A home without a home?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

The State Duma is developing a technical task for the law on the Russian nation, based on which it will become clear how to fill it. Variants of the title are discussed: “On the Russian nation and management of interethnic relations”, “On state nationality policy”, “On the foundations of state nationality policy”, etc. It is determined whether there is a contradiction between the constitutional provision on the multinational people of the Russian Federation and the concept of the Russian nation. What is the very concept of "Russian nation", "Russian"?

Stanislav Govorukhin writes: “Russians, Russians - words are disgusting. We have been a multinational Russian people all the time. Now the Russians have become. Although for the whole world - we are Russians! " Once Rasul Gamzatov also spoke out: "Abroad - I am Russian, in Russia - I am Dagestan, in Dagestan - I am Avar."

A quarter of a century ago, the definition of "Russians" was not used in Russia. And there is a certain paradox in the fact that Russians and … Russians live in Russia. Let's try to figure it out. I will express my opinion. It is quite obvious that we need to solve the problem of the Russians, the Russian people at the legislative level.

To begin with, I would note that the state-forming nation - the Russians - does not have a national state. From a legal point of view, today's Russia is not a Russian nation-state, within which Russians would exercise the right to national self-determination. This makes the national question in the Russian Federation acute. Why, in fact, the Russians (Great Russians) are deprived of statehood?

The Constitution of the Russian Federation states that Russia is a multinational state. But how is this so?

For a country to be recognized as mono-national, it is not at all necessary that all 100% of the inhabitants belong to one ethnic group. Enough 67%. This is what international law says. There are over 80% of Russians in Russia. More in percentage terms than Kazakhs in Kazakhstan, Latvians in Latvia, Estonians in Estonia. Representatives of 192 nationalities live there. 68.7% of permanent residents are Estonians, followed by Russians - 24.8%. Latvians in Latvia - 62, 1%, a quarter of the population of Latvia - Russians, there are many other nationalities. Kazakhs in Kazakhstan - 66, 48%, Russians - 20, 61%. There are Uzbeks, Ukrainians, Uighurs, Tatars and others.

But Latvia, Estonia and Kazakhstan are the national states of Estonians, Latvians and Kazakhs. They are called mono-national!

Thus, it can be argued that Russia is also a multi-ethnic, but mono-ethnic, and not a multi-ethnic country. And we must be honest about this!

Let's look at the administrative division of the Russian Federation. We will see that the nationalities inhabiting Russia have their own national formations. Republics have their own constitutions, hymns, national languages, equated to the state Russian. The judicial authority in the republics is called the Supreme Court (in other regions - regional, regional, district courts).

After the destruction of the USSR, Russia retained an asymmetric administrative structure. And the definition of "multinational country" also came from the USSR. But in the USSR there were indeed republics where millions of citizens of other nationalities lived, and Russians were not in the majority.

All the former ASSRs within the Russian Federation remained republics, having lost the definitions of "autonomous", "Soviet" and "socialist". Their official names are recorded in the 1993 Constitution. Four more republics appeared as part of Russia as a result of an increase in their status from the autonomous regions (Adygea, Karachay-Cherkessia, the Republic of Altai and Khakassia). Two more arose as a result of the division of one of the "dioecious" national-territorial autonomies of the North Caucasus. In the place of Chechen-Ingushetia, Chechnya and Ingushetia appeared.

And all this despite the fact that the 1993 Constitution presupposes the equality of all subjects of the Federation! But in practice, some actors are more equal than others. And it turns out that the republics are more equal than the edges and regions (22 out of 85 subjects)! After all, the equality of the subjects of the Federation presupposes the absence of significant status differences. And there are differences.

At the same time, differences in status are noted in the Constitution itself (Article 66):

• "The status of the republic is determined by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the constitution of the republic" (clause 1).

• "The status of a krai, oblast, city of federal significance, autonomous oblast, autonomous okrug is determined by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the charter … adopted by the legislative body of the corresponding constituent entity of the Russian Federation."

At the same time, the situation is widespread when the titular ethnic group does not constitute the majority in the territory of the corresponding autonomy.

It seems to me, it is necessary to recognize, in accordance with international standards, Russia as a mono-national country of the Russian people, who constitute the absolute majority of its population.

It is necessary to recognize and legally confirm the historical role and actual significance of the Russian people, not only as the indigenous and titular, but also as the only state-forming nation in Russia

I would especially like to note that after the collapse of the USSR in 1991 and the formation of new independent states, 25 million Russians found themselves outside of Russia. In addition, to be honest, it should be noted that in a number of republics of the Russian Federation, among the representatives of the "titular" groups in relation to the Russians, there are, albeit rare, manifestations of xenophobic sentiments and nationalism. Let us feel, for example, the outflow of Russians from the North Caucasus.

It is no coincidence that the expression "Russian cross" appeared during the years of reforms: the excess of death rate over birth rate in the Russian regions. Now they say that, they say, natural population growth has begun in Russia. However, we are talking about an increase in the birth rate in the republics!

In my opinion, the main problem is that the Russian people do not seem to have their own state. This is all the more paradoxical given that the Russian people are the fifth largest people in the world. I consider it correct to adopt a law on the Russian people, in which to define the role of the Russian people as the titular state-forming people, and Russia as a mono-national state. The Russian people are not mentioned in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as well as in the statutory documents of its subjects.

The word "Russian" is supplanted from the official language on the territory of Russia and is replaced by the word "Russian". The use of the word "Russian" is often viewed as politically incorrect. In the liberal media you can read that "there are no Russians at all", "Russian is not a nationality, but just an adjective."

There are known distortions in budget financing. There are 10 regions in Russia, where half of the budget is gratuitous receipts from the federal budget. Local authorities simply cannot do with their own efforts. At the same time, Russian residents of the most economically developed regions of Russia often face social tension, a drop in the quality of education and medical care, and a deterioration in the sanitary-epidemiological and ecological situation.

This unnatural position of the Russian majority is a "time bomb" for Russian statehood, and our external and internal enemies can take advantage of this.

When developing a law or introducing amendments to the Constitution, it is necessary to clearly and legally verify the relations between all the peoples of the Russian Federation, to clearly define the position of the Russian people themselves. Only then can the law become the cement that will unite the mono-national multimillion-strong country even more firmly.

I would also like to outline a number of points standing in the way of preparing a law on the Russian nation in modern conditions. Social injustice remains one of the main problems of modern society. This greatly undermines the unity and solidarity of the people. The ratio of the incomes of the richest 10% of the population to the incomes of the poorest 10% (the ratio of funds) in Russia from 1992 to 2015 increased from 8 to 15.6 (taking into account shadow capital, it can be even higher). In tsarist Russia, the “fund ratio” was 6. In the USSR, it was 3-4.

Citizens of modern Russia are divided by the idea of the country's future. Some see it in the revival of the Soviet past, others - in the construction of some new form of democracy, the third - in the model of Western society, the fourth - almost in chaos and devastation. And depending on these ideas, they live and act. It is necessary to proclaim the all-Russian system of values that are traditional for us: this is justice, mutual assistance, mutual assistance, compassion.

But first, we need to understand the very situation of Russians in Russia, having clearly defined the legislative plan.

Vladimir Pozdnyakov, Deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation