with greater ease.
As a means of interethnic communication, language must be acceptable to all ethnic groups. With a mosaic ethnic structure, a language that does not coincide with autochthonous languages is often chosen to play the role of such a language. In India this is English language, although Hindi is more common here. The intention to change the official English language by replacing it with Hindi sparked protest movements among the Tamils and Bengalis (1965). In former colonies, this role is often played by the language of the former metropolis. In the USSR, the language of interethnic communication was Russian.
Language policy is the activity of the state and other political forces to establish the status of a language in society. It provides conditions for the functioning of languages, determines the spheres of distribution, and the possibilities of relevant research. Relevant decisions on the language issue affect the fundamental interests of the ethnic group - cultural, socio-political, etc. In authoritarian regimes, language policy is carried out in violent forms, accompanied by the imposition official languages and restrictions on the use of native languages. Language policy in democratic states is based on the principles of equality of languages, linguistic self-determination of individuals, and creates ample opportunities for the use of native languages, although it is limited by appropriate resources and specific conditions. To denote language policy, the term “language construction” is used, which involves choosing a language, defining its norms, using it in the names of streets, villages, etc. Language policy is a direction of social, cultural, educational, publishing and, especially, national policy, carried out both in the form of individual events and in their complex, and is directed by legislative acts.
Language policy is embodied in Constitutions with reference to the state language. Some countries have a policy of bilingualism (bilingualism) or multilingualism (multilingualism). In these cases, the language of international communication, as well as some foreign language, is added to the native language, which has state status. For example, in Burma (Constitution of 1974), Pakistan (Constitution of 1973) or Iran (Constitution of 1979) there is one state language, in Switzerland there are four national languages, etc. The Constitution of Russia (1993) proclaimed right of preservation native language, guaranteed the conditions for its study and development. In Tataria and North Ossetia, two state languages have been adopted - Tatar and Russian, Ossetian and Russian, respectively.
The most powerful language policy is in relation to the state language, which is a monopoly of the official sphere of communication and is strongly supported and stimulated by the state. For this purpose, appropriate structures are created - translation, document management, exams are introduced for access to administrative positions, etc. The issue of choosing a state language is most typical and acute for countries that have gained independence. The requirements of language policy are the need to study the language, determine the areas of its distribution - training, publishing, etc. Its general focus is related to the support of a certain people: in Russia, language policy took the form of Russification, indigenization, in Arab countries - Arabization, etc. Linguistic repressions, restrictions and prohibitions introduced by the dominant ethnic elites are caused by the desire for social and political integration of society and increasing its stability. The ruling elite of post-Soviet states uses language to expand their influence, creating a linguistic filter to cleanse prestigious social niches and protect them from unwanted ethnic counterparties.
In any state, language policy is always a reflection of state policy. It manifests itself and is carried out through a system of specific government measures. Language policy, as a rule, comes down to the following main areas:
Elimination of illiteracy;
Selection and establishment of the state (official) standard language;
A certain position of other languages in relation to the state language;
Determination of spheres and types of linguistic states and situations of each language;
Codification and improvement of the content of the state language.
On February 5, 2003, the State Duma of Russia adopted in the third, final reading the law “On the State Language of the Russian Federation” (previously, in the first reading, it was adopted under the title “On the Russian Language as the State Language of the Russian Federation.”) 248 voted for the adoption of the law of deputies, with the required minimum of 226, 37 people were against, one abstained. The law is aimed “to ensure the use of the state language of the Russian Federation throughout the entire territory” of the country. Article 1 notes that in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the state language throughout Russia is Russian. The law imposes a number of restrictions on the use of Russian as the state language, in particular, “the use of colloquial, disparaging and abusive words and expressions, as well as foreign words if they have commonly used analogues in the Russian language, is not allowed.” The law outlines the areas of use of the state language. It is subject to mandatory use in the activities and names of government bodies, in constitutional labor production, in official correspondence, when naming geographical objects and issuing documents identifying a citizen of the Russian Federation. In addition, the state language, in accordance with the law, must be used in advertising. It is stipulated that violation of the law entails liability established by the legislation of the Russian Federation.
