States in which national borders. What are nation states. Criteria for determining a national power

Man has always been a herd creature. Contrary to popular belief that each of us can exist completely apart from his own kind. Of course, the presence of consciousness in a person affects his way of life and the ability to obtain any benefits. However, the social component forces each of us to realize our activities exclusively in the environment of such beings. In other words, “herding” is inherent in people at a subconscious level. This factor affects not only everyday life, but also many global processes. For example, the desire and desire to unite in groups in ancient times led to the creation of states. Because these structures are huge social formations.

It should be noted that states are not overwhelmingly homogeneous. All of them are endowed with certain features. The most interesting and unusual today are the countries of national character. As practice shows, there are practically no nation-states in their pure form in the 21st century, but they exist in a small number. Therefore, in the article we will try to figure out what these structures are and what characteristic features they have.

Country - concept

Before considering the fact of what nation-states are, it is necessary to deal with the classical form of this term. It should be noted that for a long time scientists could not come to a consensus on the creation of the concept of the presented category. However, after a certain amount of time, it was possible to create the most classical theoretical and legal model of the state. According to it, any power is an organization independent and independent, which is endowed with sovereignty, and also has developed mechanisms for coercion and control. In addition, the state establishes a regime of order in a certain territory. Thus, what we used to call our country is a complex socio-political mechanism that not only regulates, but also coordinates the activities of our society.

The main features of the state structure

Any legal phenomenon has characteristic features. From them you can determine its essence, as well as understand the principles of action. The state in this case is no exception to the rule. It also has a whole system of characteristic features. Among them are the following:

The existence of a main governing document, such as a constitution.

managerial and coordinating nature of power.

The presence of property, population and its own separate territory.

Availability of organizational and law enforcement structures.

Existence of own language.

The presence of state symbols.

In addition to these characteristics, some economic, social and political factors can also be attributed.

nation state

As already indicated by the author earlier in the article, the powers are not identical in their structure and characteristics. That is, there are structures that significantly stand out among their own kind. These are the nation-states today. Such structures represent the constitutional and legal form of a classical power. The term "national" is used to emphasize the fact that a certain nation expresses its will in a particular territory. In other words, in such states, the ethnic issue comes to the fore. That is, the will is expressed not of all citizens, but of a separate, completely homogeneous nation, which is united through a common language, culture and origin.

Signs of national countries

Any modern nation-state, like other forms of such social associations, has its own characteristic features. In this case, it should be noted that in addition to the general features of a power, national countries have a number of their own. These include the following, namely:

The means of all official communications in any form is;

There is a separate system of national symbols that are accepted and fixed in official documents;

Nation-states are countries that have a monopoly on the process of taxation;

In the legislation of such countries there are no exceptions for certain social groups or minorities;

There is a stable national currency;

Free access to the labor market, as well as the availability of guarantees for all citizens without exception;

An indivisible and one absolutely for all system;

Rigid propaganda of patriotic ideals;

In foreign policy, the national interest prevails;

Thus, nation-states are quite specific and complex structures that have a number of characteristic features. At the same time, today there are very few such powers in their pure form. The number of nation-states is less than 10% of the entire population of existing countries.

Historical background to the emergence of national powers

The formation of nation-states did not occur randomly. The appearance of such structures had a rather orderly character in its essence. That is, the direct formation of nation-states did not happen immediately. If you look at history, then this phenomenon was preceded by a series of certain events. For example, states in their classical form began to appear only after the Peace of Westphalia, concluded in 1648. It marked the end of the Reformation and the Thirty Years' War. In addition, this agreement brought to the world the principles of the rule of law, the independence and sovereignty of states. Thus, new, mostly political and legal, rather than feudal structures began to take part in international relations. Also, the collapse of papal rule in Europe had a great influence on the formation of nation-states. The Holy Roman Empire is actually falling apart, and a new class, the bourgeoisie, is beginning to enter the political arena. In the 19th century, nationalist ideas developed, which, in fact, led to the formation of nation-states.

