What is the national question. Ways to solve the national question in Russia. The problem of migration and our integration project
national question the totality of political, economic, territorial, legal, ideological and cultural relations between nations ,
national groups and nationalities (See nationality) in various socio-economic formations. In an exploitative society, N. century. arises in the course of the struggle of nations and peoples for national liberation and the most favorable conditions for their social development. After the victory of the socialist revolution and in a socialist society, he covers the problems of relations between nations and peoples in the process of establishing their voluntary alliance and friendship, strengthening unity and all-round rapprochement on the basis of complete equality. Marxism-Leninism considers N. century. as subordinate to the general question of the sociopolitical progress of society and proceeds from the fact that the main thing in the new century. is the unification of working people, regardless of nationality, in the struggle against all forms of oppression, for an advanced social system. The oppression and exploitation of some peoples by others and the struggle for liberation began under the slave system and continued into the epoch of feudalism. To the full extent N. century. arose during the period of the destruction of feudalism and the establishment of capitalism, when the formation of nations took place, and continues to exist in the modern era, manifesting itself in the course of the struggle against national enslavement and in the intrastate relations of nations and peoples. completely wither away with the merger, the disappearance of nations in the conditions of the victory of communism throughout the world. The ideologists of the bourgeoisie, which led the national liberation movement in Europe and the American colonies in the 16th to 19th centuries, considered the basis of the solution of the New Age. “the principle of nationality” (“the right of the nation”), according to which it is necessary to create, under any circumstances, “one’s own” national state: “one nation - one state” (Italian Mancini, Belgian Laurent, Russians A. Gradovsky and N. Danilevsky, etc.) . In the "principle of nationality" the national moment was absolutized; moreover, this principle extended only to "civilized" peoples. The bourgeoisie used the "principle of nationality" to distract the proletariat from the class struggle, tried to divide it with nationalist prejudices, inciting national enmity and hatred. At the same time, during the period of bourgeois revolutions and the formation of national bourgeois states, the "principle of nationality" played a positive role in the struggle against the remnants of feudal fragmentation and national oppression. Under the conditions of pre-monopoly capitalism, the creation of a nation-state sometimes weakened the sharpness of the N. century. As capitalism develops into imperialism, the bourgeoisie of the largest countries goes over to broader colonial conquests, completes the division of the world (see Colonies and Colonial Policy), and discards the “principle of nationality,” N. v. from an internal state has turned into an international question of the liberation of all peoples from imperialist enslavement. The proletariat, which has become an independent political force, puts forward its own program for the solution of the New Age. k. Marx and F. Engels developed the basic principles of a truly scientific theory of the solution of N. v. They showed that national relations have a concrete historical character and are determined by the social and state system, the correlation of class forces within the country and in the international arena, and the national policy of the ruling classes. At the same time, the relations of nations and peoples influence social relations and the class struggle. At the same time, different aspects of modernity may come to the fore at different historical stages. (struggle for political or economic independence, problems of culture, language, etc.). Having revealed the social essence of the national movement, Marx and Engels emphasized that the interests of the proletariat demanded the liberation of the oppressed nations and peoples. On the first plan of 1091, Marx and Engels put forward the principle of internationalism and -
"Proletarians of all countries, unite!" (See Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 4, p. 459). They also own the famous formula: “A people that oppresses other peoples cannot be free” (Engels F., ibid., vol. 18, p. 509). Marx and Engels extended the demand for national independence to the colonial peoples, whom they considered the natural allies of the proletariat in the revolutionary struggle. The proletariat, wrote Marx and Engels, having taken power into its own hands, would have to "lead as soon as possible to independence" of the colonies. The London Congress of the Second International (1896) adopted a resolution in which the slogan of the right of nations to self-determination was first put forward as the political basis for the decision of N. v. However, the opportunist leaders of the 2nd International ignored the instructions of Marx and Engels on the need for the proletariat to fight for the liberation of the peoples of the colonies and in the future actually opposed the principle of self-determination. Theory of N. century. was developed in the works of V. I. Lenin [“On the Manifesto of the Union of Armenian Social Democrats” (1903), “The National Question in Our Program” (1903), “The Working Class and the National Question” (1913), “Critical Notes on the National Question" (1913), "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination" (1914), "On Junius' Pamphlet" (1916), "Results of the Discussion on Self-Determination" (1916)], as well as in the works of other Russian Marxists. Lenin criticized the views on modernism of a number of right-wing Social Democratic leaders who did not recognize the right of nations to self-determination (E. David, G. Kunov, and others), and advanced the nationalist theory of cultural-national autonomy. autonomy) (O. Bauer, K. Renner and others). He also spoke out against the views of the left (R. Luxemburg and others), who, while fighting against bourgeois-nationalist concepts, at the same time argued that in the era of imperialism the right of nations self-determination is not feasible, and under socialism it is unnecessary.V. I. Lenin developed the scientific principle s national policy of the revolutionary, Marxist party. In the Draft Program of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (1902) written by him, as the basis for the decision of N. v. the right of nations to self-determination was put forward. The main provisions of the Leninist theory of N. century. were the basis for the practical activities and program documents of the Communist International and the communist parties. Under capitalism, for the development of innovation in two historical trends are characteristic: the first is the awakening of national life and national movements, the struggle against any national oppression, the creation of states, and the second is the development and intensification of all kinds of relations between nations, the breaking down of national partitions, the creation of an international unity of capital, economic life, politics, science, world market, etc. The first trend is more pronounced in the era of rising capitalism, the second - in the era of imperialism (see V. I. Lenin, Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 24, p. 124). Recognition in the Marxist-Leninist theory of N. century. the right of nations to self-determination, upholding the principles of voluntary association of nations, proletarian internationalism, solidarity of the working people of all countries in the struggle against imperialism reflects both the first and second tendencies. At the bourgeois-democratic stage of the development of N. century. is part of the general question of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and its solution is subordinate to the tasks of this revolution (liquidation of the remnants of feudalism, etc.). When conditions arise for socialist transformations, N. century. is part of the general question of the socialist revolution and the building of socialism. This in no way means an underestimation of