Paul
Goble
Staunton, November 3 – Vladimir
Putin wants to create his Russian nation the same way he has created his power
vertical, from the top down and with as few horizontal ties that might be used
against him as possible, an increasing number of commentators and politicians are
saying; and thus his goal is both an contradiction in terms and an impossible
dream.
The European Tatarstan organization
has released the most comprehensive statement on this dilemma so far. It notes that the existence of “a civic
multi-national community” in the Russian Federation in fact exists, but that
when one begins to speak “about ‘a nation of civic Russians,’ that is something
else because it seeks to eliminate ethnic identities in the country (aurupatatarstan.org/blog/rossiyane.html).
Moreover, the group says, “it must
not seek to construct a firm national identity within the state with the help
of legal acts or Olympiads or the speeches of this or that politicians. A
nation “always is understood,” as Benedict Anderson has observed, “as a deep
horizontal community,” rather than some vertically organized one.
The Soviet leadership “attempted to
create a community called ‘the Soviet people,’” the European Tatarstan
organization says; but all that achieved was a situation in which people “said
one thing to the powers that be and thought something else,” as the
disintegration of the USSR in 1991 showed.
That history and much else besides
strongly suggests that “ideological constructs based not on objective
socio-economic foundations, based on propaganda and social-political force and
fear turn out to be short-lived.” But
that doesn’t make the attempts to create them less dangerous: instead, it makes
such attempts as the current one even more so.
Ukrainian commentator Vitaly
Portnikov agrees, arguing that social forces have produced a political nation
in Ukraine over the last three years but that similar forces have not yet
emerged in the Russian Federation and so there is little reason to expect that
a political nation of Russians will emerge anytime soon (graniru.org/opinion/portnikov/m.256206.html).
Clearly, he
says, Putin has not learned from the Soviet experience that “nations are not
established by laws and political orders. They either arise or they don’t.” A
political nation in the USSR might have arisen in the wake of World War II had
Stalin not been so frightened of its implications that he destroyed it by
terror.
This problem is
far more serious than many think, Portnikov continues, because it is “a problem
of the future.” “Sociologists call the
Russians the most ‘atomized’ people in Europe: here the political nation not
infrequently ends at the door of one’s own apartment or even within it among
the closest who nonetheless do not feel solidarity with each other.”
And that raises “a
simple question: “Is a single political nation in general possible in the
Russian Federation? And if it in fact is, not by Putin’s order but by the work
of history, then another question arises: will this be one nation or two or
three or ten? And will all these new
political nations want to live in one state? And if they don’t, will they
separate peacefully?”
Portnikov
concludes: “This then is the most important question of the immediate Russian
future, a question which the self-satisfied initiator of the latest senseless
law will hardly have asked himself” or be able to come up with a satisfactory
answer.
Finally, the
Russian Conscience Movement notes that attempt to create a single political
identity for the country occurred not only in Soviet times but in tsarist ones.
These didn’t truly succeed and the current effort is likely to fail for the
same reason. It speaks of a nation but united people only on a political basis
(newsland.com/community/3550/content/pochemu-nevozmozhna-rossiiskaia-natsiia/5536717).
“The Russian super-ethnos is much bigger
(at a minimum twice and in fact possibly three to four times as large) as the
community of citizens of the Russian Federation,” Conscience declares. Defining a civic Russian nation politically
cuts these people off from Russia and from each other.
And the group suggests that “today ‘the
most Russian’ Russians live not in Moscow and even not in Irkutsk. Russian
Ukrainians and Russian Georgians who preserve their dignity and are much less
indifferent to state misbehavior are today much more Russian than are the
Russians of the former Leningrad” or elsewhere.
But perhaps the most damning comment about
the idea of a civic Russian nation comes from Vyacheslav Mikhailov now
identified as its author --Others who
might claim that honor are Boris Yeltsin and ethnographer Valery Tishkov – says
that creating a Russian nation “should become the goal for the Russian
Federation just as building communism was for the USSR (life.ru//t/звук/925087/avtor_idiei_o_rossiiskoi_natsii_ona_dolzhna_stat_tsieliu_kak_kommunizm_v_sssr).
Mikhailov seems to have forgotten although
many who lived in Soviet times have not that the Russians among others told an
anecdote according to which communism was like the horizon in that the closer
you approached it, the further away it became. So too it is likely to be the
case with a Russian nation conceived as he and Putin do.
The problems are already agitating some in
the Duma now that its nationality committee has taken up the issue and other
deputies are being forced to think about what such a law should contain or even
whether it should be written at all (regions.ru/news/2594300/
and nazaccent.ru/content/22299-v-profilnom-komitete-gosdumy-nachali-rabotu.html).
No comments:
Post a Comment