Paul
Goble
Staunton, April 22 – The Russian
State Statistical Committee, Rosstat, is discussing the possibility of
including a question about religious affiliation in future Russian censuses,
something that the Russian Orthodox Church has long pushed for but a move that
could have far larger consequences than many now assume.
Rosstat head Aleksandr Surinov says
that church officials are pressing him to take this step but that he believes
any such question is fraught with problems because statements about belief just
like statements about membership in this or that nationality not only are
subjective but may offend some and cause them to refuse to answer other
questions.
International organizations, he
continues, advise census officials to be very careful with such queries lest
the number who refuse to answer these and other questions become so large that
the overall results of enumerations are inaccurate or at least extremely
problematic (interfax-religion.ru/islam/?act=news&div=58587).
But Surinov says, it is not only
international experience that makes him leery of adding questions about
religious affiliation. The last time a Soviet census did so, in 1937, “the
results were recognized as incorrect” – too many people said they were
believers to suit communist ideological claims – “and the leadership of the
statistical service was shot.”
Surinov says that he is not afraid
of being shot: “thank God, we live in other times, but I am afraid of scaring
people away from taking part in the census.”
Despite Surinov’s concerns, it is
not only the Russian Orthodox Church that is pushing for this innovation. Many Russian commentators argue that
questions about religious belief should be included alongside language knowledge
in any future census and that queries about nationality in the ethnic sense
should be dropped.
That would represent a return to the
pre-Soviet practice in which the subjects of the empire were asked to give
their religious affiliation and specify the language or languages they spoke
but were not asked about their nationality. (Estimates of the ethnic
composition of the empire are based on projections of language and religious
patterns.)
One of the commentators pushing for
that approach is Kirill Averyanov-Minsky, who says in a Regnum essay this week
that the pre-1917 approach would allow the country to escape from what he
describes as the sterility of “rossiiskiy” or non-ethnic Russian identity that
the post-Soviet regime has promoted (regnum.ru/news/polit/1916831.html).
Instead, he insists, everyone in the
country would be “russky,” a term usually applied in recent years only to those
who see themselves as ethnically Russian but that earlier meant anyone who was
under the power of the Russian state. That would allow, Averyanov-Minsky
argues, for the creation of a Russian identity that would include Russian
culture as part of it.
Were his ideas to be followed, they
would have serious consequences for ethnic Russians and non-Russians as well.
Many of the former would view this as a diminution rather than an increase in
the Russian aspect of identity, and many of the latter would view it as a
direct attack on their standing as members of separate nations.
Members of both could be expected to
resist, but such a change would have one obvious if ultimately dubious
advantage for Moscow: it would allow the Russian authorities to obscure the
fact that the percentage of ethnic Russians in the population is declining and
will continue to do so as far into the future as demographers can now project.
No comments:
Post a Comment