N. century. The working class and its Marxist-Leninist parties are the most consistent fighters for a just solution to the new century, staunch defenders of the national sovereignty of all peoples and nations. The right to decide one's own destiny is recognized for all peoples and nations. The right of nations to self-determination means the free establishment by each of them of various forms of relations with other peoples (voluntary association in a single state, autonomy, federation, etc., up to secession and the formation of an independent state), as well as the independent solution of all questions of its internal structure (social system, form of government, etc.). At the same time, in accordance with the Marxist-Leninist theory of N. century. The question of the secession of this or that nation must be decided on the basis of its expediency, from the point of view of the interests of the entire social development, the interests of the struggle for universal peace and socialism. It should be borne in mind that the number of modern nations and peoples living in almost 140 states is 2 thousand. Thus, it is obvious that for the majority of nations and peoples N. in. can only be resolved in multinational states. Marxism-Leninism raises the question not only of the formal (legal) equality of nations, but also of their achievement of actual equality (in the economic and cultural fields). Unity, unity, and all-round rapprochement of nations can only be achieved through their complete liberation from national and social oppression, through the creation of the most favorable conditions for the development of each of them. Such is the dialectic of the Marxist-Leninist formulation of the N. century. History of N. in. During the period of pre-monopoly capitalism, the decision of N. v. associated with the national liberation movements that arose in the course of the formation of nations. The independence of the English North American colonies in 1775-83 hastened the formation of the North American nations; the liberation of the South American colonies (1810-26) created the conditions for the formation of Latin American nations; liberation from Turkish domination (19th century) opened the way for the formation of Greek, Serbian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, and other nations and led to the formation of corresponding national states. A peculiar form of the solution of N. century. was the reunification of Germany and Italy. During the period of imperialism, in the conditions of the division of the whole world into a handful of ruling nations and the majority of the oppressed, the desire of peoples for independence and national consolidation was forcibly suppressed. The victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution ushered in an era of social and national liberation of the peoples. The liberation movement covers Asia, Africa and Latin America. After World War II (1939-1945), under the conditions of a change in the balance of forces in the world arena in favor of socialism, a new upsurge in the national liberation movement began. Over the three post-war decades, more than 70 new states emerged. The principle of self-determination, as a result of the efforts of the Soviet Union, supported by other socialist and developing countries, has become a principle of international law. It is included in the UN Charter, in the decisions of the Bandung Conference of Asian and African States (1955), Belgrade (1961), Cairo (1964), Lusaka (1970) and Algiers (1973) conferences of non-aligned countries. After many oppressed peoples won independence, the contents of the N. century. changed, it spun off from the colonial question. In many countries of Asia and Africa, after gaining independence, N. century. becomes more acute (Nigeria, Cyprus, Pakistan, etc.). This is explained both by the problems left behind by colonialism and by the intrigues of neo-colonialists. The borders of many new states were established without taking into account the ethnic factor; these states are inhabited by various nationalities and tribes. Often, especially in Africa, one ethnic group lives in two or more states. Since self-determination did not take place on a national basis, but usually on a historical basis (within former colonial administrative units) and before the formation of nations, the processes of national consolidation in these countries are extremely complex: within the boundaries of a state, one or several nations are formed from disparate ethnic components. In Latin America, N. century. covers the relationship between the population of European origin and 1) the indigenous Indian population, numerous in a number of countries, speaking their own languages and dialects (Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Mexico, etc.), 2) not yet assimilated part of the Negroid population, which has not retained its languages (Brazil), as well as between the population of Negroid origin, which is the majority in some countries, and other national groups - European, Indian, etc. (Haiti, Guyana, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, etc.). The historical features of the formation of Latin American nations, which manifested themselves, in particular, in the absence of rigid racial and ethnic barriers and in the intensive process of miscegenation, to a certain extent also predetermine the ways of solving the new age. The progressive forces of the Latin American countries see these ways both in establishing national and racial equality, in granting autonomy to densely populated groups of the Indian population, in developing the language and culture of national minorities, and in assimilation processes taking place on a voluntary basis. In the 60-70s. The national liberation movement has entered a new stage. The struggle for national liberation in many countries began to practically develop into a struggle against exploitative relations, both feudal and capitalist. Many peoples who are being liberated reject the capitalist path and set themselves the task of developing along a non-capitalist path, in the direction of socialism, which facilitates and accelerates the solution of the new century. In the developed capitalist states, relations between peoples who have lived within the same state for centuries are deteriorating (the conflict between the Walloons and the Flemings in Belgium, the Anglo-Canadians and French-Canadians in Canada, the Irish question in Great Britain, the Negro question in the USA, etc.). In the 50-70s. in the developed capitalist countries, especially in Western Europe, the question of inequality and oppression of millions of foreign workers arose. The intensification of national contradictions in the capitalist countries is associated with the aggravation of social antagonisms, the growth of national self-consciousness, and the impossibility of a just, democratic solution to national conflicts. under capitalism. Under socialism there is an all-round development of all nations along the paths of their rapprochement and fraternal mutual assistance. A striking example is the decision of N. v. in USSR. N. in. in tsarist Russia, which was called the "prison of peoples", was extremely sharp and appeared in various forms. For some peoples, it was about restoring the lost national statehood, for others it was intertwined with the colonial issue, for others, with the struggle for national equality, and so on. In the first documents of Soviet Power - the Decree on Peace (See the Decree on Peace), the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia (See the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia), the Declaration of the Rights of the Working and Exploited People (See the Declaration of the Rights of the Working and Exploited People), etc. - The following principles of the national policy of the socialist state were proclaimed: the right of peoples and nations to self-determination, equality and sovereignty, the abolition of all national privileges and restrictions, the free development of national minorities, and a socialist federation. The Soviet government recognized the independence of Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, the Soviet republics of Transcaucasia, Belarus, Ukraine, which were part of the Russian Empire. The rights of those peoples who did not want to secede were constitutionally guaranteed by the Soviet government. In order to fight against imperialist intervention