Abstract of the national question in Yugoslavia in the interwar period. The National Question of the Nation and the National Question

Interethnic conflicts arise in many nation states ah, as a rule, because of the clash of interests of the propertied upper strata of the ethnic groups inhabiting the given state, and the broadest sections of the population are directly interested in a consistently democratic solution of the national question. This is explained by the fact that the masses first of all feel the burden of any form of ethno-national discrimination. And they, first of all, become victims, bear the brunt of interethnic conflicts and clashes. Sahak A.E., Tagaev A.V. Demography: Textbook. / A.E. Saak, A.V. Tagaev. Taganrog: Publishing House of TRTU, 2003. - 99 p.

The only way that leads to the establishment of peace in such states is a consistent democratic solution of the national question. For this it is necessary: ​​- to ensure the complete and unconditional equality of all nations inhabiting the state, and all languages. Why is it necessary to adopt a law enshrined in the Constitution;

eradication and prohibition of any discrimination or, on the contrary, any privileges on racial, ethno-national, confessional or linguistic grounds;

absence state language and ensuring that schools are taught in local languages;

republican, legal, secular, democratic structure of the state; local autonomy on a national (ethnic) basis and democratic local self-government.

In this regard, I would like to note one very important circumstance: never in the last 300 years has Russia's international position been so difficult and complex as it is at present. At the same time (October 27 - November 1, 1991), by order of D. Dudayev, elections of the president and parliament of Chechnya were held and his decree was promulgated: "On declaring the sovereignty of Chechnya." Do these events coincide in time by chance? The number of such examples, unfortunately, can be increased.

In the current situation, it is difficult to overestimate the importance of the media, the role they have played, are playing and will be able to play in the future in solving problems related to the national question and national movements in the Russian Federation.

Many specific examples could be cited showing how the media contribute to the formation of negative ethnic, racial and confessional stereotypes.

In our opinion, propaganda in the media should be most strongly condemned: demands and calls to grant privileges or to carry out any discrimination against citizens (in the economic, social, cultural and political spheres activities), based on their racial, national or religious affiliation;

ideas about the original (natural) superiority or inferiority of any race, nation, people (large or small), any religious denomination;

negative characteristics of individual representatives of any race, nation or confession (in connection with the commission of serious illegal actions by them) in order to spread them to the entire racial, ethnic community or religious denomination to which they belong;

requirements of collective responsibility of all members of a racial, ethnic or religious community for unlawful acts committed by its individual members Baghdasaryan V. Is demography manageable? // Power. - 2006. - No. 10. - S. 25-31;

It seems appropriate that the systematic violation of these moral and ethical provisions entails the termination of registration and the prohibition of the activities of any mass media body.

As for the political and other circles of any multinational state interested in prosperity and strengthening of its independence and unity, they, first of all, must carry out the daily and painstaking work of Esin A.B. Demography: Textbook. Moscow: Academy, 2003 - 216 p. :

to establish real (rather than formal) equality in all spheres of life of representatives of large and small nations inhabiting a given state;

to overcome ideas about national (ethnic) exclusivity, as well as national egoism, inertia, narrow-mindedness;

to eliminate the distrust that has accumulated over the centuries among small peoples towards their more numerous neighbors.

Only such tireless work (supported by broad, consistent democratic transformations in all spheres of economic, social, cultural and political life) can ensure interethnic peace in multinational states, strengthen their unity, and make it impossible for separatist sentiments and tendencies to emerge and spread.

When carrying out legal, administrative and other reforms in the Russian Federation that affect the interests of any of its peoples, it is necessary to abandon the mechanical, standard bureaucratic approach to their planning and implementation. Careful, strictly individual consideration of the peculiarities of the territorial distribution of any people, large or small, is necessary; its historical heritage; economic and cultural traditions; features of the ecological situation in the places of his residence; consequences that this or that reform can have on the standard of living of a given people, its spiritual and material culture.

In the chapter “The Leading Role of the Russian People and the Preservation of the Identity of Non-Russian Peoples”, the authors of the 6-volume book “The National Idea of ​​Russia” deal with the harmful pseudo-nationalist myths that have been imposed on us over the past decades and reveal the technology for the destruction of the united Russian people.

The current Russian Federation has inherited from the Soviet system a solid foundation for assembling a modern civil nation - stronger than that of mono-ethnic Poland. This foundation, however, is under threat. However, like any big system, a nation is capable of either developing and updating, or degrading. It cannot stand still, stagnation means the collapse of the bonds connecting it. If this painful state occurs at a moment of great confrontation with external forces (like the Cold War), then it will certainly be used by the enemy, and almost the main blow will be directed precisely at the very mechanism that holds nations together in a family.

As soon as the ideas of progress and the unified socialist content of national cultures in the USSR were ideologically “repressed” at the end of perestroika, and then they lost their political and economic foundations, aggressive politicized ethnicity came to the fore, and the “architects” blew up this mine under statehood, it was ripe the need to discuss the Russian national question.

The destruction of the social basis on which the “family of peoples” gathered (“privatization” in the broad sense of the word) destroyed the entire building of interethnic hostel.

Let us briefly recall the stages of the maturation of this threat. The decision to shift the main direction of the information-psychological war against the USSR from social problems to the national question in the USSR was made in the Cold War strategy already in the 1970s. But the blinkers of historical materialism did not allow the leadership of the CPSU to realize the scale of this threat.

It was believed that in the USSR "there are nations, but there is no national question." In the 1970s an alliance of anti-Soviet forces emerged within the USSR and its external geopolitical adversary in cold war. During the years of perestroika, already with the participation of the ruling elite of the CPSU, powerful blows were dealt to the Soviet system of interethnic relations in all its sections - from economic to symbolic. The tools of all the great ideologies were used - liberalism, Marxism and nationalism, primarily Russian nationalism.

Prominent intellectuals took part in the information and psychological preparation for the collapse of the USSR, as they saw the solution of the national question. Here are a few brief statements from the huge flow of program messages. Historian Yuri Afanasiev: "The USSR is neither a country nor a state ... The USSR as a country has no future." Advisor to the President of Russia Galina Starovoitova: “ Soviet Union- the last empire, which was embraced by the worldwide process of decolonization, which has been going on since the end of World War II ... We should not forget that our state developed artificially and was based on violence. Historian M. Gefter spoke at the Adenauer Foundation about the USSR, “this cosmopolitan monster”, that “the connection, thoroughly imbued with historical violence, was doomed” and the Belovezhskaya verdict was natural. The writer A. Adamovich stated at a meeting at Moscow State University: "On the outskirts of the Union, national and democratic ideas basically converge - especially in the Baltic states."

But the "Westernizers" alone could not legitimize in the eyes of a sufficiently large part of the intelligentsia the collapse of the country into "national apartments". The "patriots" who rejected the imperial structure of Russia also played a significant role here.

Based on the ideas of ethno-nationalism, they tried to prove that the non-Russian peoples of the Russian Empire, and then the USSR, who rallied around the Russian core, drained the vitality of the Russian people - roughly speaking, "eat" it. Representatives of the "right" wing of the destroyers of the interethnic hostel of the USSR expressed exactly the same theses as the extreme Westerner G. Starovoitova (sometimes their coincidence is almost textual).

