Paul
Goble
Staunton, July 22 – For much of the
last year, there has been a lively debate in Russia over plans, approved by
Vladimir Putin and pushed by experts like Academician Valery Tishkov, to
redefine the population of Russia as “a civic Russian nation” with the ethnic
Russian nation being the state-forming core of this constellation.
Not surprisingly, that idea has
sparked outrage among some ethnic Russians who see it as a diminution of their
status or a dilution of their identity and also among many non-Russians who see
it as a threat to their future status as nations and thus opening the way to
the destruction of their languages and political institutions.
Putin’s remarks earlier this week in
Ioshkar-Ola about the relative rights of Russian and non-Russian languages have
only intensified those fears about the non-Russian portion of the
population. But sadly there is a straw
in the wind that suggests the Kremlin leader may have even more radical ideas
about the future.
At the Ioshkar-Ola meeting, Igor
Barinov, the head of the Federal Agency for Nationality Affairs, said that he
had proposed to Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin that a “House of the Peoples of
Russia” be established on the premises and basis of “the Moscow House of
Nationalities” which has existed there since the 1990s (tass.ru/obschestvo/4428980).
Barinov,
who noted that Putin had called for the creation of “a House of the Peoples of
Russia” last October in Astrakhan (where the civic Russian nation law began to
be promoted), said that such a step would “allow for saving budgetary funds and
more effectively achieving the tasks that have been set.”
Those
may be the only reasons for this proposal, but words matter and the decision to
speak of “peoples” rather than “nationalities” in this case is potentially a
threat to non-Russians given the context within which it is being
proposed.
In
Soviet times, the Russians were always described as “a nation,” while the
non-Russians were classified as “nationalities,” a lesser and offensive status.
“Peoples” in contrast either referred to the entire “Soviet people” or to the collection
of nations, nationalities, and (still smaller) ethnographic groups.
If
Putin’s regime is simply returning to that latter meaning, it is not a positive
development but it is not necessarily a fatal one for non-Russians. But there
is another more disturbing possibility. As long as ethnic groups are considered
“nations” or “nationalities,” they at least in principle have the right to
self-determination under international law.
That
doesn’t necessarily mean state independence, of course, but also involves the
existence of structures like national republics that some of the non-Russians
within the borders of the Russian Federation currently have.
If
however Moscow begins to speak only of “peoples,” a more nebulous category that
doesn’t entail self-determination, rather than “nationalities” or “nations,” that
do, such a change could set the stage for new moves against the non-Russian
republics within the Russian Federation and a further degradation of the status
of the nations on which they are based.
No comments:
Post a Comment