and internal counter-revolution, the Soviet republic created a close political, military and economic alliance, and a little later, based also on the advantages of large states, they raised the question of uniting into a single socialist multinational state. The nationwide unification movement led in 1922 to the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This outstanding event in the life of mankind confirmed the correctness of Lenin's national policy. The party took a course towards the accelerated economic, cultural and socio-political development of the national outskirts. The practical implementation of this course became possible on the basis of great and comprehensive assistance to the former oppressed nations and peoples from the more developed regions of the country and, above all, from the Russian people, their working class. The Russian working class has accomplished a real feat, made sacrifices in the name of overcoming the backwardness of the national outskirts. The national republics systematically received subsidies from the Union budget, their socio-economic development proceeded at a faster pace than the development of the center of the country, their population was exempted from taxes for a long time, national personnel were granted great privileges when entering educational institutions, etc. All nations and peoples were given great opportunities for the development of science and national culture, and they reached an unprecedented flourishing. Relations between the Soviet socialist republics are based on the principle of a socialist federation, in accordance with which each republic is a sovereign state. This ensures the unity of the union and national statehood of the republics on the basis of the principles of democratic centralism, socialist federalism and socialist democracy. If a nation or nationality cannot form a federal republic (if it is too small in number, does not constitute a majority in the territory it occupies, etc.), the principle of socialist autonomy applies: nations and nationalities form republics, autonomous regions or national districts, Thus, all peoples are provided with state self-government and protection of their national interests (development of national culture, schools, respect for national customs, religion, etc.). In all areas of social and political life, citizens are guaranteed the use of their native language. All nations and nationalities have voluntarily chosen the Russian language as a common language of interethnic communication and cooperation; for many millions of people it has become a second native language. Consistent observance of the principles of the Marxist-Leninist national program enabled the Soviet peoples to resolve the N. century. in the form in which it was inherited from the past, and to create a large multinational state that harmoniously combines the interests of the whole society with the interests of every nation, every people. N.'s decision in the USSR is one of the most important achievements of socialism and is of great international importance. Under the influence of powerful unifying factors, such as a single socialist economy, the internationalist Marxist-Leninist ideology, the common historical destinies of all peoples and nationalities, the joint struggle against imperialism, aggression and exploitation, for peace and communism, a new historical community of people arose in the USSR - the Soviet people . The further rapprochement of nations is an objective historical process, which is harmful to artificially speed up and completely unacceptable to restrain, since in both cases this would lead to a slowdown in this progressive process and would be contrary to the general direction of the development of Soviet society, the interests of building communism. The socialist countries that arose after World War II (1939–45) confirmed by their practice the experience of solving the crisis. in the USSR and supplemented it. The principles of socialist federation and autonomy, the legal and actual equality of peoples and nations, and so on, are being successfully implemented in the socialist states. A new type of interstate fraternal relations has taken shape between the socialist countries. However, the socialist system creates only objective prerequisites for the solution of the national revolution. Their implementation depends primarily on the action of the subjective factor, that is, on the policy of the parties that lead society. If the parties depart from the Marxist-Leninist line in the new century, weaken the struggle against Nationalism and Chauvinism and educate the working people in the spirit of internationalism, the new century. may escalate. The Maoist leadership of the CPC, moving away from Marxism-Leninism and the principles of internationalism and embarking on the path of Great Han chauvinism, extremely aggravated the New Age. both within China and in terms of relations with the states of the socialist community. The tasks of building developed socialism and communism urgently dictate the need for an all-round rapprochement of the socialist nations, strengthening their cooperation, and expanding the socialist division of labor. The erasing of the boundaries between classes and the development of socialist social relations enhance the social homogeneity of nations, contribute to the development of common features among them, and the further strengthening of mutual trust and friendship between them (see Friendship of Peoples). However, the erasure of national characteristics is a long process. In a socialist society, with a correct class national policy, national differences do not lead to the division of people, the emerging national problems and contradictions are not of an antagonistic nature and are resolved in the spirit of fraternal cooperation, in the interests of the whole country and each individual republic, in the interests of socialist and communist construction. The CPSU and other fraternal parties of the socialist countries allow neither inflating nor ignoring national peculiarities, they consistently implement the principles of internationalism, wage a resolute struggle against the survivals of nationalism, chauvinism, national isolation, as well as against national nihilism, and strive for the further unity of the fraternal peoples. Lit.: K. Marx and F. Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 4; Marx, K., Report of the General Council to the IV Annual Congress of the International Workingmen's Association, ibid., vol. 16; his own, the General Council, to the Federal Council of Romanesque Switzerland, ibid.; his, [Letter] to Z. Meyer and A. Vogt, April 9, 1870, ibid., vol. 32; F. Engels, What does the working class care about Poland?, ibid., vol. 16; his, On the Decomposition of Feudalism and the Emergence of National States, ibid. vol. 21; Lenin V.I., On the national and national-colonial question, Sat., M., 1956; his, Report of the Commission on National and Colonial Questions, Complete., Collected. op. 5th ed., v. 41; CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee, 8th ed. vol. 1-2, M., 1970; Program of the CPSU, M., 1973; Program Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism. Documents of meetings of representatives of communist and workers' parties, M., 1960; International Conference of Communist and Workers' Parties. Documents and materials, M., 1969; Brezhnev L. I., On the fiftieth anniversary of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, M., 1972; Kalinin M.I., On communist education. Fav. speeches and articles, M., 1958; Stalin I. V. The national question and Leninism, Op. v. 11, Moscow, 1949; Shaumyan S. G., Izbr. prod. vol. 1, Moscow, 1957; Starushenko G. B., The principle of self-determination of peoples and nations in the foreign policy of the Soviet state, M., 1960; his, Nation and State in the Liberated Countries, M., 1967; Dyakov A. M., The national question in modern India, M., 1963; Dzhandildin N., Communism and development of national relations, M., 1964; Kravtsev I. E., Proletarian internationalism, fatherland and patriotism, K., 1965; Azizyan A.K., Lenin's national policy in development and action, M., 1972; Leninism and the national question in modern conditions, M., 1972; Multinational Soviet state, M., 1972; Tadevosyan E. V., Soviet national statehood, M., 1972. G. B. Starushenko. Great Soviet Encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia.
