Without "nationality"
The collapse of Russia can be prevented only by introducing the terminological order into the national and ethno-cultural policy of the Russian state.
Numerous educational and political crops of the Eurasian Union of Youth to introduce into the consciousness of the academic and political elite of Russia a clear understanding of ethnosociological processes, it seems, gave the first shoots. At the end of August, the Russian government started talking about the imminent adoption of a draft law, according to which the term “national” will be used exclusively in the sphere of interethnic, that is, interstate relations - hence the “interethnic” conflicts will henceforth be called exclusively “inter-ethnic”. At the moment, it is known that these changes are planned to be made in the text of a dozen of current laws, in particular, in the law on public associations, on non-profit organizations, on political parties and on extremism.
“It is the Caucasus that most obviously stands as a trigger for the collapse of Russia - this trump card of conflict in the south of Russia, primarily in the North Caucasus, will be played out within the framework of the scenarios of the upcoming elections.”
Almost exactly a year ago, when a course in ethnosociology was taught at Moscow State University by Professor Alexander Dugin, the now former Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov refused to accept the presidency of the republic (again, following the exact methodology outlined in the eponymous book). In his opinion, there can be only one president in the state of the Russian Federation, and the heads of the republics should be called something else.
Of course, one cannot explain these rather unusual political steps by the fact that the book “Ethnosociology” suddenly came into the hands of Vladimir Putin or Dmitry Medvedev, after which Valery Tishkov, the court harlequin from sociology, was “asked to be out the door”. Such a scenario seems too fantastic to be true. But at the same time, it is quite likely that one of the numerous advisers to the president or prime minister listened to an innovative and in its own way revolutionary course for Russian sociology, whether downloading a video version of lectures or reading a book. From this followed an absolutely logical series of initiatives to establish at least the terminological order in the national and ethno-cultural policy.
Strictly in the wake of this course, the first open lecture was held in Rostov-on-Don as part of the work of the Eurasian University. Despite the announcement of only a narrow group of people through social networks, about forty young people, teachers of local universities and people just interested in the policy of Rostov citizens came to the 10 September September 2011 meeting at the Southern Federal University. Lecturers from Moscow presented their report on the topic “Actual Eurasianism: Geopolitics and Ethnosociology of Modern Russia” as concisely as possible, after which the participants had time to ask questions and discuss the voiced position among themselves. The problems stated in the lecture turned out to be extremely burning and vital for the inhabitants of the region bordering the North Caucasus Federal District. Therefore, for a long time I did not have to explain what ethnos is, and how it differs from the people and the nation.
The idea voiced by Valery Korovin, director of the Center for Geopolitical Examinations, about the new Eurasian federalism, in which ethnic groups should be given legal status and the boundaries of the “national” republics of Russia should be abolished, was especially liked and aroused.
For some listeners, the idea that nationality could not be associated with ethnic and especially blood or racial kinship, caused some difficulties. The faces of the participants were noticeable, as the mythological system of concepts, introduced by Lenin at the dawn of the Soviet era, collapsed under the weight of sound scientific arguments and facts. “The most important topic for us is the Caucasus, the south of Russia, the issue of ethnic identity,” the head of the CGE said confidently. “The concepts of ethnos, people, and nation must be divided, since they have completely different meanings.”
At the same time, according to Korovin, “it is the Caucasus that will most obviously become the trigger for the collapse of Russia - this trump card of inter-ethnic clashes and conflict in southern Russia, primarily in the North Caucasus, will be played out anyway under the scenarios of the upcoming elections. This topic is very important and very painful, related to the transfer of power in 2012. ”
“When Lenin came to power, he took the concept of“ nationality ”from the dispute between Kautsky and Bauer,” Korovin recalled. - Nationality means a transitional state from nation to nation state, to nation. And the nation state is a political category. It is created on the basis of a political treaty of citizens who sign this treaty, adopt a constitution, which is what political nation is postulated. It has nothing to do with their origin. The composition of a political nation, a nation state or a nation state - these are identical concepts - consists of citizens. Their origin does not matter. The citizens of Germany - the national state, the political nation of the Germans - include both ethnic Turks, Arabs and Germans of ethnic Germanic origin. ”
“When we move away from borders, from“ national republics, ”the danger of separatism is removed. Already no one anywhere can stand out with the territory, only individually. "
According to Korovin, the origin matters in the category of ethnos, and they, in fact, determine, based on the presence of a common ancestor, i.e. single origin. A people is already a multitude of ethnoses, merged into one agglomeration, which entered in this form history. And the “nation” is a political treaty. “These concepts must be separated, otherwise we, taking the Leninist notion of“ nationality ”in the transitional state from nation to nation, bring only confusion, because by nationality in the Soviet Union we understood origin,” said the speaker.
“When Austria-Hungary collapsed, and the Hungarians, the people, went to the creation of the national state of Hungary, it was a transitional state. In this case, the people moved to the nation, and this state was determined by the concept of "nationality", "Korovin said. As for our country, the situation here was somewhat more complicated. Stalin wanted to stop the collapse of the empire, and in order to accomplish this, he introduced the concept of “nationality”. According to Korovin, the Bolsheviks thought this way: according to the Western model, the Russian empire should be divided into peoples, peoples should self-determine themselves as national states, and then all should join back to the Soviet Union. But if in Europe this happened for three centuries, then Lenin wanted to do it in two years: the peoples stand out from the empire, quickly define themselves as nations, and quickly flow back into the Soviet Union. “Nationality is a transitional state from nation to nation state,” Korovin once again reminded.
Stalin understood that, since there are more than two hundred ethnic groups and nationalities in the Russian Empire, as a result, it will break up into 250 national states that will self-identify as such, and then you will not collect them anywhere - neither in the Soviet Union, nor in however, it is another supranational entity. “And he froze this process by adopting the transitional notion of“ nationality, ”he said. - Here you become nationalities, and then - everything, freeze! You don't go anywhere else. You are a nationality - be content with this as part of a united Soviet empire. So Stalin prevented decay and chaos. This is where the concept of "nationality" comes from. It means a suspended, transitional state. He suspended this process, he did not allow peoples and ethnic groups to become sovereign national states. At the same time, they have already ceased to be simply peoples and ethnic groups, have raised their status, but have not become national states. This prevented a bloodbath in the territory of a large Eurasian space. ”
At the same time, it laid a time bomb under the Russian statehood, since the Constitution, first of all, the USSR and then Russia clearly stated that “national republics” are independent states. This was a condition for freezing decay. As a result, the collapse of the USSR turned out to be a completely logical consequence of the terminological confusion after defrosting. The same fate, and this is increasingly being said from the highest tribunes, can also befall Russia, where all the prerequisites for separatism also exist - the national republics are potential states.
Korovin suggests a somewhat unexpected way out of this situation - the national republics, as administrative and legal units, should be abolished, and completely new legal categories - ethnic groups - should be introduced in their place. This will remove the prerequisites for the separation of territories from the Russian Federation. “We should move from the national administrative division to the territorial administrative division,” said the Director of the CGE. - So, in the place of the present North Caucasus Federal District, the North Caucasus region is formed. Large single administrative entity. At the same time, ethnic groups — Chechens, Ingushs, Avars, Dargins, Kabardians, Karachays, etc., become an independent legal category, and the corresponding changes are made to the constitution, that Russia consists of so many administrative regions and the order of 250 ethnic groups. Then the ethnos acquires legal status, lives where it wants, but it has no boundaries. Therefore, he can not stand out from Russia. That is, becoming a subject of legal law, ethnos divorces from borders. Chechen - please! Where you live - live there. Thus, when we move away from borders, from “national republics,” the danger of separatism is removed. Already no one anywhere can stand out with the territory, only individually. "
The avant-garde initiative proposed by Valery Korovin provoked a lively response from the audience, many of whom agreed that the changes in the “national” policy were long overdue, and the very terminology defining the borders and role of the ethnic group, nation and people in Russia was laid under the building of the entire Russian state. After nearly three hours of discussions, everyone was going home to deep thought, and someone was vividly discussing what they heard. Although almost no word was said about the Eurasianism itself, many of the participants and participants in the discussion later approached the organizers with a request to join the ECM and organize fruitful cooperation with the local branch.
Information