Nationalism and the further process of the formation of ethnic powers

At its core, nationalism is an ideology, as well as a specific direction in politics. Its adherents consider the nation to be the highest level of social unity in a given country. In addition, it is the nation that is a key factor in the process of creating a state. But this concept is purely theoretical. The political component of the issue shows the desire to defend the interests of a particular ethnic group. The nationalist idea began to develop actively in the 20th century. In some cases, politicians have misused views of this nature to seize power. A great example of this is Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. However, nationalism in this form is perceived quite negatively, which was proved by the results of the Second World War. But this does not mean that today, nation-states do not exist at all.

Such powers exist and function quite effectively. As practice shows, in such countries the regulation of social relations is more centralized and more practical. After all, when the population is homogeneous, it is more convenient to control it. The system of nation-states has been formed almost all over the world. In most cases, they function on the basis of religious norms, etc.

Modern national countries

The role of nation-states in the modern world is not as great as it was, for example, in the middle of the 20th century. In most cases, many, especially in Europe, unite in their composition many people belonging to one or another. Thus, the classical forms of homogeneous states are extremely rare. However, they still exist. Most of the nation-states are Muslim and African countries. This is due to a number of specific factors. First, in such states, the main regulator of society is the traditional religious teaching.

Moreover, there are places in Africa where primitive norms still reign, which, in turn, regulate important political and national issues of individual states of this continent. Of course, from the point of view of preserving culture, traditional and religious countries are an excellent tool for organizing this process. But, as a rule, the political life in them is extremely poor. Such social formations are at the stage of deep conservatism, and are also quite constrained in a large number of political issues. This is the main problem of the nation-state of the presented orientation. However, the nationalist issue in the traditional and religious powers is of paramount importance, due to isolation and remoteness from the Western and European world. This makes it possible to maintain economic stability, a relatively unchanged level of social life, and also ensures that a foreign "element" does not enter the country's activities.

If you look at the European states, then due to their multinationality, they very often find themselves in crisis situations. Therefore, the concept of widespread acceptance of migrants does not always have a positive effect on the political stability of these countries.

Society and the nation state

A large number of scholars studying the problems of ethnic powers very often think about the role of society in them. It should be noted that the last category is the key one in the process of formation and development of the countries presented in the article. After all, it is precisely on the basis of the homogeneity of society that the state can be classified as national. Thus, population is a key characteristic of ethnic countries. At the same time, the homogeneity of society should be determined not only by language or legal criteria, which will be discussed later, but also by a common culture, and, most importantly, by place of origin. In this case, it is necessary to distinguish between citizenships. The second category shows the structured legal relationship between a person and a country. In turn, the nation is characterized, as already mentioned earlier, by a common culture, belonging to one ethnic group, language and social awareness.

Criteria for determining a national power

Considering all the features presented in the article, we can conclude that all nation-states can be evaluated in terms of certain criteria. It is they who will testify to whether the country is an ethnic structure. According to many scientists, there are two main criteria, namely:

1. Legal.
2. Numerical.

In the first case, the national is fixed at the level of the constitution. That is, in the basic law there are special rules that determine the key role of a homogeneous population in the state. As for the numerical criterion, it consists in the real part of the ethnically homogeneous population among the entire mass of people living on the territory of the state.

The national question of Russia

To date, you can find many statements that Russia is a nation-state. Contrary to popular belief, this is not the case. First, the Russian Federation is a federation. This means that a large number of nationalities and ethnic groups live in this territory. Secondly, within the Russian Federation there are territorial regions whose national ideas are different from the state ones.

For the political component, this is an extremely negative factor. Because the Russian national states in most cases have their own vision of the political regime of the Russian Federation. Therefore, ethnic fragmentation quite often plays an extremely negative role. However, given the federal structure, this cannot be avoided.

So, in the article we examined the concept, key features and how the creation of a nation state in the world took place. In conclusion, it should be noted that such powers are a fairly serious level of civic consciousness. In most cases, it has a positive effect on the political state of the state. Therefore, the ethnic homogeneity of the population must be controlled and maintained.