State national policy should be focused on creating conditions that allow each people to preserve national dignity, self-awareness, exercise their national independence and free development, and determine their destiny. And at the same time, national policy should be a factor in the national consolidation of the peoples of Russia. This policy should be aimed at maintaining the spirit of interethnic communication. The principle of self-identification of peoples and the principle of their communication with each other and cooperation should not conflict with each other. This will avoid inter-ethnic tension, conflicts between peoples, as well as confrontations with government structures. The policy of friendship between peoples and the policy of their freedom and independence should not be different policies, but a single state national policy of Russia. A harmonious relationship between two factors - ethnic, national, and international, universal - should be the essence of the state national policy of Russia in modern conditions.
Literature:
Ivanov V.N. Federal Russia (the crisis and ways to overcome it). M., ISPI RAS, 1999.
Akieva M.Kh. Interaction of cultures as a factor in the political consolidation of society / Spiritual and cultural processes in modern Russia. M., 1998.
Interview with Deputy Minister of National Policy of the Russian Federation V.A. Pechenev / Ethnographic Review, 1999, No. 3, pp. 130 - 132.
Project / National newspaper, 2001, No. 4 - 5.
Representation / National newspaper, 2002, No. 6 - 7.
Bedzhanov M.B. Russia and the North Caucasus: interethnic relations on the threshold of the 21st century. Maykop, Publishing House “Adygea”, 2002, 443 p.
Russian Bulletin, 2003, No. 4.
North Caucasus, 2000, No. 8
Applications
Appendix No. 1
TOAST TO THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE
Speech by J.V. Stalin at a reception in the Kremlin on May 24, 1945 (7) in honor of the commanders of the Red Army.
“ Comrades, allow me to raise one more, final toast.
I would like to raise a toast to the health of our Soviet people, and, above all, the Russian people.
I drink, first of all, to the health of the Russian people because they are the most outstanding nation of all the nations that make up Soviet Union.
I raise this toast to the health of the Russian people because in this war they have earned general recognition as the leading force of the Soviet Union among all the peoples of our country.
I raise a toast to the health of the Russian people, not only because they are the leading people, but also because they have a clear mind, persistent character and patience.
Our government made many mistakes, we had moments of despair in 1941-1942, when our army retreated, left our native villages and cities in Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, the Leningrad region, the Baltic states, the Karelo-Finnish Republic, left because there was no other way out. Another people could have already told the government: you have not lived up to our expectations, go away, we will install another government that will make peace with Germany and provide us with peace. But the Russian people did not agree to this, because they believe in the correctness of the policy of their government and made sacrifices to ensure the defeat of Germany. And this trust of the Russian people in the Soviet government turned out to be the decisive force that ensured the historic victory over the enemy of humanity - over fascism.
Thanks to him, the Russian people, for this trust!
For the health of the Russian people!”
Ps.: Unfortunately, in subsequent decades about these good words addressed to the Russian people by the country's leadership was forgotten.
Appendix No. 2
RESOLUTION OF THE FEDERATION COUNCIL
FEDERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
about the situation in the Krasnodar region in the field of migration and interethnic relations(extracts)
The Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation expresses concern about the situation in the Krasnodar Territory, which is developing in the field of migration and interethnic relations and poses a threat to the national security of Russia.
On the territory of the Krasnodar Territory there is a large number foreign citizens and stateless persons, many of whom are in the Russian Federation illegally.
Visa-free regime and simplified crossing procedure state border The flow of illegal migrants from member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States is increasing in certain parts of the Russian Federation. In the system government agencies The executive branch of the Russian Federation does not have an authorized body responsible for the formation, implementation and improvement of state migration policy.
At the same time, the process of repatriation to Georgia of Meskhetian Turks temporarily residing in the territory of the Russian Federation is being unjustifiably delayed.
In this regard, a noticeable ethno-social imbalance with possible political consequences has emerged in the Krasnodar Territory, characterized by a growing numerical disproportion between the indigenous population of the region and migrants, which creates conditions for interethnic tension among the inhabitants of the region.
The solution to demographic and interethnic problems in the Krasnodar Territory is hampered, on the one hand, by the lack of effective legislative mechanisms for regulating migration processes, and on the other hand, by the incomplete implementation of normative legal acts previously adopted by government bodies. The need to quickly resolve problems related to illegal migration has been repeatedly noted by the President of the Russian Federation, the Security Council of the Russian Federation, and the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. Despite this, the problems of illegal migration, which have already gone beyond regional problems, remain unresolved.