The right-wing nationalists' argument was immediately picked up by Lithuanian, Estonian and other separatists... But the most important thing that ultimately decided the fate of the Union: this argument and the very idea of ​​"secession of Russia" were picked up by just those who considered the nationalists their main enemy - Russian democrats.

The national question in modern Russia

Thus, we are talking about a large program with cooperative effects. It was carried out against the express will of the majority of the population. In the important book "There is an opinion", based on a multilateral analysis of the 1989-1990 polls. it is concluded that at that moment the level of politicization of ethnic feelings was very low. In 1991, a referendum was held with a provocative question: should the USSR be preserved? Prior to this, the very formulation of such a question seemed absurd and was rejected by the mass consciousness; the very thought, the very probability of the disappearance of the USSR, the Motherland, the state, seemed impossible. The posing of such a question in itself has already worked to form a mass idea of ​​the possibility of collapse. This was provocative. The President of the country himself said that the expediency of preserving the USSR is in doubt, and this issue should be put to a vote. As we remember, 76% of those who voted were in favor of preserving the Soviet Union. In republics with a complex ethnic composition, the value of the system of interethnic hostel created in the USSR was felt especially sharply. For example, 95% of citizens took part in the voting at the referendum on the fate of the USSR in Uzbekistan, of which 93.7% voted for the preservation of the Union; in Kazakhstan turnout was 89%, 94% said yes; in Tajikistan the turnout was 94%, 96% said yes. But the majority in Moscow and St. Petersburg voted against the USSR.

The ideologists of separatism fomented conflicts between different ethnic groups both by emphasizing the tragic moments of history (for example, the deportation of peoples), as happened with the Ingush and Ossetians, and by using expressions that attributed essential qualities to the neighboring peoples supposedly inherent in them, such as: “Georgians for democracy - Ossetians for the empire", "totalitarian Azerbaijan against democratic Armenia".

An important step was the announcement on June 12, 1990 of the "Declaration on the Sovereignty of the RSFSR". It was a decisive action to dismember the USSR, and it was not for nothing that it was celebrated as the absurd “Independence Day of Russia”. The Declaration of Sovereignty of 1990 was the first step towards the elimination of public property, its division into national republics. The destruction of the social basis on which the “family of peoples” gathered (“privatization” in the broad sense of the word) destroyed the entire building of interethnic hostel.

At the same time, declarations were being prepared on the separation of already parts of the RSFSR. On November 27, 1990, such a declaration was adopted by Checheno-Ingushetia. It considered itself already as a sovereign state; the Declaration did not contain direct or even indirect references to its belonging to the RSFSR. These two acts are a single bundle, they were written, one might say, with one hand, in one headquarters.

Having access to the levers of power and the media, the elite that began the division of the USSR undermined all the mechanisms that reproduce the Soviet type of interethnic relations. So, in many republics, a struggle was launched against the Russian language and alphabet (Cyrillic). It is known that such actions in the field of language are an effective means of inciting interethnic hatred.

The philosophy and technology of the collapse of the Union must be understood, since the Russian Federation, in its national-state type, is the same Soviet Union, only smaller.

Neither the philosophy of collapse nor the philosophers themselves have gone anywhere. Leonid Batkin, one of the “foremen” of perestroika, said after the liquidation of the USSR, reminding his associates: “Who is the formula for a united and indivisible Russia now designed for? To the illiterate mass?

Anti-Soviet revolutions in the USSR and in Eastern Europe, a similar operation against Yugoslavia, to a large extent relied on the artificial incitement of aggressive ethnicity directed against the whole. The technologies tested in this large program are now being used just as effectively against the post-Soviet states and attempts at their integration. After the liquidation of the USSR, anti-Soviet separatism continues to feed the already anti-Russian nationalism of an influential part of the post-Soviet elite. Since it continues to be an important factor in the system of threats to Russia, its study remains an urgent task.

For the 1990s opponents of the Russian model national relations achieved two strategic successes.

Firstly, the politicized ethnic consciousness of the non-Russian peoples was largely transformed from "Russian-centric" to ethno-centric.

Previously, the role of the "elder brother" - the core that holds together all the peoples of the country - was unconditionally recognized for the Russian people. Since the late 1980s Efforts were made to awaken the "tribal" consciousness in the non-Russian peoples - ethnic nationalism, reversed, into the mythical "golden age", which was supposedly interrupted by the annexation to Russia. This makes it very difficult to restore the forms of interethnic relations that have been tested for centuries and creates new splits.

Secondly, having managed to turn the national elites against the Union Center and achieve the liquidation of the USSR, they have nurtured the worm of separatism, which continues to gnaw at the peoples of the post-Soviet states. The division of the USSR as a state of the Soviet people sharply weakened the coherence of those states that arose after its collapse. The temptation of division goes deeper, and even the peoples, who long ago realized that they are united, begin to disperse into sub-ethnoi.

As a result, there is a degradation not only of the hostel of the "big people" (Russia), but also of large ethnic communities - such peoples as, for example, Mordvins or Chuvashs. Thus, the Mordovian national movement split into Erzya and Moksha. At first, in the mid-1990s, this was accepted as a "political misunderstanding." But radical nationalists said that the Mordovians as an ethnic group do not exist and that the Erzya-Moksha republic should be created from two districts. During the censuses, many began to record their nationality through sub-ethnic names.

A little later, similar processes began among the Mari: during the 2002 census, 56 thousand called themselves "meadow Mari", and 19 thousand - "mountain". The mountaineers were loyal to the authorities of the Republic of Mari El, and the rest went into opposition. In the same year, one of the movements called on the Northern Komi to be registered not as "Komi", but as "Komi-Izhma" during the census. Half of the inhabitants of the Izhma region followed this call.

Cracks also appeared between the national blocs of the Russian Federation. For example, the Constitution of Tatarstan defined it as “a sovereign state, subject international law”, and the “Subsoil Law” declared the subsoil of Tatarstan the exclusive property of the republic. Fear of a crisis makes people unite on ethnic grounds, into small "tangible" communities. This has strengthened ethnocratic tendencies, which means the structural degradation of the nation.

Numerous ties that held interethnic community, cultural and economic relations between peoples turned out to be broken at once; this tore apart the very system of information channels that connected ethnic groups into a nation. A sign of ethnocracy is the over-representation in key positions in the government of the peoples that gave the republic its name. So, in Adygea, where Circassians make up 20% of the population, they occupy 70% of leadership positions. In Tatarstan, before perestroika, only 2% of enterprises were headed by Tatars, and in the late 1990s. - 65%. This, in general, leads to archaization state system, revives the clan structure of power, claims to the power of tribal formations, interferes with the solution of the national question.

Territorial claims to neighboring peoples are also manifestations of ethnocratic tendencies. For this, historical (often "old-fashioned") sources are used, even the rhetoric of social and ethnic racism. Russia's connectivity is weakening as a result of "linguistic nationalism" - ethnocratic manipulation of language. According to the 1989 census, in Khakassia, 91% of the population spoke Russian fluently, and 9% spoke Khakassian. However, in the 1990s an attempt was made to introduce schooling in the Khakass language. The attempt was unsuccessful, as was a similar attempt with the Komi-Permyak language. All this may seem like petty manifestations of ethno-nationalism, but these trifles undermine interethnic ties and, moreover, are too reminiscent of elements and parts of a single process, one might even say - a systemic anti-Russian project.

One of the main threats to modern Russia is the dismantling of its people, gathered around the Russian core.

The loosening and weakening of the core leads to the disintegration of the entire system of national relations. This crisis drove Russia into a historical trap, the only way out of which is to “gather” its people again as a subject of history with political will. This requires Russian civilizational nationalism. As they say, "nationalism creates a nation, not a nation of nationalism."

Russian society is faced with a choice: what kind of Russian nationalism is preferable to acquire. There are two types of nationalism that are at war with each other - "civil" or civilizational, gathering peoples into large nations, and "ethnic", dividing nations and peoples into smaller ones. ethnic communities("tribes").

Ethno-nationalism consolidates the people in the image of the enemy and the collective memory of the unbearable insult or injury inflicted by this enemy. He is turned to the past. And civic nationalism builds ethnicity on a different worldview matrix, on a common project of the future.

In Russia in the 90s. managed to suppress and discredit sovereign nationalism, which unites kindred peoples into peoples, and peoples into a large nation. Instead, ethno-nationalism is "pumped" into the mass consciousness, leading to the division or even pitting of peoples and to the archaization of their culture. This threat, directly related to the operation to dismantle the Soviet people and its core - the Russians, continues to mature and give rise to new dangers derived from it, actualizing the Russian national question.

From the experience of recent years it is clear that one of the tasks of the "cold" civil war at this stage is to undermine the civic nationalism of Russians and incite ethno-nationalism in them. This undermining is being carried out in the "fluid layer" of the youth and intelligentsia. Given the weakness and liberal self-elimination of the state, this is enough to suppress the will of the masses, incapable of self-organization. The shift of the majority of Russians towards ethno-nationalism has not yet taken place, but they are constantly being pushed towards this. It is important how the attitudes of young people have changed: in the 1990s. she was more tolerant of other ethnic groups than the older generations, and by 2003 there was an inversion.

The NATIONAL question refers to the eternal, "damned" questions Russian history . At the same time, paradoxically, over a millennium, having united hundreds of peoples, our ancestors created a great state, an entire universe, organically integrating Tatars, Jews, Germans, Armenians, Georgians, Poles and many others into Russian culture, created a great Russian culture. Almost every representative of a non-Russian ethnic group can proudly name dozens of worthy representatives of their people who occupied prominent places among Russian statesmen, military leaders or cultural figures either in the former Tsarist Russia, or in the Soviet Union, or in today's Russia. The periods of the greatest state power and cultural flourishing of the Russian state have always coincided with the periods of the greatest openness of Russia and the indigenous Russian people to other peoples inhabiting the empire, the greatest tolerance and readiness to integrate these nations and peoples who speak other languages ​​and profess other religions into a single Russian language. , cultural environment, thereby enriching both these peoples and the multinational Russian culture itself. During these periods, Russia, like the current United States, directed the talents and energy of many peoples to the cause of serving their state, and not to sorting out who was more important or older. This was facilitated by the following circumstance - the Russian people, being indigenous, were scattered across the vast expanses of Russia. It did not have a strongly pronounced ethnic self-identification, and it was the state that initially organized it for joint economic activities and to repel external threats. Thus, the state principle has traditionally played a dominant role in organizing the life of society. This, on the one hand, solved many problems of economic, military and political mobilization in the face of internal, external and climatic challenges, but on the other hand it fettered the creative, spontaneous self-expression of individual individuals. But, be that as it may, the traditional dominance of the state in the life of the Russian people contributed to the formation of its rather than an ethnic identity, but a state one. The feeling of belonging to a state was much stronger than to an ethnic group. It is no coincidence that, having found themselves without the support and care of the state, millions of Russians outside the Russian Federation experience great difficulties in adapting to new conditions. They no longer feel belonging to the state where they live, moving into the category of "non-indigenous". And the reason for this is that for centuries they cared little about self-organization on an ethnic basis.

This identity of Russians (rather state than ethnic) was fertile ground for other ethnic groups, nations and nationalities that inhabited the Russian Empire to also acquire a sovereign-state identity and not experience any moral, psychological, ethnic or religious barriers to ways of serving the Russian state. It turned out that the question of "indigenous or non-indigenous people, culture and language" was largely removed by the fact of sovereign-statist identification of themselves by both Russian and non-Russian peoples of the empire.

This dimension was even more strengthened during the Soviet period of the development of our country, when instead of ethnic or state-state identity, our peoples were offered class and ideological identification.

However, with all this, it should be noted that it was not possible to finally remove interethnic problems within the framework of either the Russian Empire or the Soviet ideological empire.

The ethnic principle, no, no, and even manifested itself among the Russians and the so-called nationalists. Although in fairness it must be said that it manifested itself not so much in the people as in the state-bureaucratic environment due to the limitations of these people. The imperial supranational dimension, which ensured interethnic and interreligious peace in Russia, and then in the USSR, was replaced by outbreaks of Russian nationalism, expressed in various campaigns for the Russification of national outskirts, in limiting opportunities to develop National language and culture in the territories native to these ethnic groups, in limiting or eliminating all opportunities for the national-cultural self-organization of national diasporas in big cities Russia. Alas, such actions led to an increase in interethnic tension, distrust between different ethnic groups. And the introduction of the concept of "elder brother" and "younger brother" into such a sensitive area twice in the 20th century contributed to the destruction of our historical homeland.

Unfortunately, the communists, who believed that the national question was part of the social question, failed to overcome conflicts and contradictions in interethnic relations, either vertically (Moscow - national republics) or horizontally (relations between representatives of various nations and nationalities).

The presence of such phenomena as denial of employment on the basis of national origin, and instructions on personnel issues that restrict the access of representatives of non-Slavic nationalities to the central bodies of party and state power, discredited the formally proclaimed principles of communist internationalism and contributed to the further growth of tension and distrust between representatives of different nationalities.

The perestroika policy initiated by Gorbachev and the reformist wing of the CPSU proved doomed from the start. Wishing to change everything at once, Gorbachev and his associates embarked on unsupported radical reforms simultaneously in the economic, political and national spheres. state structure countries.

I won’t talk now about the reasons for the collapse of the country, although one thing is obvious: the reformers from the Central Committee of the CPSU started all the changes and reforms to make it better, but it turned out, in the words of a modern classic, as always. As a result, an attempt to radically change the former system of national-state structure, which did not ensure the organic integration of the nations and peoples of the USSR into a single Soviet people, turned into a catalyst for the process of first sovereignization, and then the collapse of the country.