The nation state is an organization of a politically (state) united people - nation, serving as the social basis of the public political power of the state and the collective bearer of state sovereignty.

According to P. A. Sorokin, “a nation consists of individuals who:

• - are citizens of one state;
• - have a common or similar language and a common body of cultural values ​​derived from a common past history...;
• - occupy the common territory on which they lived and their ancestors live.

Only when a group of individuals belongs to one state, is bound by a common language and territory, does it really form a nation.

In such understanding of the nation state - it is a state within which both the government and society are united by a single history, common goals and objectives of future development. At the same time, the concept of a nation acquires not a national-ethnic, but a confessional or political-culturological meaning (for example, in the Russian Empire, the Russian nation was formed not on a national basis, but on a confessional basis: every person who professed Orthodoxy was considered Russian, respectively, the individual's belonging to the Russian The nation was determined not so much by the fact of birth from Russian parents, but by the fact of baptism. - R. R.).

The legal interpretation of the nation as a community of equal citizens, first introduced by the French Constitution of 1791, has found application in modern law. In the preamble to the constitutions of the French Republic of 1946 and 1958. (the preamble of the Constitution of the French Republic of 1958 contains a reference to the preamble of the Constitution of 1946 - R. R.) on behalf of the nation, the rights of citizens are guaranteed, "the solidarity and equality of all French people in relation to the burden arising from national disasters" is proclaimed. In addition, it is fixed that "The French Union is made up of nations and peoples", that is, a clear distinction is made between the concept of "nation" as a state entity and the concept of "people". A similar approach is reflected in the Spanish Constitution. In Art. 2 speaks of "the indestructible unity of the Spanish nation, which is one and indivisible for all Spaniards" . And in Art. 11 of the concept of "citizenship" ( nationalidad) and "nationality" are identified.

As an ethno-state unity, the nation appears in the basic laws of a number of sovereign states that emerged on the territory of the former USSR. Thus, an attempt is made to legally consolidate the statist model of the nation and state mono-ethnicity, which in fact does not exist in this state, but on the contrary, there is a complex national structure. In the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, for example, the state is considered as a form of self-determination only Kazakh nation (part 1 of the Fundamentals of the constitutional order). And the preamble to the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic speaks of the desire to “ensure the national revival of the Kyrgyz” and adherence to the “idea of ​​national statehood”.

Since in the nation state national interests “merge with the tasks of the state into one whole, into the totality of public and public interests”, then, according to supporters of the etatist approach, the interests of the nation as a single entity are expressed, first of all, in international law, where the nation acts as a state. Thus, in the UN Charter, for example, the United Nations actually means an organized union of states. According to G. Kelsen, the UN Charter regulates relations between nation-states, and K. Okeke believes that in the UN Charter the concepts of "state" and "nation" are interchangeable.

Depending on the understanding of the nation, mono-national and multi-national states are distinguished. In mono-ethnic states, the names of the nation and the titular nationality coincide (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, etc.). In polynational states, the concept of a nation is complex and is expressed by the concept of a “multinational people” (USA, Australia, Russia, etc.).

The fundamental principles of the nation state are:

• - equality of national-ethnic groups (nationalities, nationalities, ethnic groups) that form a nation. Inadmissibility of national discrimination and racism;
• - legal consolidation of the state language along with the preservation of languages ​​of interethnic communication;
• - national self-determination (cultural autonomy). The inadmissibility of secession - the withdrawal of a local national-ethnic group (national subject) from the composition of a single state - a single nation.

This is a complex phenomenon that consists of three interrelated elements:

Forms of government;

Territorial device;

Forms of state regime.

Types of forms of government, depending on the sovereignty of the subjects of the state:

- simple forms a: unitary state. A unitary state is a simple state that consists of administrative-territorial units that do not have sovereignty, or a state that is not divided into administrative-territorial units (Singapore, Malta);

- complex shape: confederation and federation. A confederation is a temporary union of several sovereign states (USSR). The Federation is a complex state consisting of sovereign state entities (the Russian Federation).

Commonwealths and interstate associations cannot belong to the forms of state structure.