Having heard and discussed the information prepared by the working group of the Federation Council to study the situation in the Krasnodar Territory, created by order of the Chairman of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation dated May 20, 2002 No. 175 rp-SF, the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation decides:
1. Recommend to the Government of the Russian Federation: to submit to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation as a priority... the draft federal law “On government regulation migration in the Russian Federation”, which provides for the participation of state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in the establishment of quotas limiting the settlement of migrants in the territories of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the possibility of temporary resettlement of certain categories of citizens, foreigners and stateless persons from the regions conflict situations and environmental threats, conditions for the creation of temporary settlement places for illegal migrants in state-designated territories... intensify actions encouraging Georgia to quickly ensure conditions for the repatriation to Georgia of Meskhetian Turks temporarily residing in the territory of the Russian Federation.
2. To propose to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation to consider, as a matter of priority, draft federal laws regulating migration processes in the Russian Federation.
3. To invite the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation to carry out effective supervision over the implementation of the Federal Law “On Citizenship of the Russian Federation” and other regulatory legal acts governing the legal status of foreign citizens and stateless persons.
National politics
1) a set of legislative organizational and ideological measures of the state aimed at organizing the life of ethnic groups and the relationships between them;
2) strategy and activities carried out by the state and aimed at taking into account, combining and realizing the national interests of all ethnic communities.
N.p. - one of the most obvious ways of non-confrontational political development of the state; the most constructive way to unblock chronic intra-national, as well as inter-ethnic and even regional conflicts, long enough social process, which includes several stages and requires the reciprocal efforts of all parties involved in the conflict. The main meaning of N.p. in coordinating national interests as a prerequisite for their implementation.
N.p. arose as a special direction of state policy during the formation of national and multinational states in Europe. The “principle of nationality” proclaimed by the Great French Revolution, according to which every people is sovereign and has the right to create their own state, contributed to the growth of nationalism and separation tendencies in the ethnic development of Europe. At the same time, the interests of the nation were usually identified with the interests of the state representing it and were almost inevitably opposed to the interests of other ethnic groups.
In Russia after October Revolution In 1917, the concept of national-territorial autonomy was created, providing for the right of a nation to self-determination within the occupied territories, up to political separation and the creation of its own statehood. At the same time, the process of creating national-state formations did not resolve national problems due to the strong territorial mixing of peoples (see:), as well as the often unclear ethnic identity and other reasons. This approach gave rise to the growth of national separatism and created the ground for ethnic conflicts. The same problems are typical for some countries in Eastern Europe.
Economically developed countries from the middle of the 20th century The role of ethnicity in the life of the state is decreasing, and the direction of ethnic culture towards the social integration of society while maintaining the linguistic and cultural pluralism of its constituent ethnic groups becomes predominant. At the same time, the ethnocultural needs of ethnic minorities can be satisfied through the creation of national cultural autonomies and national communities of fraternities. Peoples leading a tribal lifestyle may be granted special rights in order to protect them from the harsh effects of industrial civilization. A paternalistic policy may be pursued towards them, consisting of the implementation of special state programs in the field of education, healthcare, social development etc. In most cases, however, stimulating the development of an ethnos is entrusted to its own national organizations. This direction of national law is normative for modern international law and dominant ideological and political concepts and opposes both the tendency towards ethnic homogenization of society through the assimilation of ethnic minorities, their deportation or extermination (genocide), and the tendency to limit interethnic contacts (segregation).
Np is art. It involves both an in-depth analysis of the dialectics of national processes in their specificity, and taking into account changing national sentiments. The less national interests are taken into account and implemented in national politics, the more hypertrophied they are reflected in the mass national consciousness. In such conditions, national sentiments develop into nationalistic ones. This, in turn, creates a national-populist background, which is used for political purposes by some leaders of national movements.
Ethnopsychological Dictionary. - M.: MPSI. V.G. Krysko. 1999.