1969-1978
.
I find the most convincing theoretical interpretation of the nature of the national-ethnic phenomenon - the theory of ethnogenesis. An ethnos is a group of people naturally formed on the basis of an original stereotype of behavior, existing as a system that opposes itself to other similar systems, based on a sense of complement (a subconscious feeling of mutual sympathy and community of people that determines the division of society into friends and foes). Ethnic groups are formed and developed under the influence of both natural and socio-historical factors, interaction with other ethnic groups, transmission of the original stereotype of behavior through instigation - reproduction of culture. This theory is based on various features that characterize the ethnos (culture, natural factors, sociohistorical), while other theories characterize the nature of the national-ethnic phenomenon, based on a certain feature:
Racial - anthropological approach (characterizes the origin of races, its characteristics, differences);
The Merkaian theory of nations states that the nature of nations is social, biological factors do not play a significant role;
Language theory and ethnomethodology assert that the main difference between nations is language, and it plays a key role in the life of nations;
Ethnocentrism - argues that an ethnic community arises on the basis of the universal property of human nature to divide the world into "us" and "them" and use a sense of solidarity, sympathy and unity in relation to members of "their" group, and in relation to "strangers" hostility and aggression. It is impossible to find out the theoretical interpretation of the nature of the national-ethnic phenomenon relying only on any specific feature. If this happens, then great attention is paid to any one, specific feature, while others are absent at the moment. And if you choose any other approach listed above, then it is impossible to get 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 that it boils down to the problem of national inequality, the oppression and exploitation of one nation by another. Currently, this issue is very acute in Russia. Take, for example, Russia's relationship with Chechnya. At present, Chechnya is "independent", but Russia does not let it go from its composition. After all, it was Chechnya who decided that Russia is an oppressor, forcing them to live not according to their own 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.
Assess the arguments 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.
Each nation has the right to be in a state protected from other nations or further to create its own national state. However, logically this is not possible. If many states are created in which each nation will live separately, then this can lead to catastrophic consequences: constant wars, the destruction of one nation by another, the growth of extremism. All this can lead to the destruction of nations and the degradation of humanity completely, as a person.
The NATIONAL question refers to the eternal, "damned" questions of Russian history. At the same time, paradoxically, over a millennium, having united hundreds of peoples, our ancestors created a great state, an entire universe, organically integrating Tatars, Jews, Germans, Armenians, Georgians, Poles and many others into Russian culture, created a great Russian culture. Almost every representative of a non-Russian ethnic group can proudly name dozens of worthy representatives of their people who occupied prominent places among Russian statesmen, military leaders or cultural figures either in the former Tsarist Russia, or in the Soviet Union, or in today's Russia. The periods of the greatest state power and cultural flourishing of the Russian state have always coincided with the periods of the greatest openness of Russia and the indigenous Russian people to other peoples inhabiting the empire, the greatest tolerance and readiness to integrate these nations and peoples who speak other languages and profess other religions into a single Russian language. , cultural environment, thereby enriching both these peoples and the multinational Russian culture itself. During these periods, Russia, like the current United States, directed the talents and energy of many peoples to the cause of serving their state, and not to sorting out who was more important or older. This was facilitated by the following circumstance - the Russian people, being indigenous, were scattered across the vast expanses of Russia. It did not have a strongly pronounced ethnic self-identification, and it was the state that originally organized it for joint economic activities and to repel external threats. Thus, the state principle has traditionally played a dominant role in organizing the life of society. This, on the one hand, solved many problems of economic, military and political mobilization in the face of internal, external and climatic challenges, but on the other hand it fettered the creative, spontaneous self-expression of individuals. But, be that as it may, the traditional dominant position of the state in the life of the Russian people contributed to the formation of its rather than an ethnic identity, but a state one. The sense of belonging to the state was much stronger than to the ethnic group. It is no coincidence that, having found themselves without the support and care of the state, millions of Russians outside the Russian Federation experience great difficulties in adapting to new conditions. They no longer feel belonging to the state where they live, moving into the category of "non-indigenous". And the reason for this is that for centuries they cared little about self-organization on an ethnic basis.
This identity of Russians (rather state than ethnic) was fertile ground for other ethnic groups, nations and nationalities that inhabited the Russian Empire to also acquire a sovereign-state identity and not experience any moral, psychological, ethnic or religious barriers to ways of serving the Russian state. It turned out that the question of "indigenous or non-indigenous people, culture and language" was largely removed by the fact of sovereign-statist identification of themselves as both Russian and non-Russian peoples of the empire.
This dimension was even more strengthened during the Soviet period of the development of our country, when instead of ethnic or state-state identity, our peoples were offered class and ideological identification.
However, with all this, it should be noted that it was not possible to finally remove interethnic problems within the framework of either the Russian Empire or the Soviet ideological empire.
The ethnic principle, no, no, and even manifested itself among the Russians and the so-called nationalists. Although in fairness it must be said that it manifested itself not so much among the people as in the state-bureaucratic environment due to the limitations of these people. The imperial supranational dimension, which ensured inter-ethnic and inter-religious peace in Russia, and then in the USSR, was replaced by outbreaks of Russian nationalism, expressed in various campaigns for the Russification of national outskirts, in limiting opportunities to develop a national language and culture in the territories native to these ethnic groups, in limiting or eliminating all opportunities for national-cultural self-organization of national diasporas in large cities of Russia. Alas, such actions led to an increase in interethnic tension, distrust between different ethnic groups. And the introduction of the concept of "elder brother" and "younger brother" into such a sensitive sphere twice in the 20th century contributed to the destruction of our historical homeland.
Unfortunately, the communists, who believed that the national question was part of the social question, failed to overcome conflicts and contradictions in interethnic relations either vertically (Moscow - national republics) or horizontally (relations between representatives of various nations and nationalities).
The presence of such phenomena as denial of employment on the basis of national origin, and instructions on personnel matters, restricting the access of representatives of non-Slavic nationalities to the central bodies of party and state power, discredited the formally proclaimed principles of communist internationalism and contributed to the further growth of tension and distrust between representatives of different nationalities.