Policy

One of the forms of the state in antiquity was the policy. The policy was a state association of landowners who were engaged in various crafts.

A polis is a people's state-city, whose citizens had the right to property, socio-economic and political rights. The policy consisted of two parts: the center and the chora adjacent to the center of the agricultural territory.

The political system in the policies was the most diverse: democracy, monarchy, oligarchy. The supreme power in democratic policies belonged to the people's assembly, in oligarchic ones - to the census assembly, in monarchical ones - to the monarch.

Nation

A nation is a large group of people who are united by cultural, political, socio-economic and spiritual generalization.

A nation can be viewed in two ways: as a group of people who are citizens of one state, and as an ethnic generalization of people with a common language and similar identity.

The nation is divided into two types: monoethnic and polyethnic. Nowadays, mono-ethnic Nazis are extremely rare, and mostly in remote countries, for example, in Iceland.

Often, a nation is created on the basis of many ethnic groups, which, due to historical circumstances, were brought together on one territory. The concept of "nation" appeared not so long ago - at the beginning of the 18th century, and was finally entrenched in society during the French Revolution.

State - nation

The nation-state is a constitutional type of state. The nation-state expresses the form of organization and self-determination of the nation that lives on the territory of the state itself. The national character of the state is always enshrined in constitutions.

The nation-state has a monopoly on the use of force within its territory and on the formulation of binding rules. The basis of the nation-state is the recognition of all citizens as a single nation, with a common culture, history and language.

The ethnic picture of the world at the beginning of the 21st century remains motley and contradictory. There are over two thousand different ethno-national entities in the world, and about 200 UN member states. Some of them are predominantly mono-national (Austria - 92.5% Austrians, Norway - 99.8% Norwegians, Japan - 99% Japanese), in which are inhabited by a small part of representatives of other peoples Dov, others are multinational, uniting a number of indigenous ethnic groups and national groups (Iraq, Spain, Russia, etc.); the third - mainly the states of the equatorial part of the planet - consist mainly of tribal formations.

The problem of relations between the nation and the state has long been a subject of study and discussion. F. Engels found an internal connection between the nation and the state. K. Kautsky believed that the national state is the classical form of organization of national life. But since all "classical forms" often exist only as a model that does not always achieve full realization, in practice not all nations enjoy their statehood. M. Weber considered the ideal combination of national and state community, in which their coinciding interests are realized. One of the first who pointed out that the Ukrainian ethnos will become sovereign only when it has its own statehood was N. Kostomarov.

Nation (lat. - tribe, people) - historically arises in a certain territory as an economic, spiritual and political community of people with their specific consciousness and psychological characteristics, traditions. Modern nations were born as a result of the formation of market relations. The most important factors in the consolidation of people in the nation, their rapprochement and communication were commodity production and trade. Only with the formation of the world market, commodity-money relations acquired a universal character and became the basis for the destruction of the patriarchal-communal and feudal way of life, the formation of ethno-political communities as a global phenomenon. This process covers the period of the XVI - XX centuries. For the 20th century characterized by the further disintegration of colonial empires and the formation of the nation-states of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

In Europe, earlier than on other continents, national movements were born and a system of nation-states was formed. In the middle of the XIX century. The state of ethnic movements and the formation of nation-states can be divided into the following groups:

1. post-integration, constituting one whole (English, Russian, Austrians, French, Swedes, Danes, goal Landes), and their dependent countries;
2. pre-integration, close to unification or liberation from dependence (Germans, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese);
3. integrated into foreign political structures while maintaining a certain integrity (the Irish, Norwegians, Belgians and those that were part of the Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empires);
4. disintegrated - divided between states (Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, etc.).

In terms of scale and consequences, the level of disintegration of Ukrainians was the highest. Only the internal collapse of empires created conditions for them to unite in a single state. Some of the peoples named above are still fighting for political self-determination today. But in general, the relationship between the formation of the nation and the state is obvious. Nations, self-determining, become the basis for the legitimation of statehood, the creation of viable economic systems and socio-cultural institutions.