In order to realize what changes are needed both in the sphere of nation-building and in inter-ethnic relations in the Russian regions and national republics, one should take into account the already existing tragic experience of reforming the USSR.

Today, as in the years of perestroika, the leadership of the country is faced with the task of improving the national-state system in order to finally build an effectively functioning federal system of power with real equality between the subjects of the Federation and provide conditions for painless integration into a single Russian linguistic and cultural environment of representatives of national diasporas, numbering in the millions. The tragic experience of restructuring the national-state structure should be a constant reminder to us that in this subtle and delicate sphere it is categorically impossible to cut across the shoulder, as many hotheads demand. Following the USSR, Russia can also be ruined.

It is important to keep in mind the following. Talk about territorial redistribution and reforming the status of subjects of a single state did not begin today, as many believe, but in 1990. Then, under pressure from Gorbachev, the congress of people's deputies adopted a law that actually equalized the rights of the union republics with the autonomies in their composition. This provoked the separatism of the autonomies and union republics. The Novoogarevsky process aggravated the situation. It was assumed that the updated Union Treaty was to be signed on an equal footing by the leaders of both the union republics and autonomies.

Now, speaking about the national-state reorganization, it is necessary to take into account the relevance of bringing the legislation of the territories and national republics in line with the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

In a word, the principle of gradualness and caution should be put at the forefront while respecting the supremacy of the Constitution (before that, of course, its changes are necessary - the elimination of internal contradictions). The second stage is the revision from the point of view of the constitutionality of certain laws and other legal norms. The third stage is the rejection of the practice of concluding actually unconstitutional bilateral treaties "the Center - the subject of the Federation" and a simultaneous return to the idea of ​​concluding a new, improved federal treaty as an integral part of the Constitution.

In connection with the reform of the national-state structure, one cannot fail to dwell on another important issue discussed in recent years by both governors and representatives of the federal Center. It's about about the need to restore the power vertical, destroyed during the radical reforms of the era of perestroika and still not fully restored.

Considering the limited leverage of federal power over governors and recognizing the need to consolidate power vertically in order to more effectively mobilize resources and implement targeted policies, many people, both in Moscow and in the regions, are demanding the abolition of elections for governors and other heads of subjects of the Federation, replacing them with presidential appointees with /or without the consent of the Legislative Assembly of the subject of the Federation. Some refer to the Russian historical tradition of state building. Territories on the periphery like Poland, Finland, and the Emirate of Bukhara were allowed to have special statuses, but the asymmetry on the periphery was balanced by rigid centralization in Russia itself. Under the current conditions, it would hardly be justified to go for a radical demolition of the existing system of national-state structure.

However, the discussion that has begun on this issue makes it possible to determine the main vector of the reform of the state system in this part. To all appearances, a transition to a system of appointed governors in Russian regions and territories is also possible under the current conditions. At the same time, the possibility of consolidation and formation of lands from several regions is not ruled out. However, at this stage it would hardly be expedient to completely abandon the principle of electivity in national-territorial formations, especially in large ones. True, apparently, it will be necessary to change the names of the positions of the leaders of the national republics and eliminate the institution of presidents. After all, in the end we want to have a real federal system. Acting in this way, it would be possible to avoid extremes in proposals for the reform of the national-state structure: complete equalization of the rights of all subjects, consolidation of the subjects of the Federation with the elimination of the current division of the country into regions, territories and national-territorial formations, the abolition of elections of heads of subjects of the Federation, on the one hand side, and on the other - the complete transformation of our country into a confederation within the Union sovereign states with a very weak Center of this confederation.

In addition to the problem of national-territorial formations, from correct definition whose place in our Federation depends both the fate of the Russian state and the way of solving the national question in the country, we are currently facing, in completely new conditions, the problem of national diasporas living in Russian regions and national-territorial formations.

Fundamentally different than before, the situation with representatives of non-indigenous peoples in Russia today is due to the fact that millions of people who considered themselves indigenous in the USSR - Armenians, Georgians, Azerbaijanis, Kazakhs, Ukrainians and others - after the collapse of the USSR instantly from a formal point of view in Russia they became non-indigenous, since independent independent states were formed in their historical homeland. In addition, it must be said that the Soviet ideological empire in the person of its leaders, in order to preserve the integrity of the country, where the percentage of the Russian population was constantly declining, on the one hand, emphasized the special role and importance of Russians in the USSR, on the other hand, to an even greater extent contributed to obscuring the features history, culture, psychology of the Russian people, trying, at the cost of denationalization of the main ethnic group of the empire, to create a kind of average Soviet people devoid of national specifics. At the same time, it was taken into account that the number of non-Russians by the beginning of perestroika was actually equal to the number of Russians, and that the principles of socialist internationalism and solidarity on which the country rested, along with the presence of the Chamber of Nationalities of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, at least from a formal point of view, both in the ideological and institutional spheres, they created certain protective mechanisms against the manifestation of chauvinism or nationalism, against discrimination on ethnic or religious grounds in hiring and career advancement, and in other spheres of society. Although at certain periods of our history there were instructions and unspoken orders on personnel and other issues that create tension in interethnic relations, up to the collapse of the USSR and the ban on the CPSU, the party and the Soviet government not only declaratively (albeit with the noted reservations), but actually defended the principles of internationalism. Every citizen could apply to the relevant party and Soviet institutions in case of violation of his rights on a national basis and, according to the law, had to receive protection from arbitrariness.

It should be noted that millions of people who became non-indigenous in Russia after the collapse of the USSR are psychologically still considered as part of the Russian people. After all, their ancestors lived in Russia over the past few centuries and participated in the formation of both Russian culture and the Russian state.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that if we want to preserve interethnic peace and organically integrate all ethnic groups into a single Russian people, it is necessary to clearly understand the prevailing realities.

First, in the new Russia over the past few decades, for the first time, Russians were the dominant majority.

Secondly, with the removal of the CPSU from power and the abolition of Marxism-Leninism as the dominant and only ideology in the public mind, the idea of ​​socialist internationalism, class and national solidarity faded into the background.

Thirdly, unfortunately, the formation of new states in the former Soviet Union did not follow the path of development of civil society and democratic values ​​and institutions, but rather, on the contrary, the national dimension of the formation of these states replaced the civil, democratic dimension. As a result, in many countries the mood of national intolerance began to take over, problems and difficulties were created for the non-indigenous population on national and religious grounds. In a number of cases, these tendencies led to open inter-ethnic clashes with a bloody outcome.

Fourthly, the Russian people, to a greater extent than any other of the peoples former USSR, was not subject to nationalist hysteria, manifestations of national or religious intolerance. This was confirmed during the years of the formation of independent Russia, when, like other peoples, they went through the path of ethnic self-identification, which in previous periods of Russian history was in its infancy and was almost completely replaced by state identity.

Fifthly, after the dissolution of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation with its Council of Nationalities in 1993, the last institution of power that could express the specific interests of not only national-territorial entities was actually liquidated, which is to some extent compensated by the presence of their leaders in the Federation Council, but also the interests of all in the aggregate of national groups of the multinational Russian people.

