Nations and the national question. Russia: national question. 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

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.

Many of these contradictions and difficulties were encountered by the reform of the political system in the USSR and its former republics, including Russia. 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.

In the chapter “The Leading Role of the Russian People and the Preservation of the Identity of Non-Russian Peoples”, the authors of the 6-volume book “The National Idea of ​​Russia” deal with the harmful pseudo-nationalist myths that have been imposed on us over the past decades and reveal the technology for the destruction of the united Russian people.

The current Russian Federation has inherited from the Soviet system a solid foundation for assembling a modern civil nation - stronger than that of mono-ethnic Poland. This foundation, however, is under threat. However, like any large system, a nation is capable of either developing and being updated, or degrading. It cannot stand still, stagnation means the collapse of the bonds connecting it. If this painful state occurs at a moment of great confrontation with external forces (like the Cold War), then it will certainly be used by the enemy, and almost the main blow will be directed precisely at the very mechanism that holds nations together in a family.

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

The destruction of the social basis on which the “family of peoples” gathered (“privatization” in the broad sense of the word) destroyed the entire building of interethnic hostel.

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

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

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

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

Based on the ideas of ethno-nationalism, they tried to prove that the non-Russian peoples of the Russian Empire, and then the USSR, who rallied around the Russian core, drained the vitality of the Russian people - roughly speaking, "eat" it. Representatives of the "right" wing of the destroyers of the interethnic hostel of the USSR expressed exactly the same theses as the extreme Westerner G. Starovoitova (sometimes their coincidence is almost textual).

The right-wing nationalists' argument was immediately picked up by Lithuanian, Estonian and other separatists... But the most important thing that ultimately decided the fate of the Union: this argument and the very idea of ​​"secession of Russia" were picked up by just those who considered the nationalists their main enemy - Russian democrats.

The national question in modern Russia

Thus, we are talking about a large program with cooperative effects. It was carried out against the express will of the majority of the population. In the important book "There is an opinion", based on a multilateral analysis of the 1989-1990 polls. it is concluded that at that moment the level of politicization of ethnic feelings was very low. In 1991, a referendum was held with a provocative question: should the USSR be preserved? Prior to this, the very formulation of such a question seemed absurd and was rejected by the mass consciousness; the very thought, the very probability of the disappearance of the USSR, the Motherland, the state, seemed impossible. The posing of such a question in itself has already worked to form a mass idea of ​​the possibility of collapse. This was provocative. The President of the country himself said that the expediency of preserving the USSR is in doubt, and this issue should be put to a vote. As we remember, 76% of those who voted were in favor of preserving the Soviet Union. In republics with a complex ethnic composition, the value of the system of interethnic hostel created in the USSR was felt especially sharply. For example, 95% of citizens took part in the voting at the referendum on the fate of the USSR in Uzbekistan, of which 93.7% voted for the preservation of the Union; in Kazakhstan turnout was 89%, 94% said yes; in Tajikistan the turnout was 94%, 96% said yes. But the majority in Moscow and St. Petersburg voted against the USSR.

The ideologists of separatism fomented conflicts between different ethnic groups both by emphasizing the tragic moments of history (for example, the deportation of peoples), as happened with the Ingush and Ossetians, and by using expressions that attributed essential qualities to neighboring peoples allegedly inherent in them, such as: “Georgians for democracy - Ossetians for the empire", "totalitarian Azerbaijan against democratic Armenia".

An important step was the announcement on June 12, 1990 of the "Declaration on the Sovereignty of the RSFSR". It was a decisive action to dismember the USSR, and it was not for nothing that it was celebrated as the absurd “Independence Day of Russia”. The Declaration of Sovereignty of 1990 was the first step towards the elimination of public property, its division into national republics. The destruction of the social basis on which the “family of peoples” gathered (“privatization” in the broad sense of the word) destroyed the entire building of interethnic hostel.

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

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

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

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

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

For the 1990s opponents of the Russian model of national relations have achieved two strategic successes.

Firstly, the politicized ethnic consciousness of the non-Russian peoples was largely transformed from "Russian-centric" to ethno-centric.

Previously, the role of the "elder brother" - the core that holds together all the peoples of the country - was unconditionally recognized for the Russian people. Since the late 1980s Efforts were made to awaken the "tribal" consciousness in the non-Russian peoples - ethnic nationalism, reversed, into the mythical "golden age", which was allegedly interrupted by the annexation to Russia. This makes it very difficult to restore the forms of interethnic relations that have been tested for centuries and creates new splits.

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

As a result, there is a degradation not only of the hostel of the "big people" (Russia), but also of large ethnic communities - such peoples as, for example, Mordvins or Chuvashs. Thus, the Mordovian national movement split into Erzya and Moksha. At first, in the mid-1990s, this was accepted as a "political misunderstanding." But radical nationalists said that the Mordovians as an ethnic group do not exist and that the Erzya-Moksha republic should be created from two districts. During the censuses, many began to record their nationality through sub-ethnic names.