The emergence and development of a nation-state is impossible without the majority of its citizens having a subconscious idea that would unite the population of the country into a nation. / The national idea turns the people, inspired by it, into the creator of its historical destiny, into a guide for the future.] When the population is deprived of such an idea, then the nation sleeps and remains in the state of an ethnos that cannot claim political self-determination and stable statehood. The national idea reflects the whole complex of problems of the nation's self-affirmation, its rights and freedoms, and the people feel their internal unity, the connection between generations and traditions, see the prospect of their activities. The highest manifestation of such an idea, according to J. Bell, is the people's understanding of the ideal structure of social life and their own state. Then it will become an internal incentive for political activity, and the national state will act as an external one, ensuring the sovereignty and social progress of the nation as a political community. M. Grushevsky, M. Dragomanov, S. Dnistryansky, V. Ligashsky, I. Franko saw the need to translate the Ukrainian national idea into state building.

The idea of ​​a "sovereign nation" or "political nation" was born in the French Revolution, when the so-called third estate, which constituted the majority of the population of France, won civil rights for itself. At the same time, the "state" concept of a political nation was formed, according to which the concept of "representative of the nation" was identified with the concept of "citizen of a sovereign state." "A political nation is a community that, along with an ethno-cultural essence, also has a legal and state structure" (G. Setton-Watson). It is this understanding of the nation that is most common in economically developed countries, where nation-states arose relatively earlier. An important role in their formation was played by the peoples' awareness of their national and socio-economic rights, by exercising which they brought their countries to the forefront of world progress. Accordingly, a sense of patriotism was formed, according to which a citizen defends his homeland, and it guarantees him personal security and other human rights. In the national-state idea, as we see, the need for the existence of a national state is clearly visible. However, in what direction should it develop and does it retain its connection with the nation? History knows examples when, under certain circumstances, the state can evolve with the priority of the national or class - to totalitarianism, and when the universal remains leading in the national - to a democratic, rule of law state.

In the political science concepts of F. Hegel, M. Weber, V. Lipinsky, the idea of ​​a national state arises as an addition to the idea of ​​a legal state. The liberal idea, justifying the equality of civil human rights, does not resolve the issue of the equality of the rights of each ethnic group, in particular the right to its state self-determination. The national idea differs from the liberal one in that it seeks to solve not only the problem of the legal equality of people of different nationalities, but also the question of the equality of nations, understood as their right to independent political development.

It is significant that where the idea of ​​the nation-state is combined with the concepts of the liberal-demo cratic perspective and the rule of law, the progress of society is obvious (North America, Scandinavian countries). The nation-state proved its advantage in this variant. Empires will sink into oblivion, and "non-historical peoples", whom their ideologists predicted death (Nietzsche, Marx, Dontsov), create their own states, the number of which is growing. In other words, the national state, which ensures the ethnonational unity and political stability of society, guarantees the development relations, freedom and equality of interethnic relations in its political field, cannot but be at the same time a state of law, protecting the interests of a person, his rights and freedoms.

In modern society, with the priority of universal human values, the decisive role is played not by classes, but by political nations as communities. There are no other effective ways to modernize society outside the national one (N. Berdyaev), and this applies to both the countries of the so-called "third world" and post-socialist ones. Even in conditions when the country is torn apart by class contradictions, civil wars, the nation, as an ethnic community, remains, rallying people around its national idea. The conquest of independence by an ethnos means its formalization into a nation-state. The German sociologist F. Gekkerman argues that the nation-state forms an ethno-community that has "not so much a common origin as a community of value ideas (orientation), institutions and political convictions."

Consequently, the nation-state is a form of political organization that combines the political-civil and ethnic affiliation of people. It is "formed by the respective nation, compactly residing in a certain territory, as a result of its exercise of the fundamental right to political self-determination, which provides the necessary conditions for the preservation and development of the heritage of this nation and the enrichment and development of all nations, ethnic groups living in this state" [Mala encyclopedia! - K., 1996. - S. 539]. However, with the formation and development of nation-states, the problems of national relations do not lose their relevance.

To consider this issue, one should apparently proceed from the fact that the state as a political institution is called upon to maintain the internal and external stability of the community on the basis of which it arose and developed. In this regard, it is important to clarify the concept of the nation state, since different interpretations of this concept can determine the different directions of the state ethnic policy.

In the textbook "Ethnology", authored by G.T. Tavadov, a fairly common, albeit deeply erroneous, definition of a nation-state is given: "A nation-state is a state formed by an ethnos (nation) on the basis of an ethnic territory and embodying the political independence and self-sufficiency of the people." In this case, the author, in essence, puts an equal sign between the "ethnos" (ethnic community) and the nation, and therefore it turns out that there are "national" states and there are those that cannot be considered national. Meanwhile, all modern states are national, because they are built on the basis of the sovereign right of the nation to self-determination, and civil, not ethnic communities have such a right. And the nation-state is a territorial community, all members of which, regardless of their ethnicity, recognize their community, stand in solidarity with it, and obey the institutionalized norms of this community.

In addition to the postulate that there is a national state, for the purposes of ethno-political analysis, it is necessary to determine another important provision: what is the ethnic component in state building, i.e. what is a mono-ethnic state and what is a multi-ethnic state.

In world practice, a state is considered to be mono-ethnic, in which 95% of the population or more are representatives of one ethnic tradition. But there are very few such states in the world (Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Albania, Armenia, Malta, Jamaica, Yemen, Hungary), in the vast majority of countries there are several or even many ethnic groups in the population. The heterogeneity of the ethnic composition of the population, combined with religious and racial differences, poses the task of integrating a multi-ethnic society, developing a nationwide ideology and values, cementing state foundations, before state institutions.

Each state solves this problem in its own way. The idea of ​​the "melting pot" dominated the United States of America for a long time. Researchers and politicians imagined American society to be such a cauldron, in which heterogeneous ethnic and racial components formed an alloy called the American nation.

By and large, the Soviet ideologists had a similar idea, according to which in the USSR, from the numerous socialist nations, through the “flourishing and rapprochement”, a “new historical community of people”, called the “Soviet people”, was formed. This people was declared a typologically new community for the reason that internationalism was characteristic and all this was called "multinationality". In world science, law and politics, “multinational (or transnational) corporations are known, “multinational armed forces” are known, and “multinational” has always meant transstate formations or ties. In fact, when translated into common language, it was about multi-ethnicity. It is no coincidence that in Soviet and post-Soviet times the concepts of "national" and "multinational" were translated from Russian as "ethnic" or "multi-ethnic". Thus, the concept of "national" was given exclusively ethnic content. A quote from Tavadov's textbook is a vivid confirmation of this. In fact, the Soviet people were not a new, but an old historical community, known since the time of M.V. Lomonosov, N.M. Karamzin and A.S. Pushkin as "Russian people" or "Russians". In the XVIII century. even the Russian language was called the Russian language.

In contrast to the American and Soviet models, which define the complex integrity of the population by state (the American nation and the Soviet multinational people), there are models of the nation-state in which the main role in the formation of the nation is given to the ethnic group. Thus, in modern Latvia, the assistant to the prime minister for national security officially declares that "the Russian community does not fit into the concept of a national Latvian state." An attempt by a dominant ethnic group to declare itself as a state nation and to consolidate this thesis in ideology and in its legal status leads to the formation of the so-called ethnocratic state. Ethnocratic ideology is characteristic of African states, and it is especially widely used during the formation of states.

An ethnocratic state should be understood as such a state in which an ethnic group that is predominant numerically or politically dominant, enjoys power and privileges in relation to others, it identifies with the state exclusively itself, denying minorities the right to membership in the nation or to independent "nation-building". In this case, the dominant ethnic group positions itself with the help of state ideology and state institutions (directly or indirectly) as the only “true”, “real”, “real” nation and demands that representatives of other ethnic groups be culturally equal to it. Such a state model is sometimes called constitutional nationalism. It aims to cement the ethnic majority and reject or isolate unwanted ethnic or racial minorities (bright examples of this are the apartheid regime in South Africa, as well as the constitutional foundations of the post-Soviet state).