It follows from this that in today's Russia, the problems of interethnic relations and the integration of national diasporas into the existing Russian cultural and linguistic environment, due to objective and subjective reasons, are largely relegated to the periphery of political, ideological and social life. As a result, in megacities and places of compact residence of "non-indigenous" peoples, tension periodically arises on an interethnic basis.

It seems that we are moving from one extreme - the complete denationalization of Russians in the interests of preserving the ideological empire - to completely ignoring the fact of the presence of a multi-million population of the country, representing the national diasporas in Russia, the issues of integration of which into Russian society, linguistic and cultural environment are largely put on hold. gravity. Such key issues for them, as the preservation of their own language, culture, representation in government, law enforcement agencies, in business, have become their personal business and depend largely on the goodwill or mercy of local authorities. Hence such ugly phenomena as intolerance and hostility towards the so-called persons of Caucasian nationality, which are actually cultivated in the media and in some political and administrative circles, gross violations of their rights during registration and employment, and a whole bunch of problems associated with the neglect of the rights and needs of these people. diasporas.

I will not give a detailed list of measures necessary to protect the rights of national diasporas, to preserve their language and culture, to propose measures designed to organically integrate these national groups into a single Russian culture, to ensure their adequate and worthy representation in all spheres of society. But let me note that if the resolution of these problems is left to chance in the hope that the process of the formation of elements of civil society will itself lead to the triumph of liberal values, personal freedom and human rights, equality of all before the law, and that on this basis there will be organic development and the formation of national diasporas in as subcultures within the dominant Russian culture, then, I am afraid, we will face a serious increase in interethnic conflicts and contradictions.

The task of a new, democratic Russia is to provide conditions for every individual, every ethnic group to feel belonging to the Russian state and to feel themselves at home in Russia, and for every individual and every ethnic group to feel part of Russian culture and linguistic space. The task of the state is to provide the necessary conditions for this.

I am convinced that Russia's path to the revival of both sovereign power and culture runs, as in the best times of tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union, through the use of the creative energy of the peoples inhabiting our country, so that they use their forces not for conflicts with each other, disastrous for countries, but for creation. We must do everything in our power to ensure that the development of interethnic relations follows this path.

Above, we talked about theoretical and methodological problems related to some concepts of ethnic sociology, about interethnic relations, their types and main development trends, as well as about the problems of interaction in national interests, their awareness and consideration of national policy. We have come close to the so-called national question, theoretical and practical aspects of its solution in modern conditions.

national question is a system of interrelated problems of the development of nations (peoples, ethnic groups) and national relations. It integrates the main problems of the practical implementation and regulation of these processes, including territorial, environmental, economic, political, legal, linguistic, moral and psychological.

The national question does not remain unchanged, its content changes depending on the nature of the historical epoch and the content of the actual interethnic relations. It seems that in modern conditions the main content of the national question lies in the free and comprehensive development of all peoples, the expansion, their cooperation and the harmonious combination of their national interests.

National-ethnic revival

A striking feature of the modern era is national-ethnic revival many peoples and their desire to independently solve the problems of their lives. This happens in virtually all regions of the world, and primarily in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This was very active in the USSR, and today in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Among the main reasons for the ethnic revival of peoples and the increase in their political activity call the following:

the desire of peoples to eliminate all elements of social injustice, leading to restrictions on their rights and opportunities for development within the framework of former colonial empires and some modern federal states;

the reaction of many ethnic groups to the processes associated with the spread of modern technological civilization, urbanization and the so-called mass culture, leveling the living conditions of all peoples and leading to the loss of their national identity. In response to this, the peoples come out even more actively for the revival of their national culture;

the desire of peoples to independently use the natural resources located on their territories and playing an important role in meeting their vital needs.

To one degree or another, these reasons manifest themselves in the process of the modern ethnic revival of the peoples of the Russian Federation. These include reasons of a socio-political nature related to the desire of peoples to strengthen and develop their national statehood, their reaction to the destructive actions of modern technical civilization and mass culture, as well as the determination of peoples to independently manage their natural resources. They believe that the struggle for economic and political independence will help them more successfully solve all life's problems. Practice, however, has shown that, firstly, all peoples need to use their political rights very carefully, because each of them must take into account the same rights of other peoples. And secondly, one should always remember that the national revival of any people is possible only with its close cooperation and real (and not imaginary) community with other peoples with whom it has historically developed economic, political and cultural ties.

Mutually beneficial cooperation between peoples can be developed only on the basis of mutual recognition and respect for their fundamental rights. These rights are enshrined in many documents of international organizations, including the United Nations (UN). It is about the following rights of all peoples :

the right to exist, prohibiting the so-called genocide and ethnocide, i.e. destruction in any form of any people and their culture;

the right to self-identification, i.e. determination by the citizens of their nationality;

the right to sovereignty, self-determination and self-government;

the right to preserve cultural identity, including the areas of language and education, cultural heritage and folk traditions;

the right of peoples to control the use of natural wealth and resources of the territories of their residence, the relevance of which has especially increased in connection with the intensive economic development of new territories and the aggravation of environmental problems;

the right of every people to access to the achievements of world civilization and their use.

The practical implementation of the above-mentioned rights of all peoples means a significant step towards the optimal solution of the national question for each of them and all together. This requires a deep and subtle consideration of all related objective and subjective factors, overcoming many contradictions and difficulties of an economic, political and purely ethnic nature.

Many of these contradictions and difficulties were encountered by the reform of the political system in the USSR and its former republics, including Russia. Thus, the natural and quite understandable desire of peoples for independence in its practical implementation gave rise to strong and largely unpredictable centrifugal tendencies, which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was unexpected for many (not only citizens, but entire republics). Today they cannot successfully exist and develop without preserving, as they say now, a single economic, environmental, cultural and information space. The fleeting collapse of what took shape over the centuries and on which the existence of peoples was based, could not but be reflected in their current situation.

Many negative consequences are currently unpredictable. But some are already visible and alarming. That is why a number of republics that were part of the USSR, and now members of the CIS, are raising the question of creating structures that would regulate interstate relations between them in the field of economy, ecology, cultural exchange, and so on. This is an objective necessity that finds its understanding in Russia as well. It is clear, however, that the establishment of equal and mutually beneficial cooperation between the CIS states will require the solution of many issues, including psychological and ideological ones, related, in particular, to overcoming nationalism and chauvinism in the minds and behavior of people, including many politicians acting at different levels of the legislative the authorities of these states.

The national question in the Russian Federation is acute in its own way. There are achievements and still unresolved problems here. In fact, all the former autonomous republics have changed their national-state status by their decisions. The word "autonomous" has disappeared from their names, and today they are simply referred to as republics within the Russian Federation (Russia). The range of their competencies has expanded, and the state-legal status within the Federation has increased. A number of autonomous regions also proclaimed themselves independent and independent republics within Russia. All this simultaneously raises and equalizes their state-legal status with all the republics within the Russian Federation.

However, along with these generally positive developments, there are also negative ones. First of all, the increase in state independence and independence of the subjects of the Russian Federation sometimes coexists with manifestations of nationalism and separatism, both in ideology and in real politics. Some of the separatists seek to disrupt the unity and integrity of the Russian state, trying to organize a confrontation between their republic in relation to the central legislative and executive bodies of Russia, pursuing a course towards secession of their republic from the Russian Federation. Such actions are carried out exclusively in the selfish interests of individual politicians and narrow groups of nationalists, because most of the population will only suffer from this. As experience shows, the nationalist and separatist policies of individual leaders, political groups and parties cause great damage to the republics, primarily their economic development, as well as the material, political and spiritual interests of the peoples of these republics and all of Russia. The peoples are interconnected not only by economic ties, but also in many respects by a common fate, and even by blood relationship, if we keep in mind the significant proportion of interethnic marriages in virtually all parts of Russia.

Nationalist and separatist policies, as well as great-power chauvinism, no matter who they come from, lead to national conflicts, since they are initially aimed at opposing one nation to another, the collapse of their cooperation, and the creation of mistrust and enmity.

For Russia - with its diversity of languages, traditions, ethnic groups and cultures - the national question, without any exaggeration, is of a fundamental nature. Any responsible politician, public figure should be aware that one of the main conditions for the very existence of our country is civil and interethnic harmony.

We see what is happening in the world, what serious risks are accumulating here. Reality today- the growth of interethnic and interfaith tensions. Nationalism, religious intolerance become the ideological basis for the most radical groups and movements. They destroy, undermine states and divide societies.

Colossal migration flows - and there is every reason to believe that they will increase - are already being called the new "great migration of peoples", capable of changing the habitual way and appearance of entire continents. Millions of people are looking for a better life leaving regions suffering from hunger and chronic conflicts, poverty and social dislocation.

The most developed and prosperous countries, which used to be proud of their tolerance, came face to face with the "aggravation of the national question". And today, one after another, they announce the failure of attempts to integrate a foreign cultural element into society, to ensure non-conflict, harmonious interaction between different cultures, religions, ethnic groups.

The "melting pot" of assimilation junks and smokes - and is not able to "digest" the ever-increasing large-scale migration flow. This was reflected in politics by "multiculturalism", which denies integration through assimilation. It elevates "the right of a minority to be different" to an absolute and at the same time does not sufficiently balance this right with civic, behavioral and cultural obligations towards the indigenous population and society as a whole.

In many countries, closed national-religious communities are emerging, which not only refuse to assimilate, but even refuse to adapt. Quarters and entire cities are known where generations of newcomers have been living on social benefits and do not speak the language of the host country. The response to such a model of behavior is the growth of xenophobia among the local indigenous population, an attempt to rigidly protect their interests, jobs, social benefits - from "foreign competitors". People are shocked by the aggressive pressure on their traditions, habitual way of life and are seriously afraid of the threat of losing their national-state identity.

Quite respectable European politicians are beginning to talk about the failure of the "multicultural project". In order to maintain their positions, they are exploiting the "national card" - they are moving to the field of those whom they themselves previously considered outcasts and radicals. The extreme forces, in turn, are rapidly gaining weight, seriously laying claim to state power. In fact, it is proposed to talk about coercion to assimilate against the backdrop of "closedness" and a sharp tightening of migration regimes. The bearers of a different culture must either "dissolve into the majority" or remain an isolated national minority, even if it is provided with various rights and guarantees. And in fact - to be excommunicated from the possibility successful career. Frankly speaking, it is difficult to expect loyalty to one's country from a citizen placed in such conditions.

Behind the "failure of the multicultural project" is the crisis of the very model of the "nation state" - a state historically built solely on the basis of ethnic identity. And this is a serious challenge that Europe and many other regions of the world will have to face.

Russia as a "historical state"

With all the outward similarity, our situation is fundamentally different. Our national and migration problems are directly related to the destruction of the USSR, and in fact, historically, great Russia, which was basically formed back in the 18th century. With the inevitable degradation of state, social and economic institutions that followed. With a huge gap in development in the post-Soviet space.

Having declared sovereignty 20 years ago, the then deputies of the RSFSR, in the heat of the fight against the "union center", launched the process of building "national states", even within the Russian Federation itself. The "Union Centre", in turn, trying to put pressure on opponents, began to play behind the scenes with the Russian autonomies, promising them an increase in "national-state status". Now the participants in these processes are shifting the blame on each other. But one thing is clear - their actions equally and inevitably led to collapse and separatism. And they did not have the courage, responsibility, or political will to consistently and persistently defend territorial integrity Motherland.

What the initiators of the “sovereignty ploys” might not have been aware of—everyone else, including those outside the borders of our state—understood very clearly and quickly. And the consequences were not long in coming.

With the disintegration of the country, we found ourselves on the verge, and in certain well-known regions, even beyond the brink of civil war, moreover, precisely on ethnic grounds. By enormous exertion of forces, by great sacrifices, we succeeded in extinguishing these fires. But this, of course, does not mean that the problem has been solved.

However, even at the moment when the state as an institution was critically weakened, Russia did not disappear. What happened was what Vasily Klyuchevsky spoke about in relation to the first Russian Troubles: "When the political bonds of social order were broken, the country was saved by the moral will of the people."

And, by the way, our holiday on November 4 is the Day of National Unity, which some superficially call "the day of victory over the Poles", in fact, it is "the day of victory over oneself", over internal enmity and strife, when estates, nationalities recognized themselves as a single community - one people. We can rightfully consider this holiday the birthday of our civil nation.

Historical Russia- not an ethnic state and not an American "melting pot", where, in general, everyone is one way or another - migrants. Russia arose and developed for centuries as a multinational state. A state in which there was a constant process of mutual adaptation, mutual penetration, mixing of peoples at the family, friendly, service level. Hundreds of ethnic groups living on their own land together and next to the Russians. The development of vast territories, which filled the entire history of Russia, was a joint affair of many peoples. Suffice it to say that ethnic Ukrainians live in the area from the Carpathians to Kamchatka. As well as ethnic Tatars, Jews, Belarusians.

In one of the earliest Russian philosophical and religious works, "The Word of Law and Grace," the very theory of the "chosen people" is rejected and the idea of ​​equality before God is preached. And in The Tale of Bygone Years, the multinational character of the ancient Russian state is described in this way: “Here’s just who speaks Slavonic in Russia: the Polans, the Drevlyans, the Novgorodians, the Polochans, the Dregovichi, the northerners, the Buzhans ... But other peoples: Chud, Merya, all, Muroma, Cheremis, Mordovians, Perm, Pechera, Yam, Lithuania, Kors, Narova, Livs - these speak their own languages.

It was about this special character of Russian statehood that Ivan Ilyin wrote: "Do not eradicate, do not suppress, do not enslave other people's blood, do not strangle a foreign and heterodox life, but give everyone a breath and a great Motherland, observe everyone, reconcile everyone, let everyone pray in their own way to work in one's own way, and to involve the best from everywhere in state and cultural construction."