The perestroika policy initiated by Gorbachev and the reformist wing of the CPSU proved doomed from the start. Wanting to change everything at once, Gorbachev and his associates embarked on unsupported radical reforms simultaneously in the economic, political spheres and in the sphere of the national-state structure of the country.
I won’t talk now about the reasons for the collapse of the country, although one thing is obvious: the reformers from the Central Committee of the CPSU started all the changes and reforms to make it better, but it turned out, in the words of a modern classic, as always. As a result, an attempt to radically change the former system of national-state structure, which did not ensure the organic integration of the nations and peoples of the USSR into a single Soviet people, turned into a catalyst for the process of first sovereignization, and then the collapse of the country.
In order to realize what changes are needed both in the sphere of nation-state building and in interethnic relations in the Russian regions and national republics, one should take into account the already existing tragic experience of reforming the USSR.
Today, as in the years of perestroika, the leadership of the country is faced with the task of improving the national-state structure in order to finally build an effectively functioning federal system of power with real equality between the subjects of the Federation and provide conditions for painless integration into a single Russian linguistic and cultural environment of representatives of national diasporas, numbering in the millions. The tragic experience of the restructuring of the national-state structure should be a constant reminder to us that in this delicate and delicate sphere it is categorically impossible to cut on the shoulder, as many hotheads demand. Following the USSR, Russia can also be ruined.
It is important to keep in mind the following. Talk about territorial redistribution and reforming the status of subjects of a single state did not begin today, as many believe, but in 1990. Then, under pressure from Gorbachev, the congress of people's deputies adopted a law that effectively equalized the rights of the union republics with the autonomies in their composition. This provoked the separatism of the autonomies and union republics. The Novoogarevsky process aggravated the situation. It was assumed that the updated Union Treaty was to be signed on an equal footing by the leaders of both the union republics and autonomies.
Now, speaking of the national-state reorganization, it is necessary to take into account the relevance of bringing the legislation of the territories and national republics in line with the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
In a word, the principle of gradualness and caution should be put at the forefront while respecting the supremacy of the Constitution (before that, of course, its changes are necessary - the elimination of internal contradictions). The second stage is the revision from the point of view of the constitutionality of certain laws and other legal norms. The third stage is the rejection of the practice of concluding virtually unconstitutional bilateral treaties "Center - Subject of the Federation" and a simultaneous return to the idea of concluding a new, improved federal treaty as an integral part of the Constitution.
In connection with the reform of the national-state structure, one cannot fail to dwell on another important issue discussed in recent years by both governors and representatives of the federal center. We are talking about the need to restore the power vertical, destroyed during the radical reforms of the era of perestroika and still not fully restored.
Considering the limited leverage of federal power over governors and recognizing the need to consolidate power vertically in order to more effectively mobilize resources and implement targeted policies, many people in Moscow and in the regions are demanding the abolition of elections for governors and other heads of subjects of the Federation, replacing them with presidential appointees with /or without the consent of the Legislative Assembly of the subject of the Federation. Some refer to the Russian historical tradition of state building. Territories on the periphery like Poland, Finland, and the Emirate of Bukhara were allowed to have special statuses, but the asymmetry on the periphery was balanced by rigid centralization in Russia itself. Under the current conditions, it would hardly be justified to go for a radical demolition of the existing system of national-state structure.
However, the discussion that has begun on this issue makes it possible to determine the main vector of the reform of the state system in this part. To all appearances, a transition to a system of appointed governors in Russian regions and territories is also possible under the current conditions. At the same time, the possibility of consolidation and formation of lands from several regions is not ruled out. However, at this stage it would hardly be expedient to completely abandon the principle of electivity in national-territorial formations, especially in large ones. True, apparently, it will be necessary to change the names of the positions of the leaders of the national republics and to eliminate the institution of presidents. After all, in the end we want to have a real federal system. Acting in this way, it would be possible to avoid extremes in proposals for the reform of the national-state system: complete equalization of the rights of all subjects, consolidation of the subjects of the Federation with the elimination of the current division of the country into regions, territories and national-territorial formations, the abolition of elections of heads of subjects of the Federation, on the one hand on the other hand, and on the other hand, the complete transformation of our country into a confederation within the Union of sovereign states with a very weak center of this confederation.
In addition to the problem of national-territorial formations, on the correct determination of the place of which in our Federation depends both the fate of the Russian state and the way to solve the national question in the country, we are currently facing, in completely new conditions, the problem of national diasporas living in Russian regions. and national-territorial formations.
Fundamentally different than before, the situation with representatives of non-indigenous peoples in Russia today is due to the fact that millions of people who considered themselves indigenous in the USSR - Armenians, Georgians, Azerbaijanis, Kazakhs, Ukrainians and others - immediately after the collapse of the USSR from a formal point of view in Russia they became non-indigenous, since independent independent states were formed in their historical homeland. In addition, it must be said that the Soviet ideological empire, represented by its leaders, in order to preserve the integrity of the country, where the percentage of the Russian population was constantly declining, on the one hand, emphasized the special role and importance of Russians in the USSR, on the other hand, to an even greater extent contributed to obscuring the features history, culture, psychology of the Russian people, trying, at the cost of denationalization of the main ethnic group of the empire, to create a kind of average Soviet people devoid of national specifics. At the same time, it was taken into account that the number of non-Russians by the beginning of perestroika was actually equal to the number of Russians, and that the principles of socialist internationalism and solidarity on which the country rested, along with the presence of the Chamber of Nationalities of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, at least from a formal point of view, both in the ideological and institutional spheres, they created certain protective mechanisms against manifestations of chauvinism or nationalism, against discrimination on ethnic or religious grounds in hiring and career advancement, and in other spheres of society. Although in certain periods of our history there were instructions and unspoken orders on personnel and other issues that created tension in interethnic relations, up to the collapse of the USSR and the ban on the CPSU, the party and the Soviet government not only declaratively (albeit with the noted reservations), but actually stood up for defense principles of internationalism. Every citizen could apply to the appropriate party and Soviet institutions in case of violation of his rights on a national basis and, according to the law, had to receive protection from arbitrariness.