The regime of constitutional nationalism can be relatively soft and extremely hard. In the latter case, he completely denies rights to certain groups of the population. Thus, in the Central African state of Burundi, the Tutsi ethnic group, which has dominated for many centuries, which was made their privileged ally by German colonists before the First World War (the Tutsis were overseers on banana and tea plantations), and then they were used for the same purposes by the Belgians, began in 1972 repressive actions against the Hutus with the aim of reducing the number of the latter, and, if possible, their complete physical destruction. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people were killed. Moreover, the conditions for the conflict began to ripen long before it began, because the practice of separating communities began at school: Hutu and Tutsi children were separated: some sat in one corner of the classroom, others in the other. Prior to the active confrontation, marriages between Hutus and Tutsis were not uncommon. The first massacre as a result of the protests of the world community was stopped; but the ethnocratic idea turned out to be stronger than the voice of the world community, and in 1988 clashes between Hutus and Tutsis resumed.

But the largest ethnic civil war of the late 20th century, associated with the confrontation between the Hutu and the Tutsi, took place in neighboring Rwanda in 1994. Then about one million people died. This confrontation is a prime example of African political tribalism. By the time the Rwandan authorities provoked the massacre of the Tutsis, the position of the latter had already been significantly weakened.

In the late 1950s during the process of decolonization, the Hutus began to actively demand the transfer of power to the majority (the Hutus made up 85% of the country's population). In 1959, the first clashes between the communities took place. In 1962, the first presidential elections in Rwanda were held, as a result of which the Hutus took leading political positions in the country. Large-scale oppression of the Tutsi began, which provoked them to fight for the return of their lost positions. This struggle resulted in a series of attacks on government offices and subsequent massacres of Tutsis. On the territory of Uganda, refugees from Rwanda formed the Rwandan Patriotic Front, which fought for the reform of public administration in Rwanda and the division of political power between the main ethnic communities. In 1990, the RPF launched a major offensive and closed in on the capital, Kigali. In turn, the central government declared all the Tutsis living in Rwanda to be accomplices of the RPF, and the Hutus who sympathized with the struggle for the rights of the Tutsis were traitors. The attack on the capital with the help of France was repulsed, but a large-scale guerrilla war broke out in the country. ceasefire and the beginning of the process of democratic change in Rwanda However, the President of the country, Habyarimana, was in no hurry to implement the agreements and STARTED to form people's militia detachments in the country, the number of which reached 30,000 people. They were armed with the main machete, which then used the destruction of the Tutsis.

UN peacekeeping forces stationed in the country informed the leadership of the organization about the impending ethnic cleansing, but Canadian General Romeo Dallaire was ordered not to interfere in the situation. On April 6, 1994, the plane carrying the presidents of Burundi and Rwanda was shot down by a rocket (according to one version, it was launched by radical Hutus). The death of President Habyariman was the signal for the start of the extermination of the Tutsis. At the same time, all Hutu politicians and journalists who called for dialogue were the first to be killed. Hutu armed formations, together with the army, systematically exterminated the Tutsis wherever they were caught. In the first two weeks, 250,000 people were killed. The country's radio stations played the role of coordinators of ethnic cleansing, calling for pogroms and providing information about the location of the Tutsis. It was reported on the air that Tutsi lands would be given to those Hutus who destroyed them.

During the entire period of the pogroms, UN peacekeepers did not interfere in what was happening, and a significant part of them, on the instructions of their governments, left the country. One of the most dramatic episodes of this conflict is associated with the departure of the Belgian peacekeepers. In one of the schools in Kigali, which they guarded, two thousand Tutsis, who had escaped during the pogroms, were hiding. After the Belgians were ordered to leave the school building, people abandoned to their fate were killed by the Rwandan military. In the outback, people were killed even in the buildings of churches, where they came in search of shelter. These events became the background against which the events of Gilles Courtmanche's novel "Sunday by the Pool in Kigali" and its screen version unfold. Then the confrontation between the Hutus and the Tutsi spread to the territory of the Congo, where a huge number of refugees representing both ethnic groups moved.