A little later, similar processes began among the Mari: during the 2002 census, 56 thousand called themselves "meadow Mari", and 19 thousand - "mountain". The mountaineers were loyal to the authorities of the Republic of Mari El, and the rest went into opposition. In the same year, one of the movements called on the Northern Komi to be registered not as "Komi", but as "Komi-Izhma" during the census. Half of the inhabitants of the Izhma region followed this call.

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

Numerous ties that held interethnic community, cultural and economic relations between peoples turned out to be broken at once; this tore apart the very system of information channels that connected ethnic groups into a nation. A sign of ethnocracy is the over-representation in key positions in the government of the peoples that gave the republic its name. So, in Adygea, where Circassians make up 20% of the population, they occupy 70% of leadership positions. In Tatarstan, before perestroika, only 2% of enterprises were headed by Tatars, and in the late 1990s. - 65%. This, in general, leads to the archaization of the state system, revives the clan structure of power, claims to the power of tribal formations, and hinders the solution of the national question.

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

One of the main threats to modern Russia is the dismantling of its people, gathered around the Russian core.

The loosening and weakening of the core leads to the disintegration of the entire system of national relations. This crisis drove Russia into a historical trap, the only way out of which is to “gather” its people again as a subject of history with political will. This requires Russian civilizational nationalism. As they say, "nationalism creates a nation, not a nation of nationalism."

Russian society is faced with a choice: what kind of Russian nationalism is preferable to acquire. There are two types of nationalism that are at war with each other - "civil" or civilizational, gathering peoples into large nations, and "ethnic", dividing nations and peoples into smaller ethnic communities ("tribes").

Ethno-nationalism consolidates the people in the image of the enemy and the collective memory of the unbearable insult or injury inflicted by this enemy. He is turned to the past. And civic nationalism builds ethnicity on a different worldview matrix, on a common project of the future.

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

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

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.

Many of these contradictions and difficulties were encountered by the reform of the political system in the USSR and its former republics, including Russia. 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.

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 initially 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 dominance 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 feeling of belonging to a state was much stronger than to an 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 state-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 by 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 in the people as in the state-bureaucratic environment due to the limitations of these people. The imperial supranational dimension, which ensured interethnic and interreligious 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 area 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 actually 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 about 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 actually unconstitutional bilateral treaties "the Center - the 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 completely 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 demand 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 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 in the person of 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 at 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 relevant 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 became non-indigenous in Russia after the collapse of the USSR 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.

Nevertheless, 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 clearly understand 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, in megacities and places of compact residence of "non-indigenous" peoples, tension periodically arises on an interethnic basis.

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 multimillion-strong population of the country, representing national diasporas in Russia, the issues of integration of which into Russian society, linguistic and cultural environment are largely put on hold. 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 and 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 let me note that if the resolution of these problems is left to chance 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.

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 the interaction of national interests, their awareness and consideration in national politics. We have come close to the so-called national question, the 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, spiritual 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 of their cooperation and the harmonious combination of their national interests.

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 is happening in virtually all regions of the world, and primarily in the countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This happened very actively 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 are the following: 1) 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; 2) 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; 3) 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 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) commonwealth with other nations with which 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 the 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 nation to have 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 the objective and subjective factors connected with this, the overcoming of 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 that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, 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. Such is the objective necessity, which 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 and the executive branch 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). 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 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. First of all, increasing the state autonomy and independence of the subjects

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. Interethnic conflicts this is an extreme aggravation of contradictions between nations (peoples) that arise in the course of solving political, territorial, economic, linguistic, cultural, and religious problems.

We are talking about conflicts between entire ethnic groups and their individual representatives. They can arise and operate at the socio-psychological and ideological levels of the national-ethnic consciousness of peoples, as well as at the level of activity of national-state institutions of legislative and executive power.

National conflicts reach their greatest severity precisely when they occur at the interstate level, where some politicians lead them in pursuit of their goals. Without understanding these goals, peoples allow themselves to be drawn into these conflicts and, as a result, become victims themselves.

Of course, interethnic conflicts have their own objective causes, often rooted in the historically established conditions of peoples' lives. Sometimes they are associated with a fair fight for their rights. Be that as it may, one must always proceed from the interests of the entire nation, the entire people, and not from the interests of self-serving nationalist or chauvinist groups and individuals. In addition, it is necessary to strive to resolve ethnic conflicts in a democratic way. Ethnic sociology can also play its role here if it helps to discover the causes and prevent the development of certain interethnic conflicts by suggesting rational ways to resolve them.

The ability of a multinational society to foresee and resolve interethnic conflicts in a civilized way is an important indicator of its civic maturity and democracy. This is facilitated by the legal regulation of interethnic relations, which is the most important sphere of activity of the rule of law. The comprehensive development of civil society, the democratization of the political system and the creation of a state governed by the rule of law are the most important social prerequisites for a civilized solution of the national question in modern conditions.