It should be noted that millions of people who, after the collapse of the USSR, became non-indigenous in Russia are psychologically still considered as part of the Russian people. After all, their ancestors lived in Russia over the past few centuries and participated in the formation of both Russian culture and the Russian state.
But still, it should be noted that if we want to preserve interethnic peace and organically integrate all ethnic groups into a single Russian people, it is necessary to be clearly aware of the prevailing realities.
First, in the new Russia over the past few decades, for the first time, Russians were the dominant majority.
Secondly, with the removal of the CPSU from power and the abolition of Marxism-Leninism as the dominant and only ideology in the public mind, the idea of socialist internationalism, class and national solidarity faded into the background.
Thirdly, unfortunately, the formation of new states in the former Soviet Union did not follow the path of development of civil society and democratic values and institutions, but rather, on the contrary, the national dimension of the formation of these states replaced the civil, democratic dimension. As a result, in many countries the mood of national intolerance began to take over, problems and difficulties were created for the non-indigenous population on national and religious grounds. In a number of cases, these tendencies led to open inter-ethnic clashes with a bloody outcome.
Fourthly, the Russian people, to a greater extent than any other of the peoples of the former USSR, turned out to be not subject to nationalist hysteria, manifestations of national or religious intolerance. This was confirmed during the years of the formation of independent Russia, when, like other peoples, they went through the path of ethnic self-identification, which in previous periods of Russian history was in its infancy and was almost completely replaced by state identity.
Fifthly, after the dissolution of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation with its Council of Nationalities in 1993, the last institution of power that could express the specific interests of not only national-territorial entities was actually liquidated, which is to some extent compensated by the presence of their leaders in the Federation Council, but also the interests of all in the aggregate of national groups of the multinational Russian people.
It follows from this that in today's Russia, the problems of interethnic relations and the integration of national diasporas into the existing Russian cultural and linguistic environment, due to objective and subjective reasons, are largely relegated to the periphery of political, ideological and social life. As a result, tension on an interethnic basis periodically arises in megacities and places of compact residence of "non-indigenous" peoples.
It seems that we are moving from one extreme - the complete denationalization of Russians in the interests of preserving the ideological empire - to completely ignoring the fact of the presence of a multi-million population of the country, representing the national diasporas in Russia, the issues of integration of which into Russian society, linguistic and cultural environment are largely put on gravity. Such key problems for them as the preservation of their own language, culture, representation in government bodies, in law enforcement structures, in business, have become their personal business and depend largely on the goodwill or mercy of local authorities. Hence such ugly phenomena as intolerance and hostility towards the so-called persons of Caucasian nationality, which are actually cultivated in the media and in some political and administrative circles, gross violations of their rights during registration and employment, and a whole bunch of problems associated with the neglect of the rights and needs of these people. diasporas.
I will not give a detailed list of measures necessary to protect the rights of national diasporas, to preserve their language, culture, to propose measures designed to organically integrate these national groups into a single Russian culture, to ensure their adequate and worthy representation in all spheres of society. But I will note that if we let the resolution of these problems take their course in the hope that the process of the formation of elements of civil society will itself lead to the triumph of liberal values, personal freedom and human rights, equality of all before the law, and that on this basis there will be organic development and the formation of national diasporas in as subcultures within the dominant Russian culture, then, I am afraid, we will face a serious increase in interethnic conflicts and contradictions.
The task of the new, democratic Russia is to provide conditions for every individual, every ethnic group to feel belonging to the Russian state and to feel themselves at home in Russia, and for every individual and every ethnic group to feel part of Russian culture and linguistic space. The task of the state is to provide the necessary conditions for this.
I am convinced that Russia's path to the revival of both sovereign power and culture runs, as in the best times of tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union, through the use of the creative energy of the peoples inhabiting our country, so that they use their forces not for conflicts with each other, disastrous for countries, but for creation. We must do everything in our power to ensure that the development of interethnic relations follows this path.
Already at the dawn of human history, people were characterized by the desire to unite in communities, first by consanguinity, and then by territoriality. Tribes arose, then tribal unions, which, with the advent of state power, began to transform into large state formations. But they, despite all their external power and sometimes high level of culture, were rather fragile. Trade ties between their individual territories were practically absent or were very weak. Numerous groups of the population of such states, often forcibly included in them, differed from each other in language, culture, level of economic development and other characteristics, which did not allow them to consider themselves as something united and whole. For a while, they held on only by the force of arms and the need to rally in the face of the threat of attack from external enemies. History shows that all the empires of antiquity and the Middle Ages, created by conquering peoples, did not have a historical perspective, although they sometimes existed for a very long time. Such was the fate of the Roman Empire, which was not helped even by the spread of Roman and Latin citizenship to the conquered territories, the empires of the Franks of Charlemagne, the Golden Horde, etc.
Conquest tendencies were less inherent in the ancient Russian state than in other states, but nevertheless, the weakness of internal economic ties led it to break up into separate territories and further to dependence on the Golden Horde (see the Mongol invasion, the Horde yoke and its overthrow).
At that time, in the Russian principalities, in the absence of state unity, the bulk of the population had to somehow distinguish themselves from others according to the principle: "our" - "alien". This has found its expression in religion, which has become a powerful ideological force. The idea of rallying for the struggle for the Christian faith supported the Russians in the revival of the Russian state. It is no coincidence that in the fight against Mamai, which ended with the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380, the Moscow prince Dmitry Ivanovich turned for help to the most authoritative rector and abbot of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Sergius of Radonezh, whose support to a large extent ensured the success of the unification of almost all Russian princes under Moscow flag. This is already a manifestation of the national question in a religious form, the first milestones of national self-consciousness.
But religion could not become the long-term basis of the state policy of any country. Ivan Kalita calmly took part in the punitive campaign of the Horde troops, without thinking about issues of faith. In the XV century. Grand Duke Ivan III of Moscow entered into an alliance with the Crimean Khan Mengli Giray against the Christian, albeit Catholic, Polish-Lithuanian King Casimir, without feeling the slightest remorse. During the Great Embassy of Peter I to Europe with the aim of creating an anti-Ottoman coalition, European diplomats quickly explained to the Russian Tsar that the union of Christian peoples against the infidel Turks was, of course, a good thing, but less important than the problems that had arisen in the struggle for the Spanish inheritance. Already in the XIX century. The Ottoman Empire repeatedly participated in European coalitions, taking the side of some Christian states against others. Thus, the national question acquired not so much a religious as a state character.
