Paul
Goble
Staunton, December 4 – Most
commentators have focused on the foreign policy implications of Vladimir Putin’s
notion about the “Russian world,” but Pavel Svyatenkov argues that its domestic
consequences may be at least as great because it can help overcome a fundamental
contradiction in the Russian political system.
The Russian nationalist writer says
that the 1993 Constitution sets up but does not resolve the contradiction
between the Russians as “a multi-national people” and the continuing existence
of non-Russian republics within the borders of the country whose leaders
proclaim that they are “state-forming” nations (actualcomment.ru/russkiy-mir-i-evropa.html).
Moreover, he continues, “the
conception of ‘multi-nationality’ does not recognize the role of the [ethnic]
Russian people in history,” denying any “legal connection between Russians and
Russians. [Thus,] Russia is not a state of Russians,” and “from the legal point
of view, Russians are the largest stateless people in the world.”
Russians are to be replaced “by the faceless
term ‘Rossiyane, a ‘passport identity,’ according to which a Rossiyan is anyone
who has Russian citizenship,” and “an [ethnic] Russian who does not have
Russian citizenship is thus not considered a Rossiyan,” Svyatenkov argues.
That in turn leads, the commentator
continues, to “paradoxical” situations such as when “many [ethnic] Russians who
are citizens of Russia root at the Olympics for [ethnic] Russians who are
citizens of Kazakhstan but not for representatives of the North Caucasus who
are Rossiyane.”
All this prompts the question: Can
the situation be corrected without changing Russia’s borders or imposing
draconian central control? According to
Svyatenkov, many thought in the 1990s that Eurasianism might be the solution,
but it has become clear that “it is only a version of the ‘multi-nationality’
concept which underlies the Russian constitutional order.”
Moreover, its main propagandist,
Aleksandr Dugin, now elicits only “ironic smiles” not only “among ‘liberals’
but also among Orthodox conservatives.”
At the same
time, the commentator points out, “the Russian
political establishment is not ready at present to arm itself with the
conception of Russia as the nation state of the [ethnic]Russians,” as Russian
nationalists would like, out of a fear that to do so would exacerbate relations
among the country’s various nationalities.
And thus, the concept of the “Russian world” has
emerged “as a compromise between that of ‘the multi-national people’ and the
concept of ‘nation state.”
In contrast to “multi-nationality”
and “Eurasianism,” the Russian world concept is based on “the firm link between
ethnic Russians and Russia, one that is cultural, historical and religious.”
Thus, all who see themselves as part of Russian culture even if they are not
ethnic Russians are part of the Russian world, and all who do so because of the
centrality of Orthodoxy view Russia as part of Europe rather than the
descendent of the Mongol horde.
The Russian world idea is thus
inclusive rather than exclusive, drawing other peoples within the borders of
the Russian Federation and beyond rather than pushing them away toward the
formation of separate states. And it is that quality and its domestic
implications which have attracted so many people to this idea and made it into
what is today almost a state ideology.”
No comments:
Post a Comment