The core that holds together the fabric of this unique civilization is the Russian people, Russian culture. It is precisely this core that various provocateurs and our opponents will try with all their might to wrest from Russia - under the false talk about the right of Russians to self-determination, about "racial purity", about the need to "complete the work of 1991 and finally destroy the empire sitting on its neck by the Russian people." In order to ultimately force people to destroy their own Motherland with their own hands.

I am deeply convinced that attempts to preach the idea of ​​building a Russian "national", mono-ethnic state contradict our entire thousand-year history. Moreover, this is the shortest path to the destruction of the Russian people and Russian statehood. Yes, and any capable, sovereign statehood on our land.

When they start shouting: “Stop feeding the Caucasus,” wait, tomorrow the call will inevitably follow: “Stop feeding Siberia, Far East, the Urals, the Volga region, the Moscow region. "It was according to such recipes that those who led to the collapse of the Soviet Union acted. As for the notorious national self-determination, with which, fighting for power and geopolitical dividends, the politicians of the most different directions— from Vladimir Lenin to Woodrow Wilson — the Russian people have long since become self-determined. The self-determination of the Russian people is a multi-ethnic civilization, held together by a Russian cultural core. And the Russian people confirmed this choice over and over again - and not at plebiscites and referendums, but with blood. Throughout its thousand-year history.

Single cultural code

The Russian experience of state development is unique. We are a multinational society, but we are one people. This makes our country complex and multidimensional. It provides tremendous opportunities for development in many areas. However, if a multi-ethnic society is infected with the bacilli of nationalism, it loses its strength and stability. And we must understand what far-reaching consequences connivance with attempts to kindle national enmity and hatred towards people of a different culture and other faith can cause.

Civil peace and interethnic harmony is not a picture created once and frozen for centuries. On the contrary, it is a constant dynamic, a dialogue. This is the painstaking work of the state and society, requiring very subtle decisions, a balanced and wise policy capable of ensuring "unity in diversity." It is necessary not only to observe mutual obligations, but also to find common values ​​for all. You can't force them to be together. And you cannot force them to live together by calculation, on the basis of weighing the benefits and costs. Such "calculations" work until the moment of the crisis. And at the time of the crisis, they begin to act in the opposite direction.

The confidence that we can ensure the harmonious development of a multicultural community is based on our culture, history, and type of identity.

It can be recalled that many citizens of the USSR who found themselves abroad called themselves Russians. Moreover, they themselves considered themselves as such, regardless of ethnicity. It is also interesting that ethnic Russians never, anywhere, in any emigration constituted stable national diasporas, although both numerically and qualitatively they were represented very significantly. Because our identity has a different cultural code.

The Russian people are state-forming - in fact, the existence of Russia. The great mission of the Russians is to unite and strengthen civilization. By language, culture, "worldwide responsiveness", as Fyodor Dostoevsky defined it, to hold together Russian Armenians, Russian Azerbaijanis, Russian Germans, Russian Tatars. To consolidate into a type of state-civilization where there are no "nationals", and the principle of recognition of "friend or foe" is determined by a common culture and common values.

Such a civilizational identity is based on the preservation of the Russian cultural dominant, the bearer of which is not only ethnic Russians, but all carriers of such an identity, regardless of nationality. This is the cultural code that has undergone serious tests in recent years, which they have tried and are trying to break. And yet, he certainly survived. However, it must be nourished, strengthened and protected.

Education plays a huge role here. The choice of an educational program, the diversity of education is our undoubted achievement. But variability should be based on unshakable values, basic knowledge and ideas about the world. The civic task of education, the enlightenment system is to give everyone that absolutely obligatory volume of humanitarian knowledge, which forms the basis of the self-identity of the people. And first of all, we should talk about increasing the role of such subjects as the Russian language, Russian literature, National history- Naturally, in the context of the entire wealth of national traditions and cultures.

In some leading American universities in the 1920s there was a movement to study the Western cultural canon. Every self-respecting student had to read 100 books according to a specially formed list. In some US universities, this tradition has been preserved to this day. Our nation has always been a reading nation. Let's poll our cultural influencers and come up with a list of 100 books every graduate should read. Russian school. Do not memorize at school, but read on your own. And let's make the final exam essay on the topics read. Or at least we will give young people the opportunity to show their knowledge and their worldview at olympiads and competitions.

The relevant requirements should be set by the state policy in the field of culture. This refers to such tools as television, cinema, the Internet, mass culture in general, which form the public consciousness, set behavioral patterns and norms.

Let us recall how Americans, with the help of Hollywood, shaped the consciousness of several generations. Moreover, introducing values ​​that are not the worst - both from the point of view of national interests and from the point of view of public morality. There is a lot to learn here.

Let me emphasize: no one encroaches on the freedom of creativity - this is not about censorship, not about "official ideology", but about the fact that the state is obliged and has the right to direct both its efforts and its resources to solving conscious social, public tasks. Including the formation of a worldview that holds the nation together.

In our country, where many in the minds have not yet ended Civil War, where the past is extremely politicized and "torn apart" into ideological quotations (often understood by different people to the exact opposite), subtle cultural therapy is needed. Cultural policy, which at all levels - from school allowances to historical documentaries - would form such an understanding of the unity of the historical process, in which the representative of each ethnic group, as well as the descendant of the "red commissar" or "white officer", would see his place. I would feel like the heir to "one for all" - the controversial, tragic, but great history of Russia.

We need a national policy strategy based on civic patriotism. Any person living in our country should not forget about his faith and ethnicity. But he must first of all be a citizen of Russia and be proud of it. No one has the right to put national and religious peculiarities above the laws of the state. However, the laws of the state themselves must take into account national and religious characteristics.

And, of course, we are counting on the active participation of Russia's traditional religions in such a dialogue. At the heart of Orthodoxy, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism - with all the differences and peculiarities - there are basic, common moral, moral, spiritual values: mercy, mutual assistance, truth, justice, respect for elders, ideals of family and work. These value orientations cannot be replaced by anything, and we need to strengthen them.

I am convinced that the state and society should welcome and support the work of the traditional religions of Russia in the system of education and enlightenment, in social sphere, in the Armed Forces. At the same time, the secular character of our state must, of course, be preserved.

National Policies and the Role of Strong Institutions

The systemic problems of society very often find a way out precisely in the form of interethnic tension. It must always be remembered that there is a direct relationship between unresolved socio-economic problems, the vices of the law enforcement system, the inefficiency of power, corruption and ethnic conflicts.

It is necessary to be aware of what risks and threats lie in situations that are fraught with the transition to the stage of national conflict. And accordingly, in the most severe way, without regard to ranks and titles, to evaluate the actions or inactions of law enforcement agencies, authorities that led to interethnic tension.

There are not many recipes for such situations. Do not build anything into a principle, do not make hasty generalizations. It is necessary to carefully clarify the essence of the problem, the circumstances, the settlement of mutual claims in each specific case where the "national question" is involved. This process, where there are no specific circumstances, should be public, because the lack of operational information gives rise to rumors that aggravate the situation. And here the professionalism and responsibility of the mass media are extremely important.