The process of development of capitalism with the formation of a single intrastate market, an intensive exchange of goods between individual territories, on the one hand, contributed to the breaking of internal borders, the disappearance or weakening of language dialects and the consolidation of the population into a single nation; on the other hand, it came into conflict with the natural desire of peoples to preserve their national identity, culture, lifestyle, etc. Different countries tried to cope with this problem in their own way, but it was not possible to achieve a universal solution.
Over time, due to the colonial policy of the leading European powers, the national question entered a new phase, as the colonial empires became multinational states, where the nation of the metropolitan country acted as an oppressor in relation to the peoples of the colonies, which in turn led to an intensification of the national liberation struggle from their side. By the beginning of the 20th century, when the world was already practically divided, the national question increasingly began to acquire an interstate character, since the clashes of large states over the redivision of the world were explained by their national interests.
In Russia, the national question had a special specificity. The process of development of capitalist relations was slower here than in most European countries, and the territory of the state continued to expand, adding to itself the areas where peoples lived, sometimes even at the pre-feudal level of development. At the same time, the state tried not just to exploit the new territories roughly, but to include them in its economic system. This led to the fact that Russia became a more stable multinational state than, for example, Austria-Hungary, and interethnic contradictions in it were somewhat less acute than in a number of other countries, although they were a serious problem.
From the 16th to the 19th centuries the Russian state included Siberia, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Poland, the Baltic states, Finland and a number of other territories, completely different in economic, cultural, religious and other levels (see the Caucasus joining Russia, Siberia and the Far East, development, Middle Asia accession to Russia, Partitions of Poland). By the beginning of the XX century. the actual Russian population in Russia was less than 50%. About 200 peoples lived in the country, each of which represented an original social system.
Russia was a unitary state with a rigidly centralized system of government, where the possibility of self-government of any of its individual territories was not supposed. True, a number of exceptions were allowed in practice: Finland had some elements of autonomy; the constitutional system in Poland did not last long; in Central Asia there were formally independent Bukhara and Khiva khanates, but in reality they were completely dependent on the Russian government.
In an attempt to resolve national contradictions, Russia was characterized by a certain flexibility. Thus, the wealthy ruling elite of the annexed peoples was included in the elite and received the rights of the Russian nobility. Non-Russian peoples gave Russia many outstanding military and statesmen, scientists, artists, composers, writers (Shafirov, Bagration, Kruzenshtern, Loris-Melikov, Levitan, etc.). The government tried to pay attention to local national traditions and customs. Thus, V. I. Lenin's well-known statement about Russia as a "prison of peoples" was a significant exaggeration that pursued specific political goals. In the same way, any multinational state of that time could be called a “prison of peoples”.
And yet, national relations in the Russian Empire cannot be presented as an idyll. Ethnic conflicts periodically flared up in it, often developing into open clashes with considerable human casualties. The Jewish population was subjected to severe discrimination. It was limited in the right of residence and free movement; the only exceptions were merchants of the first guild and persons with a university education (see Merchants). At the beginning of the XX century. bloody Jewish pogroms took place in a number of Russian cities. The Polish population was also in an unequal position. Numerous legal restrictions were placed on Poles in the civil service and in the army. In 1898, an uprising broke out among the Uzbeks of the then Fergana region, dissatisfied with the policy of the tsarist administration towards the Muslim population. It was headed by the very popular local religious leader Dukchi Ishan. The uprising was brutally suppressed - all the villages where the leaders of the uprising lived were razed to the ground. In 1916, an uprising took place under the leadership of A. Imanov in Central Asia.
Interethnic conflicts took place in Russia not only between Russians and the national population. At the end of XIX - beginning of XX century. the Armenian-Tatar relations escalated sharply, resulting in a real massacre.
Various options were proposed to solve the national question. According to one of them, it was necessary to provide national minorities with cultural and national autonomy without the right of state secession. Such a decision put them in an unequal relationship with other peoples. In another way - to recognize the right of the nation to self-determination up to secession and formation of an independent state. This, however, contradicted the global trend of internationalization of the economy and the formation of large states. The theory of socialist doctrines recognized the national question as insoluble within the framework of the existence of capitalist social relations. Only with their elimination will the basis for interethnic conflicts disappear, and, consequently, the national question will be resolved.
After the October Revolution of 1917, an attempt to implement these provisions was made during the formation of the USSR. The USSR was a federation of national states, i.e., a country where, in the presence of a single central authority, its individual state formations (in this case, national ones) were given greater independence in resolving internal issues. It was assumed that the unification of workers would eliminate the reasons that prompted the peoples to separate them from Russia, although such a right was recorded in the “Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia” in November 1917. In the USSR formed in 1922, this right was enshrined in the Constitution (see Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). It was believed that joint defense against capitalist encirclement, socialist construction, and the voluntary unification of the union republics would help bring the peoples of the USSR closer and unite them into one union multinational state. At a certain stage, this was indeed the case, which allowed the USSR to build a powerful economy and win the difficult Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.
This is what served as the initial thesis of the assertion that in the USSR the national question has been completely and finally resolved. To some extent, interethnic contradictions were smoothed out, but they were not completely eliminated, since the ideas of socialism were implemented in the USSR in a distorted form and their practical implementation far from coincided with theory. The independence of the union republics was largely formal. The right to withdraw from the USSR practically could not be used (and it was not supposed to be). In addition, in the 30's and 40's many peoples (Germans, Balkars, Kalmyks, Crimean Tatars, etc.) were forcibly deported from the places where they lived (see Mass political repressions in the USSR in the 30s - early 50s). The economic policy of the central government often led to the one-sided development of the union and autonomous republics. National and cultural traditions of peoples were often not taken into account, etc. As a result, interethnic problems were driven deep. With the collapse of the USSR, they flared up with renewed vigor. At present, the national question in the Russian Federation and the countries of the former USSR is one of the most important state problems. Historical experience shows that forceful attempts to solve it are unpromising. Life demands a search for new forms of solving the national question.
