LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

any indigenous people of any country can be state-forming. Take him out of the ethnocultural palette of the nation and it will be another country. Is it possible to imagine Britain without the Welsh, or Italy without the Tyrolean Germans, and Germany without the Frisians and Serbs? Similarly, it is impossible to imagine Russia without Tatars or Kalmyks. Will these Russian autochthonous minorities agree with their new status? Or will they also want to become a small state-forming people on the territory of their republics with all the ensuing consequences for the ethnic Russians and other non-titular nations?

      It should also be remembered that the constitution is always oriented not to the ethnic, linguistic, or religious groups, but towards citizens. It is called upon to ensure social cohesion and unity of the political nation. Issues of blood (ethnicity), language, religion in such a situation are unifying factors only when there is full public consensus. Otherwise, this is not about unity, but about what separates the inhabitants of the same country. There are more than enough examples from Latvia and Estonia to India, Pakistan, and Israel. In Russia, there is consensus on the issue of the state language—it is owned by an absolute number of citizens. On the question of the state-forming people, there is no commonality of views. The RuNet already now, at the stage of discussion, has overflowed with accusations of each other of “dislike of the Russian people”: Russophobia, on the one hand, and chauvinism, on the other.

Fixing in the constitution the state-forming status of ethnic Russians, Russia will follow the path of many European nations that are experiencing today not just a migration crisis, but a crisis of a nation-state, when an outdated model of a nation conflicts with the objective realities of the modern global world and the expectations of minorities.21 For Russia, given the above features, that can be the path to the big problems in the inter-ethnic policy.

To quote Sergey Markedonov once again: ‘Ethnicization of politics is dangerous! Yes, today amendments about the firsts among equals can easily pass! But! But! They become a “sleeping danger” in order to wake up in moments of a crisis. Or we so believe in our monumental stability that we unlearned look at things openly and without blinkers? And lastly, Russia stood out positively against the background of other post-Soviet republics by the absence of a nation-wide ethnocracy. But to ethnicized the policy by our own hands?!’.22

      As a result, the authorities tried to find a middle ground between the two antagonistic groups. An amendment was introduced in Duma on 2 March 2020, which, according to the authorities, was to be a compromise. P. 1, Art. 68 it is worded as follows: ‘The state language of the Russian Federation throughout its territory is the Russian language as the language of a state-forming people that is part of the multinational union of equal peoples of the Russian Federation’.

      The amendment does not indicate what kind of people it is referring to. According to this wording, any people of Russia can claim this role, since, as already mentioned, the Russian language for all the peoples of the country is either native (as, for example, for Russian, Russian Ukrainians, Jews, Belarusians, etc.), or the second language of communication. Given that the preamble of the constitution speaks only about the multinational people of the Russian Federation, there will be no legal definition of a nation in the constitution. According to the authors’ intention, the calculation was probably that everyone would think up independently what people in Russia are the first among equals.

      But in fact, both sides remained dissatisfied, and this is already evident from the new ongoing discussions in social media networks. Nationalists are unhappy that the Russian people are not mentioned anywhere. Proponents of the concept of a multinational people are unhappy with the mention of a certain state-forming people, the definition of which is not given. The idea suggests a corresponding bill, which, of course, will not add to social cohesion. In addition, both the one and the other group are unhappy with the vague wording.

      The last question arises: why do the Russian authorities create these problems? Do they not delve into the essence of the problem or are they going in a fit of populism in accordance to a dangerous social trend? Do they not see the danger of a revival on this basis of the right-wing radicalism that they just destroyed as a political force just a year ago? If it is so, that is a mistake. It is worse if it was the result of a search for momentary solutions to current issues, such as ensuring a high turnout at the pan-Russian vote on new amendments to the constitution.

A high level of the constitutional referendum attendance is just needed for the Russian officials and governmental functions. The turnout should be large, as required by President Putin, and the “necessary amendments” should be adopted by an overwhelming majority.23

Meanwhile, as the Russian newspaper Vedomosti writes, ‘to ensure the attendance of more than 50% and to guarantee majority voting for the right option, it is necessary to carry out gigantic mobilization work comparable to preparations for the presidential elections, which they are beginning to prepare for in less than three months. In addition, mobilizing people for ordinary elections is much easier than leading them to the polls of some strange vote on the issue of the many amendments to the constitution—a little-known document among the masses and therefore not very respected’.24

Under these conditions, to propose voting in the batch vote for the “ethnic amendments” is to ensure the appearance of a huge mass of overt and covert, moderate and radical nationalists, for whom the referendum will take on a completely different meaning. They do not just come by themselves only, they campaign their relatives, neighbours, and acquaintances. These can be additional millions of motivated voters, because more than 60% of the population, according to recent polls, are more or less influenced by nationalist views. Even in spite of the half-hearted decision and the absence in the draft the definition of a state-forming people, this article may be attractive to many of them.25

      But I am afraid that because of this amendment a new global problem in Russian interethnic relations will be created. The new people in the new leadership of the country in five to ten years will try to solve it later. Will be this problem solved? And at what cost?

      Dr Valery Engel is a Senior Fellow at CARR and president of the European Center for Democracy Development.

1 Владислав Сурков, “Сурков допустил обнуление президентских сроков после изменения Конституции,” Интерфакс, February 26, 2020, https://www.interfax.ru/russia/696694.

2 “Образована рабочая группа по подготовке предложений о внесении поправок в Конституцию,” Президент России, January 15, 2020, http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/62589.

3 Sergey Markedonov, Facebook, February 11, 2020, https://www.facebook.com/sergey.markedonov/posts/3499721313433707.

4 “Конституция и русский вопрос,” Интеллектуальная среда, February 24, 2020, http://irksreda.ru/2020/02/24/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%83%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%B8-%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9-%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81/.

5 Виктор Имантович Алкснис, Facebook, February 12,

Скачать книгу