Paul
Goble
Staunton, November 5 – Because of
their Soviet experiences, residents of the Russian Federation view the term “civic
Russian nation” (“rossiiskaya natsiya”) as strange and even contradictory; and
consequently, Vladimir Putin’s call for its creation only calls attention to
the absence of such a community in Russia today, according to Fyodor
Krasheninnikov.
The Yekaterinburg political analyst
says that the Soviet system taught its subjects to view the word nation as
something negative, closely related to nationalism or even Nazism, even though
it also insisted that each person identify in terms of an ethnic nation like
Russian or Ukrainian (swissinfo.ch/главнаястраница/мнение_зачем-в-россии-вновь-поднимают-национальный-вопрос--/42567540
).
That
is why, Krasheninnikov continues, that Russians have never been comfortable
with the idea of a political nation on the European model, a system which means that “an immigrant from Syria,
having become a citizen of Geneva, is considered simply a Swiss and not ‘a
person of Arab nationality.’”
In
the view of most people living in the Russian Federation, the term “rossiiskaya
natsiya” “sounds like ‘a community of persons of civic Russian nationality,’” a
notion that is on its face “strange” given that every citizen of Russia knows
very well what his ethnic origin in fact is.
“Like
many other problems of present-day Russia,” the political analyst continues, “all
this confusion arose as a result of the events of 1917 when the natural
development of the Russian state was broken off and a 70-year experiment on the
realization of a communist utopia was begun, an experiment which as we know
ended in failure.”
In
his struggle against the monarchy, Lenin placed his bets “on the so-called ‘nationality
question,’” given the anger of many minorities and their desire to live
separately. His policy bore fruit and “allowed
him to win in the civil war.” And it
meant that the Soviets divided people along ethnic lines rather than religious
ones as the tsars had done.
Despite
proclaiming that all this was being disbanded, the leaders of
post-Soviet Russia have in fact continued much of it, and the residents of the
country view citizenship as “a purely legal formality in no way connected with
any all-state identity.” And that is the source of many problems, especially
for ethnic Russians.
Lenin and his followers “saw in
Russian nationalism a threat to their power” and therefore did what they could
to rein in the Russians relative to other nations, even as they oppressed the
latter as well. In Soviet times, Ukraine
became a republic of Ukrainians; but the Russian Federation was never a republic
of the ethnic Russians.
Instead, it was a federation in
which there existed and exist various state autonomies for nations, all except
for the Russians who are simply too numerous to have their own autonomy but too
divided up by the others to form a genuinely ethnic Russian republic.
Overcoming this contradiction, either by suppressing the non-Russians or
elevating the Russians, is dangerous.
Some people believe that “Vladimir
Putin is a Russian nationalist,” but that view is both “superficial and
mistaken. The civic Russian nation of
Vladimir Putin is a nation of bureaucrats and siloviki, and all the rest of the
population is supposed to unite for the benefit of these privileged groups in
service to the state or at a minimum not interfere.”
There is a way out of this, but it
is not one Putin is inclined to choose. It involves genuine democracy and
genuine federalism so that people can choose their own way and so many of the
most serious issues of culture and language can be decided locally rather than
by officials in Moscow, Krasheninnikov says.
Were Russia to become a genuine
democracy and a genuine federation, a single civic Russian nation would in fact
arise on its own. But “unfortunately, the present leadership of the country
just like all its predecessors is less concerned about the real creation in
Russia of a full-fledged civil society and a contemporary political nation”
than about its own power.
The best that one can hope for as a
result of this new upsurge of talk about a civic Russian nation, the analyst
concludes, is that it will just be so much propagandistic noise; the worst is
that it will be followed by the proclamation of Putin as “the irreplaceable and
unique leader who stands above laws, elections, and the state.”
No comments:
Post a Comment