Kremlin ruled out the possibility of the arrest of director Alexander Sokurov after his polemic with the president over the North Caucasus and the future of Russia. But the head of Chechnya reacted sharply to his words.
There can be no talk of arrest. The president is very kind to Alexander Sokurov, a Kremlin spokesman told the Moscow speaking radio station. The director, in turn, is ready to talk with Vladimir Putin again. If he believes that there are topics for discussion it is necessary to meet, Sokurov told RIA. A skirmish between them took place on Thursday at a meeting of members of the Human Rights Council with the president. Alexander Sokurov outlined his vision of the country’s development and, among other things, called the situation in the North Caucasus the biggest problem in Russia. There, according to the director, there are almost no Russians left, the region is becoming mono-national. He also noted that a number of Russian republics even have their own armies and padishahs have appeared. Sokurov offered to release everyone who does not want to live in one state.
Putin replied sharply, he called such public statements unacceptable and asked if the director wants a repetition of Yugoslavia and the transformation of Russia into Muscovy, which NATO is striving for. Later, the head of Chechnya suggested checking Sokurov’s words for extremism. Ramzan Kadyrov, believing that the director had him in mind, wrote in his telegram channel that he was not a president or a padishah and all his fighters were subordinate to the federal command. He also called Sokurov a “selling face”.
The Chechen parliament is preparing an appeal to the Investigative Committee because of Sokurov’s words about the North Caucasus.
“Rent an apartment to the Slavs”: the political scientist replied to Sokurov – MK
At the end of the year, the “national question” suddenly became topical again. First, a wave of sympathy arose for the Russians, who are oppressed in the countries of Central Asia, then they remembered about the inhabitants of Russia, who are annoyed by non-Russian compatriots and migrants. As a result, a bill was even introduced to the State Duma prohibiting journalists from indicating the nationality of the people who committed the crime. Denis LETNYAKOV, Senior Researcher of the Sector for the History of Political Philosophy of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Associate Professor of the Faculty of Political Science at GAUGN, spoke about the reasons for the emergence of nationalism and interethnic conflicts:
– Is nationalism a good or a bad thing?
– This is a very complex and multifaceted phenomenon. The word “nationalism” can define exactly the opposite things. For example, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk can be called a nationalist, who, building a single Turkish nation, denied the Kurds their identity, calling them “mountain Turks”. At the same time, those Kurds who are trying to preserve their national characteristics within the framework of Turkish society are also nationalists. Spanish nationalists refuse to recognize the independence of Catalonia, while Catalan nationalists, on the contrary, demand the independence of this region.
One can appeal to a nation as a totality of people having a common origin and culture – this is how a nation is usually understood in Russia. And in the English-speaking world, when they talk about a nation, they most often mean a civic, political community. This community can be made up of people from different backgrounds and cultures (“Irish Americans,” “African Americans,” etc.).
Thus, nationalism is neither bad nor good. This is some phenomenon that we can study, a given that we are dealing with. Sometimes monstrous crimes are committed under the banner of nationalism: genocides, ethnic cleansing, and so on. On the other hand, without nationalism it would have been impossible to build a welfare state. We agree to pay taxes, sometimes quite high (in some countries they can account for more than 50% of your income), also because we proceed from the principle of solidarity with those members of our civil nation who live worse than us and who need help. Imagine a hypothetical situation that the Swedes or Germans would be offered to give their taxes to the fight against coronavirus in Africa or to the development of education in India. I think they would have shared their money much less willingly. After all, the feeling of community with those who are not our compatriots, as a rule, is much lower.
Democracy without nationalism would also hardly be possible, because the people on whose behalf power is exercised in democracies is always a community, limited to a certain territory, with specific characteristics (linguistic, confessional, cultural). It is believed that the French Revolution was the first to proclaim that all power comes from the nation. At the same time, the revolutionary government began to take concrete measures to make the Gascons, Bretons, Provençals and other inhabitants of France feel part of a single French nation. For example, the old regional division is abolished, instead the country is divided into departments. The fight against regional languages begins. Indeed, at the end of the 18th century. only every fourth inhabitant of France spoke the language that we now call French.
In general, division into groups is one of the basic characteristics of the human community. These groups can be formed on different grounds, and the national principle is only one of the possible. Moreover, it arose relatively recently by historical standards. The world view of medieval man did not yet imply a clear national identity. It is believed that the century of nationalism was the 19th century. The French Revolution played an important role here. The idea of nationalism was exported outside France thanks to the Napoleonic Wars. And already in the XX century, after the collapse of European empires and the beginning of the process of decolonization, the nation state began to be perceived in the world as the only possible type of political unification.
– In the USSR, there was a community “the Soviet people”, and now a new community “Russians” is being formed or is trying to form. Are they somehow related to each other?
“Both are variants of a civic nation — the type of loyalty that builds on top of ethnic identities. However, the word “Russians” for some reason has not yet taken root as a self-name. It is easier for people to call themselves simply citizens of Russia, Russians, and so on. Although it seems to me that there is no serious alternative to the word “Russian”, and sooner or later it will be fixed in the language. The word “Russian” is definitely not suitable here – it refers us to an ethnic community. “Russian Tatars” or “Russian Chechens” sounds rather strange. Nevertheless, problems with self-identification do not mean that there is no Russian nation at all. It exists to the extent that people living on the territory of Russia feel they are part of Russian society. Throughout the country, they speak Russian (even if Russian is not the only one for some), they study the same events of national history at school, support the same national football team, in the end. All this forms, in the end, a common identity on which any nation is built.
