Paul
Goble
Staunton, November 9 – Many commentators
are pointing to the absurdity of a proposal for a new Russian law that would
impose criminal punishments for any call for separatism in the Russian
Federation as a violation of the provisions of the Russian Constitution and an absurd
prohibition on thought (kasparov.ru/material.php?id=527D64F9CDAA4).
But an article in today’s “Izvestiya”
by Aleksandr Dugin suggests that more may be involved than yet another
authoritarian measure. Its content reflects fears not only about nationalism
among the non-Russian peoples but even more about the nationalism of the ethnic
Russians themselves (izvestia.ru/news/560290).
Dugin suggests that any recognition
of the right of nations to self-determination opens the door to developments
that will ultimately threaten the territorial integrity of the Russian
Federation. Moreover, as disturbing as that may be, nationalism among ethnic
Russians may be an even more serious threat “to the existence of the Russian
people and that of the Russian state.”
The Eurasian leader indeed pointedly
says that if Moscow continues to talk about “certain independent national
rights … [it] will in fact step by step encourage directly or indirectly the
development of separatist tendencies.”
Consequently, he says, the Russian government must support “cultural
identity instead of a political nation.”
All societies, Dugin begins, are “to
one degree or another poly-ethnic” and none of them have been able to “completely”
cope with their ethnic minorities. Many
are prepared to recognize their “cultural autonomy, but the problems begin when
those autonomies lead to “political demands.”
That is why Yugoslavia came apart,
Dugin says, and today Russia must find “a balance between the [ethnic]Russian
foundation, [ethnic] Russian identity, Russian language,” on the one hand, “and
other forms of ethnic and cultural identity, including religious,” on the other. There is no obvious “optimal and ideal way
out of this situation.”
But, Dugin continues, any formal
state recognition of “national rights” is a threat because it provides aid and
comfort to “separatist tendencies” because “a nation in the final analysis
represents a political state.” Thus, “the very term nationality is not neutral
but has a political dimension.”
The Eurasian philosopher says that
in his view, “it is necessary to accept the poly-ethnic character” of the
society of the Russian Federation but that this recognition “must not take on a
political form” of any kind lest it lead to the disintegration of the country.
The current structure of the Russian
Federation is an inheritance of the Soviet period, “when the division [of the
country] into national republics was nominal because the party was above the
law” and thus was able to maintain its dominance over “legal institutions.” But
today, Dugin says, “this is already impermissible.”
Under current conditions, the
influential Eurasianist says, the ethnically-based division of the Russian
Federation is “a delayed action mine”
and must be changed lest it lead from culture to politics and to the
dismemberment of the country.
That is especially important
because many ethnic Russians are now demanding self-determination for their
nation, demands that are powering much of the new Russian nationalism but that
must be opposed because they pose an even greater threat to the country’s
territorial integrity than do the nationalisms of the minorities.
The demands of Russians for “the strengthening
of [their] identity, its respect, development and consolidation” are “legitimate,”
but they must not be allowed to become the basis for Russian nationalism “which
will lead to exactly the same separatism as the separatism of other peoples.”
To prevent that development, “the
word ‘nation’ must be returned to its historical context as a political form of
state formation based on individual citizenship. Only that is a nation,” Dugin
insists. “Everything else” is something
else, for which there are “many fine terms.”
But these things must not be confused.
The Eurasian leader says that this
distinction must be imposed in a “harsh” manner, “legally, culturally,
politically, and administratively, at all levels, at the level of education, at
the level of the self-consciousness of elites, and at the level of the
historical self-consciousness” of the population.
Just how harsh Dugin and more
important Putin may be prepared if they choose that course remains to be seen,
as does the amount of success they might have if they do. But Dugin’s article clearly suggests than
more is going on than many who dismiss the proposed law against calls for
secession as ”absurd” apparently think.
No comments:
Post a Comment