See what “national policy” is in other dictionaries:
National politics- National policy is the policy of the state in relation to various nationalities within the country. At different times and in different countries, the nature of national terror (pogroms, ethnic cleansing, etc.) may change... ... Wikipedia
National politics- the policy of multinational states in relation to the nations, nationalities, and tribes living in them. National policy in the Russian Federation is a system of measures aimed at updating and further evolutionary development of the national life of all peoples of Russia in... ... Financial Dictionary
National politics- a comprehensively justified system of measures carried out by the state in the sphere of national relations, aimed at realizing national interests and resolving national contradictions. National policy in complex modern conditions... ... Political science. Dictionary.
national policy- national policy, a designation adopted in the former USSR and the Russian Federation for state policy towards ethnic groups (nationalities) and in the sphere of regulation of interethnic relations. Similar to those used abroad (where... ... Encyclopedia "Peoples and Religions of the World"
National politics- In practical terms, national policy is a system of measures aimed at updating and further evolutionary development of the national life of all peoples of Russia within the framework of a federal state, as well as creating equal rights... ... Dictionary of legal concepts
National politics- Activities of government, party or public group to regulate economic, legal, ideological, cultural and linguistic relations between nations, nationalities and ethnic groups. N.p. related to language policy... Dictionary of sociolinguistic terms
NATIONAL POLITICS- 1) a set of legislative organizational and ideological measures of the state aimed at organizing the life of ethnic groups and the relationships between them; 2) strategy and activities carried out by the state and aimed at accounting, combination and ... Encyclopedic Dictionary of Psychology and Pedagogy
national policy Dictionary of linguistic terms T.V. Foal
National politics- Activities of state branches of government, parties or public groups to regulate economic, legal, ideological, cultural and linguistic relations between nations, nationalities and ethnic groups... General linguistics. Sociolinguistics: Dictionary-reference book
National politics of Russia- National policy in Russia is a complex of political and organizational measures carried out by the Russian authorities in relation to peoples different nationalities(national minorities) living on its territory. Contents 1 Russian Empire 2 RSFSR, ... ... Wikipedia
Books
- National policy in Russia: XVI - early XXI centuries. Textbook, Perepelkin L.S.. The book is dedicated to the history of the national policy of the Russian authorities, starting from the 16th century, when Russia began to acquire imperial features, and ending with the collapse of the USSR. A separate section is dedicated...
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 between government bodies and national and 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 ethnocultural groups of the population.
6.Creating 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 until 2025.” Until now, the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation B.N. was in force in Russia. Yeltsin dated June 15, 1996 No. 909 “On approval of the Concept of State National Policy of the Russian Federation”
The strategy of the state national policy of the Russian Federation for the period until 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, strengthening the state unity and integrity of Russia, preserving the ethnocultural identity of its peoples, combining national interests and the interests of the peoples of Russia, ensuring 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 government bodies, government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, other state bodies and local government bodies (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 comprehensive cooperation between the peoples of the Russian Federation, developing their national languages and cultures. The strategy is based on provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, generally accepted 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 state national policy of the Russian Federation, as well as taking into account the continuity of the main provisions of the Concept of 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 unified approaches to solving problems of the state national policy of the Russian Federation by state and municipal bodies, various political and social forces. Strategy is of a comprehensive, intersectoral, socially oriented nature, 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 politics are the state and socio-ethnic societies. The state implements 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 representative bodies of the Russian Federation, local government bodies and public associations operating 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 at the regional level various executive bodies (for example, in Dagestan, the Ministry of National Policy, Religious Affairs and External Relations of the Republic of Dagestan) are involved in the implementation of national policy.
3. One of the forms 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 consider themselves to belong to a certain ethnic community, which is in a 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 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 goal 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, the fuller participation of national groups in the socio-political life of the country.” The concept calls specifically “through national-cultural associations and associations” to contact the legislative (representative) and executive authorities and state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in order to solve urgent problems of life support for 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 cultural identity 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 culturally distinctive development. In terms of the form of organization, 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 objectively arises in the North Caucasus macroregion - the only district in Russia where Russians do not constitute the absolute majority of the population. There is reason to believe that further territorial (district) identity will be formed as North Caucasian and fluctuate between Russian and all-Caucasian.