Above, we talked about theoretical and methodological problems related to some concepts of ethnic sociology, about interethnic relations, their types and main development trends, as well as about the problems of interaction in national interests, their awareness and consideration of national policy. We have come close to the so-called national question, theoretical and practical aspects of its solution in modern conditions.
national question is a system of interrelated problems of the development of nations (peoples, ethnic groups) and national relations. It integrates the main problems of the practical implementation and regulation of these processes, including territorial, environmental, economic, political, legal, linguistic, moral and psychological.
The national question does not remain unchanged, its content changes depending on the nature of the historical epoch and the content of the actual interethnic relations. It seems that in modern conditions the main content of the national question lies in the free and comprehensive development of all peoples, the expansion, their cooperation and the harmonious combination of their national interests.
National-ethnic revival
A striking feature of the modern era is national-ethnic revival many peoples and their desire to independently solve the problems of their lives. This happens in virtually all regions of the world, and primarily in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This was very active in the USSR, and today in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).
Among the main reasons for the ethnic revival of peoples and the increase in their political activity call the following:
the desire of peoples to eliminate all elements of social injustice, leading to restrictions on their rights and opportunities for development within the framework of former colonial empires and some modern federal states;
the reaction of many ethnic groups to the processes associated with the spread of modern technological civilization, urbanization and the so-called mass culture, leveling the living conditions of all peoples and leading to the loss of their national identity. In response to this, the peoples come out even more actively for the revival of their national culture;
the desire of peoples to independently use the natural resources located on their territories and playing an important role in meeting their vital needs.
To one degree or another, these reasons manifest themselves in the process of the modern ethnic revival of the peoples of the Russian Federation. These include reasons of a socio-political nature related to the desire of peoples to strengthen and develop their national statehood, their reaction to the destructive actions of modern technical civilization and mass culture, as well as the determination of peoples to independently manage their natural resources. They believe that the struggle for economic and political independence will help them more successfully solve all life's problems. Practice, however, has shown that, firstly, all peoples need to use their political rights very carefully, because each of them must take into account the same rights of other peoples. And secondly, one should always remember that the national revival of any people is possible only with its close cooperation and real (and not imaginary) community with other peoples with whom it has historically developed economic, political and cultural ties.
Mutually beneficial cooperation between peoples can be developed only on the basis of mutual recognition and respect for their fundamental rights. These rights are enshrined in many documents of international organizations, including the United Nations (UN). It is about the following rights of all peoples :
the right to exist, prohibiting the so-called genocide and ethnocide, i.e. destruction in any form of any people and their culture;
the right to self-identification, i.e. determination by the citizens of their nationality;
the right to sovereignty, self-determination and self-government;
the right to preserve cultural identity, including the areas of language and education, cultural heritage and folk traditions;
the right of peoples to control the use of natural wealth and resources of the territories of their residence, the relevance of which has especially increased in connection with the intensive economic development of new territories and the aggravation of environmental problems;
the right of every people to access to the achievements of world civilization and their use.
The practical implementation of the above-mentioned rights of all peoples means a significant step towards the optimal solution of the national question for each of them and all together. This requires a deep and subtle consideration of all related objective and subjective factors, overcoming many contradictions and difficulties of an economic, political and purely ethnic nature.
The reform of the political system in the USSR and its former republics, including Russia, ran into many of these contradictions and difficulties. Thus, the natural and quite understandable desire of peoples for independence in its practical implementation gave rise to strong and largely unpredictable centrifugal tendencies, which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was unexpected for many (not only citizens, but entire republics). Today, they cannot successfully exist and develop without preserving, as they say now, a single economic, environmental, cultural and information space. The fleeting collapse of what took shape over the centuries and on which the existence of peoples was based, could not but be reflected in their current situation.
Many negative consequences are currently unpredictable. But some are already visible and alarming. That is why a number of republics that were part of the USSR, and now members of the CIS, are raising the question of creating structures that would regulate interstate relations between them in the field of economy, ecology, cultural exchange, and so on. This is an objective necessity that finds its understanding in Russia as well. It is clear, however, that the establishment of equal and mutually beneficial cooperation between the CIS states will require the solution of many issues, including psychological and ideological ones, related, in particular, to overcoming nationalism and chauvinism in the minds and behavior of people, including many politicians acting at different levels of the legislative the authorities of these states.
The national question in the Russian Federation is acute in its own way. There are achievements and still unresolved problems here. In fact, all the former autonomous republics have changed their national-state status by their decisions. The word "autonomous" has disappeared from their names, and today they are simply referred to as republics within the Russian Federation (Russia). The range of their competencies has expanded, and the state-legal status within the Federation has increased. A number of autonomous regions also proclaimed themselves independent and independent republics within Russia. All this simultaneously raises and equalizes their state-legal status with all the republics within the Russian Federation.
However, along with these generally positive developments, there are also negative ones. First of all, the increase in state independence and independence of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation sometimes coexists with manifestations of nationalism and separatism, both in ideology and in real politics. Some of the separatists seek to disrupt the unity and integrity of the Russian state, trying to organize a confrontation between their republic in relation to the central legislative and executive bodies of Russia, pursuing a course towards secession of their republic from the Russian Federation. Such actions are carried out exclusively in the selfish interests of individual politicians and narrow groups of nationalists, because most of the population will only suffer from this. As experience shows, the nationalist and separatist policies of individual leaders, political groups and parties cause great damage to the republics, primarily to their economic development, as well as to the material, political and spiritual interests of the peoples of these republics and all of Russia. The peoples are interconnected not only by economic ties, but also in many respects by a common fate, and even by blood relationship, if we keep in mind the significant proportion of interethnic marriages in virtually all parts of Russia.
Nationalist and separatist policies, as well as great-power chauvinism, no matter who they come from, lead to national conflicts, since they are initially aimed at opposing one nation to another, the collapse of their cooperation, and the creation of mistrust and enmity.