But there can be no dialogue in a situation of unrest and violence. No one should have the slightest temptation to "push the authorities" into certain decisions with the help of pogroms. Our law enforcement agencies have proven that they cope with the suppression of such attempts quickly and accurately.

And one more fundamental point - we, of course, must develop our democratic, multi-party system. And now decisions are being prepared aimed at simplifying and liberalizing the procedure for registering and operating political parties, and proposals are being implemented to establish the election of heads of regions. All this is necessary and right steps. But one thing cannot be allowed - the possibility of creating regional parties, including in the national republics. This is a direct path to separatism. Such a requirement, of course, should also apply to the elections of heads of regions - anyone who tries to rely on nationalist, separatist and similar forces and circles should be immediately, within the framework of democratic and judicial procedures, excluded from the electoral process.

The problem of migration and our integration project

Today, citizens are seriously worried, and, frankly, irritated, by the many costs associated with mass migration, both external and domestic. The question also sounds - will the creation lead to Eurasian Union to an increase in migration flows, and hence to an increase in the problems existing here. I think we need to clearly define our position.

First, it is obvious that we need to improve the quality of the state's migration policy by an order of magnitude. And we will solve this problem.

Illegal immigration can never and nowhere be completely eliminated, but it must and can certainly be minimized. And in this regard, clear police functions and the powers of the migration services need to be strengthened.

However, a simple mechanical tightening of migration policy will not work. In many countries, such tightening only leads to an increase in the share of illegal migration. The criterion of migration policy is not its rigidity, but its effectiveness.

In this regard, the policy regarding legal migration, both permanent and temporary, should be very clearly differentiated. Which, in turn, implies obvious priorities and favorable conditions in migration policy in favor of qualifications, competence, competitiveness, cultural and behavioral compatibility. Such "positive selection" and competition for the quality of migration exist all over the world. Needless to say, such migrants integrate into the host society much better and easier.

Second. We are actively developing internal migration, people go to study, live, work in other subjects of the Federation, in big cities. Moreover, these are full-fledged citizens of Russia.

At the same time, those who come to regions with other cultural and historical traditions should respect local customs. To the customs of the Russian and all other peoples of Russia. Any other - inadequate, aggressive, defiant, disrespectful - behavior must meet with an appropriate legal, but tough response, and first of all from the authorities, which today are often simply inactive. It is necessary to see whether all the norms necessary to control such behavior of people are contained in the Administrative and Criminal Codes, in the regulations of the internal affairs bodies. We are talking about tightening the law, introducing criminal liability for violation of migration rules and registration standards. Sometimes a warning is enough. But if the warning is based on a specific legal norm, it will be more effective. It will be correctly understood - not as the opinion of an individual policeman or official, but precisely as a demand for a law that is the same for everyone.

In internal migration, a civilized framework is also important. This is also necessary for the harmonious development of social infrastructure, medicine, education, and the labor market. In many "migration-attractive" regions and megacities, these systems are already working to the limit, which creates a rather difficult situation for both "indigenous" and "newcomers."

I think that we should go for tougher registration rules and sanctions for their violation. Naturally, without infringing on the constitutional rights of citizens to choose their place of residence.

The third is reinforcement. judicial system and building effective law enforcement. This is fundamentally important not only for external immigration, but, in our case, for internal, in particular, migration from the regions North Caucasus. Without this, an objective arbitration of the interests of various communities (both the host majority and migrants) and the perception of the migration situation as safe and fair can never be ensured.

Moreover, the incapacity or corruption of the court and the police will always lead not only to discontent and radicalization of the society receiving migrants, but also to the rooting of "showdowns on concepts" and the shadow criminalized economy in the very environment of migrants.

Closed, isolated national enclaves should not be allowed to arise in our country, in which not laws often operate, but various kinds of "concepts". And first of all, the rights of the migrants themselves are violated - both by their own criminal authorities and corrupt officials from the authorities.

It is on corruption that ethnic crime flourishes. From a legal point of view, criminal gangs built on a national, clan principle are no better than ordinary gangs. But in our conditions, ethnic crime is not only a criminal problem, but also a problem of state security. And it must be treated accordingly.

The fourth is the problem of civilized integration and socialization of migrants. And here again it is necessary to return to the problems of education. It should not be so much about targeting educational system on solving issues of migration policy (this is far from the main task of the school), but above all about the high standards of domestic education as such.

The attractiveness of education and its value is a powerful lever, a motivator of integration behavior for migrants in terms of integration into society. Whereas the low quality of education always provokes even greater isolation and closeness of migration communities, only now for a long-term, at the generational level.

It is important for us that migrants can adapt normally in society. Yes, in fact, an elementary requirement for people wishing to live and work in Russia is their readiness to master our culture and language. Starting next year, it is necessary to make it mandatory for acquiring or renewing migration status to take an exam in the Russian language, in the history of Russia and Russian literature, in the basics of our state and law. Our state, like other civilized countries, is ready to form and provide appropriate educational programs to migrants. In some cases, mandatory additional vocational training is required at the expense of employers.

And, finally, the fifth is close integration in the post-Soviet space as a real alternative to uncontrolled migration flows.

The objective reasons for mass migration, and this has already been mentioned above, are the colossal inequality in development and living conditions. It is clear that the logical way, if not to eliminate, then at least to minimize migration flows, would be to reduce such inequality. A huge number of various kinds of humanitarian, left-wing activists in the West advocate for this. But, unfortunately, on a global scale, this beautiful, ethically irreproachable position suffers from obvious utopianism.

However, there are no objective obstacles to implement this logic here, in our historical space. And one of critical tasks Eurasian integration is to create an opportunity for peoples, millions of people in this space to live and develop with dignity.

We understand that it is not because of a good life that people go to distant lands and often earn the possibility of human existence for themselves and their families in far from civilized conditions.

From this point of view, the tasks that we set within the country as well (the creation of a new economy with efficient employment, the re-establishment of professional communities, the uniform development of productive forces and social infrastructure throughout the country), and the tasks of Eurasian integration are a key tool through which it is possible to introduce migration flows back to normal. In fact, on the one hand, send migrants to where they will least cause social tension. On the other hand, so that people in their native places, in their small homeland could feel normal and comfortable. We just need to give people the opportunity to work and live normally at home, in their native land, an opportunity that they are now largely deprived of. In national politics there is not and cannot be simple solutions. Its elements are scattered in all spheres of the life of the state and society - in the economy, social sphere, education, political system And foreign policy. We need to build such a model of the state, a civilizational community with such a structure that would be absolutely equally attractive and harmonious for everyone who considers Russia their homeland.

We see areas for future work. We understand that we have a historical experience that no one else has. We have a powerful support in mentality, in culture, in identity, which others do not have.

We will strengthen our "historical state" inherited from our ancestors. A state-civilization that is able to organically solve the problem of integrating various ethnic groups and confessions.

We have lived together for centuries. Together we won the most terrible war. And we will continue to live together. And for those who want or are trying to divide us, I can say one thing - do not wait.

(Excerpts from one of Vladimir Putin's keynote articles published in the Russian press during the Russian presidential election campaign in 2012)