Paul
Goble
Staunton, September 6 – Not only is
the clash of civilizations dividing the Russian Federation from the countries
of Central Asia and the Caucasus, Gari Kasparov says, but it is splitting
Russia itself apart, with neither the ethnic Russians nor the Caucasians
viewing the two groups as part of a single nation.
As a result, the former world chess
champion and political activist continues in an essay posted on his website
yesterday, this division, which is rooted in history, culture, and more recent
political mistakes, is rapidly “transforming
Russia into “a living corpse” that will eventually disintegrate (kasparov.ru/material.php?id=5228308F4EA0E).
Indeed, he argues, there are few
good or at least likely options on the road forward because “either the peoples
of the North Caucasus will” have to agree to “accept not only federal money but
[a common cultural and civic identity] or they cease to be part of Russia in
every sense.”
As Kasparov did in the course of an
earlier commentary on tensions between Russia and Central Asia (kasparov.ru/material.php?id=522476F704D5C),
he begins his analysis with a series of general propositions drawn from the
clash of civilizations literature and then works toward what many will see as
an apocalyptic conclusion.
“It is obvious,” Kasparov says, “that
a contemporary state is a political union of citizens,” but it is also obvious
that such a union cannot be simply “a mechanical sum of the residents of a
particular territory.” If that is all
that the nation is, it won’t survive.
Instead, this union must be “based
on a common set of fundamental values shared by all its members, by a common culture, and by a
common historical memory if it exists in the hearts and minds of people and not
only on paper and in official government documents.” If that exists, he
suggests, then but only then is it appropriate to call it “a nation.”
Many Russian commentators treat
nation, nationality and ethnos as synonyms, but this is not the case either
generally or in the Russian Federation in particular. Nor is it correct to reduce the nation to “an
exclusively ethnic community,” a view that has led “a significant part of
[Russia’s] liberal camp” to view any discussion about the Russian nation as
distasteful.
They thus fail to recognize that the
formation of such nations was the precondition for the rise of democracy in
Europe, “a path that Russia is just beginning to move along.” But more
immediately, “if we understand the nation not as an ethnic but as a cultural
and political community, we must recognize that this community has the right to
defend its cultural foundation.”
Moreover, Kasparov continues, “Russia,
being a European nation not only has the right but is obligated to defend its
identity and its own ‘cultural code.’” Thus, while calls to “prohibit the
lezginka in the Manezh square” may seem excessive, they do elicit “a positive
response from significant number of Muscovites.” The reason is “not xenophobia
but the unconscious and intuitive striving to defend their own cultural
identity” from threats they see around them.
Obviously, one cannot discuss the
formation of a Russian political nation without dealing with “the problem of the
North Caucasus,” Kasparov says. “It is
completely obvious that representatives of the North Caucasus peoples do not
feel themselves part of Russia as a political community just as a majority of
Russians view ‘persons of Caucasus nationality’ not as their compatriots but as
aliens.”
At present, almost the only “connecting
thread” between Russia and the North Caucasus is the federal money that flows
to the region, something Russians find increasingly difficult to tolerate given
that it represents a kind of Russian tribute to those who defeated it in the
first Chechen war and that the North Caucasians treat it as their due without
being willing to adapt.
Either the peoples of the North
Caucasus must accept “the cultural values” that underlie Russian identity and
thus become “part of a single political nation” or they “will cease to be part
of Russia” and will in the future “build their own statehood as they consider
necessary.” The Mormons in the US had to adapt to US laws and identities, and
the North Caucasians must do the same with Russian law and identity.
Those who view any discussion about
national identity as “a manifestation of fascism” need to remember “about the
fate of the state citizens of which we were at one time.” In the USSR, there
was an attempt to form “a new historical community, the Soviet people” and when
this idea proved “ephemeral,” so too did the country.
Thus, Kasparov argues, “even before Gorbachev
came to power, the Soviet Union was condemned to disintegration.” That is part of a general pattern “When
citizens cease to feel themselves to be a single people, such a country is
transformed into a living corpse.” It may
be kept together by force for a time, but “only until the first serious
crisis.”
With regard to the Russian Federation,
the writer says, “it is obvious that today this crisis has already arrived.”
No comments:
Post a Comment