If such dynamics of strengthening Caucasian identity continue in the long term, then this will inevitably and contradictorily affect the relationship between Russian and regional identities. However, the Government of the Russian Federation still considers the socio-economic factor as the main conflict-generating factor in the region, and therefore in September 2010 it approved the first “Strategy for the socio-economic development of the North Caucasus Federal District for the period until 2025”. Of course, the strategy proposed by A.G. Khloplinin, 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 reduced only 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 of jihad” and a stable online community of Islamist militants has emerged. Trying to solve this problem, which is based on the constantly developing ideological doctrine of radical Islamism, as well as the problem of deforming regional identity solely by material measures, by increasing the number of jobs, does not seem entirely correct. Attempting to explain the rise of Islamist sentiment solely by economic issues leads to a dead end, since the indirect connection between these phenomena cannot be eliminated solely by increasing the number of jobs. The absence of an alternative ideology or at least attempts to formulate and shape it by the state complicates the situation in the North Caucasus region. Without resolving this issue, it is impossible to overcome the identity crisis. 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” for the development of the North Caucasian Federal District should be “sharpened” on the search for key mechanisms and technologies of regional management that reduce the reproduction of conflict-generating factors that give rise to manifestations of separatism and terrorism. Regional conflict potential is a consequence of the dynamic development of society, the unevenness and multi-vector nature 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 may become preferable, but a “Strategy” that will be oriented along the “entire front” to reduce the effect of long-term, sustainable, “rooted” conflict-generating factors, which has an indispensable anti-terrorist orientation. However, negative scenarios for the development of the situation in the North Caucasus are not fatal, and the problems of the North Caucasus Federal District are insoluble. Solving them requires desire, political will, authority, resources, and modern process management. Of course, federal and regional authorities will have to reduce the degree of pressure on society from such negative attributes of Russian modernity as clanism, embezzlement and corruption. And, of course, we 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 (Federal Law “On National-Cultural Autonomies”). Financial support of national-cultural autonomies by government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. State authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, in order to preserve national identity, develop the national (native) language and national culture, implement the national and cultural rights of citizens of the Russian Federation who identify themselves with certain ethnic communities, in accordance with the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, have the right to provide for in the budgets of the constituent entities Russian Federation financial resources to provide support to national-cultural autonomies.
Today, there are various federal targeted programs that imply support for ethnocultural groups of the population. For example, the Federal Target Program “Socio-economic and ethnocultural development of Russian Germans”, “Economic and social development of indigenous peoples of the North”.
6. The number of folk ensembles in Russia is rapidly growing, and more and more children are interested in playing national musical instruments, folk dances and songs. Currently, 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 Russian Ministry of Culture is state support for traditional folk art, support for bearers of folk traditions. For this purpose, the Government of the Russian Federation Prize “Soul of Russia” is being established for contribution to the development of folk art.
Guarantees of the possibility of preserving artistic values are regulated by Article 13. “Ensuring by national-cultural autonomies the right to preserve and develop national culture.” in the Federal Law “On cultural-national autonomies”.
7. One of the reasons for the ineffectiveness of national policy is the lack of a government body responsible for its implementation. For a number of years, various departments have been dealing with these issues; now issues of national policy are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Regional Development. However, many experts consider this to be insufficient. “In multinational Russia there must be a Ministry of Nationalities.” Particular attention must be paid to systematic educational and educational work with the younger generation. Another important fact is that today, in fact, there is no financial basis for national policy. There is no separate article in the federal budget dedicated to this area. The Ministry of Finance ignores demands to provide for such expenses. Due to lack of funding, it is not possible to conduct systematic monitoring of the ethnopolitical situation in the regions. Laws that have already been adopted, for example the law on national cultural autonomies, do not work effectively if they are not supported by money. In addition, it is necessary to appeal to the media to prevent the dissemination in the media of statements and materials aimed at inciting interethnic enmity and hatred.
Speech at a scientific seminar « State policy of nation-building in modern Russia » at the Center for Problem Analysis and Public Management Design, 2011.
“The basis 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 institutionally consolidate the national identity of the system-forming nation of our state - the Russian people,” the author is convinced. This will be the topic of conversation at the event, which will take place on June 1 in St. Petersburg.
We invite you to participate and discuss. Register, come, send it to the editor your thoughts and stories.
Discussion of not only the specific content of modern national policy, but also its basic concepts: “nation”, “national relations”, “national conflicts” are often conducted in a low voice, since national issues are inexplicably classified as “delicate”. Too much for a long time The international modesty of Russian social scientists led to the fact that almost all components of national relations were classified as “non-discussable subjects”, supposedly by default already understandable to everyone.
The most serious problems that arose on national grounds were presented mainly as local, private and insignificant conflicts (the only exceptions were, perhaps, deportations during the Great Patriotic War and the two-hundred-year persecution of Jews, especially under Soviet rule). At the same time, it seemed to be forgotten that the category of national relations is much broader than the category of national conflicts.
In my opinion, the national is one of 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 matter. 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 that allows us to preserve at least some of the foundations of the diversity of states and other communities in the period of globalization. It is possible that nationality may be the last bastion in a person’s identification. There are different opinions on this matter. You can often hear high-ranking people, well-known in science, say that the national question is nothing more than “toys for politicians”, that the concept of nation and ethnic group is secondary. Life, however, proves the opposite. 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 union 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, which created a sense of national significance among people of “titular” affiliation, was a certain sign of external respect of 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 workshop, the director of a plant, the secretary of a district committee. or the Central Committee of the Party.
The second stabilizer of the Soviet national balance was money. The single state cauldron was not distributed evenly across the republics and 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: in the Baltic republics there were good roads, comfortable cities, and the post-war destruction, which almost never happened, was instantly eliminated.
Thirdly, there was a massive offensive of well-prepared cultural achievements of all union republics onto the grateful field of Russian culture, and through it into the all-Union and world cultural space. According to this scenario, for example, films from Lithuania and Georgia received millions of viewers, and books received millions of readers. Moreover, books of beautiful prose and excellent poetry by Russian writers and poets were often waited until state Russian publishing houses passed forward a volume from the national union republics, translated by those awaiting their turn. And not a single award of a package of Stalin, Lenin, and then State prizes was accomplished without people from the “oppressed outskirts” becoming laureates. This was an 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 scope of this policy.
What is happening now on the fragment of the Soviet Union left behind by modern Russia? Outwardly it is the same, but in a cruder form and without any hint of cultural mutually enriching exchange. A third of the subjects 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. A line of definite division and dissociation from the bulk of the Russian people is present today in the personnel policy of almost each of these states. What is happening today with the second position - with money? Let me give you a few figures: for each citizen of Russia in 2010 there were 5,000 rubles. funds from the federal budget in the form of a variety of transfers. Now the same indicators 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 - 12000; Kabardino-Balkarian Republic - 12900; Karachay-Cherkess Republic - 13600; Republic of Dagestan - 14800; Chechen Republic - 48,200. One Chechen accounts for 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 are growing in the villages of Chechnya. All this is presented as some kind of compensation for the hostilities on the territory of Chechnya, but not a single Russian person who was forced to leave the republic during Dudayev’s so-called ethnic cleansings received a single ruble of compensation for his abandoned home, for his abused women. This national “two standards” policy is very, very dangerous.
More and more so-called nationally colored territories are becoming mono-national. Chechnya, of course, is the leader on this list; Russians in this republic are either military personnel or builders. But everyone understands that on the monoethnic territory of a multinational state, people do not have the opportunity to understand what it means to live in a multiethnic environment. Therefore, going beyond the confines of their small society, they begin to feel and, most importantly, behave differently. So-called interethnic 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. Just look at the map of modern Russia from the point of view of the socio-economic development of the regions. The poorest and most devastated territories are the original Russian lands. There, representatives of other nations do not see the Russian people as oppressors, but the Russians themselves seem to be embarrassed to talk about the equality of people of different nationalities, afraid to speak out in defense of their national interests, for fear of being branded Russian chauvinists or nationalists.
In addition, the Russian people have absolutely no national solidarity - it has been uprooted from our consciousness. A Tatar or Kalmyk will try to provide all possible assistance to his “compatriot.” A Russian person is unlikely to help his neighbor just because he is of the same nationality. Russian national solidarity has been 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 basis 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 institutionally consolidate 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; they will conflict with the Russians as a worthless nation, not united within itself, weak-willed and hopeless. I would not like to think that this is our national policy.
V.N.Leksin
MORE ON THE TOPIC