An example of an "inverted ethnocracy" is Sri Lanka. Historically, it was inhabited by Sinhalese who profess Buddhism. With the arrival of the British and the creation of extensive tea plantations, significant groups of Hindu Tamils ​​began to move to the island from the Hindustan peninsula, who settled mainly in the north of the island and worked on tea plantations. Despite the fact that the Sinhalese prevailed in numbers, the British preferred the Tamils, who therefore occupied the most prestigious places in the colonial administration and bureaucracy. After gaining independence in 1947, the Tamils ​​were gradually forced out of key positions in the state apparatus by the Sinhalese. Then the Sinhalese began to settle in territories that were previously perceived exclusively as Tamil, other measures were taken to strengthen the position of the Sinhalese, and finally the Sinhala language was declared the only official language of the country, and Buddhism was declared a constitutional religion. The Tamils ​​felt disadvantaged, and a protest movement intensified among them, which escalated in the 1980s. in a guerrilla war under the slogan of creating an independent Tamil state in the north of Sri Lanka. As a result of huge efforts, the main pockets of resistance of the Tamils ​​managed to be broken by government troops, but the conflict has not been completely overcome so far. Tamils ​​complain about pogroms and infringement of their rights, Sinhalese see open separatism in the Tamil protest movement and nothing more.

In recent years, the concept of the nation-state has come under double pressure: on the one hand, it is weakening under the pressure of transnational institutions, the system of international law and the processes of globalization; on the other hand, the state, as a form of social organization of society, experiences the pressure of ethnopolitical movements and is forced to confront the challenges of politicized ethnicity. Moreover, these challenges arise where the processes of intrastate integration, the development of democratic institutions and civil society, it would seem, have gone so far that they exclude the possibility of the emergence of ethnopolitical movements and the actualization of the ideas of ethnic nationalism.

However, in modern Europe, where efforts were made to develop national minorities and where the principles of the inviolability of state borders after the Second World War were repeatedly confirmed by the leaders of states and interstate agreements, at the end of the 20th century, the third wave of nationalism rose in the past century. It is often associated with the third geopolitical redistribution of the world, which was the result of the end of the Cold War, caused by the confrontation between two social systems. To some extent, this is true, but ethno-political movements in Europe were actualized before the collapse and liquidation of the socialist Eastern Bloc. For example, Ulster "exploded" in 1969, when no one in the world could have imagined that the Soviet Union would collapse. The October 1970 crisis in Quebec, where prominent politicians were killed by Quebec separatists, shocked Canada. In continental Europe, the most problematic character by the 1960s. acquired the ethnopolitical problems of Belgium. For more than a century, this country has developed with complete dominance in the political and cultural life of one ethnic group - the Walloons. French was the only official language of the country. The French-speaking provinces were the most economically developed, and the basis of the financial bourgeoisie and the Brussels bureaucracy were Francophones. It is no coincidence that the Flemings during the First World War supported Germany, hoping for help from the latter in creating an independent state.

A December 2006 televised "prank" by Belgium's state-owned French-language channel that reported that Flanders had announced its secession from the Kingdom of Belgium was taken seriously by a large number of the country's citizens, showing the fragility of relations between the communities.

Among the crisis regions of Europe in the second half of the 20th century were not only Ulster and Belgium, but also the Basque Country and Catalonia in Spain, Val d "Aosta and South Tyrol, Lombardy in Italy, Corsica and Brittany - in France. Today, it is on the verge of collapse not even Belgium, but Great Britain, for Scottish nationalism is on the rise and supporters of an independent Scotland are close to becoming the politically dominant force in the Scottish Parliament, and the independence referendum itself may take place in the coming years.Secessionist movements are now popular in many European countries.All of them have an "ethnic" justification, their inspirers proceed from the opposition of their ethnic groups to the rest of the population. Due to its nature, ethnicity is concentrated mainly in the sphere of culture and does not imply a political program or concept. But under certain conditions, it can perform a political function.