At the same time, it would be wrong to keep silent about certain problems in this area. For example, we do not always have clear boundaries of the Russian nation in our heads. Does a resident of Moscow, St. Petersburg or Voronezh include people from the North Caucasus in the concept of “compatriots”? Legally, they are all citizens of Russia, but xenophobia towards them is often no less than towards migrants from Central Asia. The famous “rent an apartment to the Slavs” cuts off not only conventional Uzbeks, but also, for example, Dagestanis. At the same time, on the part of the national republics, there is often a misunderstanding of the very essence of a civil nation. An indicative moment: when in 2009 the draft Concept of the Federal Law “On the Foundations of State Ethnic Policy in the Russian Federation” was discussed, the World Kurultai Bashkirs and the World Congress of Tatars made a public statement that the replacement of the term “multinational people” in this document with the concept of “Russian civil nation “Is aimed at the” assimilation of the indigenous peoples “of Russia. Although, in fact, there is no contradiction here – the Tatar, Bashkir, and Buryat identities get along well with the all-Russian ones. As you could be a Kazakh and a Soviet person, you can also feel like a Tatar and a Russian. There is no direct conflict between these identities. Therefore, it does not seem correct to me to take measures aimed at downgrading the status of regional languages - I mean the law of 2018, which abolished the compulsory study of national languages in the republics. The Tatar language is not a threat to the Russian nation.
– Well, yes, but if we see a threat in the fact that a person has learned his native language, then he will see a threat in us.
– Of course, it has always been that way. For example, Basque separatism, in its extreme, militant form, arose as a result of the fact that the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco brutally suppressed all regional differences within the country. In this regard, not only the teaching of any languages except Spanish (Castilian) was banned, but even personal correspondence in Basque or Catalan. The response to this brutal suppression was the emergence of Basque terrorism.
– If nationalism is a part of objective reality, not a good and not a bad phenomenon, does this mean that we should perceive interethnic clashes in the same way?
– No, collisions are still a negative scenario, any violence is bad by definition. At the same time, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that quite often conflicts that are labeled as interethnic are not in reality such. Imagine a situation: in a nightclub, a Chechen beat an Ingush because they did not share the girl. Can this conflict be considered interethnic? No. The fight did not start because of the discord between the two peoples. But then journalists, politicians, just people who witnessed the fight, can present the conflict as ethnically motivated. Then often national mobilization begins on both sides, which can end in massive violence. Again, very often such cases are used in order to distract the population from real problems.
By the way, it seems to me that the anti-migrant wave that has been rising in Russia lately is an example of this kind. It allows you to switch people’s concerns about the coronavirus and economic problems to migrants, who allegedly commit almost all crimes in the country. At the same time, if you look at the real statistics, you can see that migrants account for, for example, only 5% of rapes in Russia. But in the eyes of the layman, the picture is completely different, and the authorities from time to time exploit this topic with pleasure.
– Can we say that there are fewer nationalists now than in the 1990s?
– I would say that we are all partly nationalists. Some to a greater extent, some to a lesser extent. Our very picture of the world is based on the fact that humanity is divided into separate nations, at school we study national history and literature, we learn to treat with awe the symbols of our state ….
– I am rather talking about xenophobia, that is, about that nationalism, which is not about love for one’s own kind, but about rejection of strangers.
– Again, we are all a bit xenophobic. By default, it is more convenient and pleasant for us to live with people who speak the same language with us, look like us, pray to the same god with us, and so on. The division “friend or foe” seems to be built into the human psyche at some basic level. While this does not mean that xenophobia does not need to be fought, it is not necessary to overcome this mutual alienation. Work in this direction, including through education, through some kind of state policy should be carried out. This is an extremely urgent task for Russia. Migrantophobia, which I spoke about earlier, is largely due to the fact that we as a society have not yet accepted the obvious idea that Russia has largely turned into an immigrant country. People (mainly from the former USSR) do not just come to us to work, they often want to stay here and bring their families here. But many Russians still have the feeling that migrants are guest workers in the literal sense of the word: “temporary workers,” translated from German. Migrants have to work here and then leave where they came from.
– There is an opinion that not only Russia has problems with migrants, but in general all countries that accept them, so the problem is not in the receiving side, but in those who go there. What do you think of it?
– First of all, I would say that migration is not only a problem, a challenge, but also a certain advantage for the host country. Especially if in this country, as in Russia, the population is aging, the workforce is shrinking. It would not hurt to remember that Europe, which is now actively accepting migrants, for centuries was a place from which people left in search of a better life or fleeing religious persecution. Everything changed after the Second World War, when, in the conditions of the post-war economic boom, European countries needed additional labor. The solution was found in the import of labor, usually from their former colonies.
But there are also certain problems associated with the adaptation of these people. At the same time, adaptation should not be reduced to cultural integration. It has long been noted that the concept of “integration of migrants” is rather tricky. What is our criterion for the success of such integration? Is it enough that the migrant pays taxes and does not violate the laws of the host country? But many people are annoyed by the fact that migrants dress differently, go to a mosque, and not to a temple or church, they just look different. For such people, all migrants who do not want or cannot dissolve in the population of the host community remain “non-integrated”. But are we entitled to demand that a Moroccan in Paris or an Uzbek in Moscow stop performing namaz? Therefore, I would speak, first of all, about socio-economic rather than cultural problems in connection with migration.
For example, the economy is not always able to digest migration flows. Migrants can put pressure on the labor market – for example, it may be beneficial for an employer to hire a disenfranchised migrant in order to pay him less than a local resident, and thereby minimize his costs. But in this case, as they say, it is not the fault of the migrants, but their misfortune. And we must think, first of all, about how to improve labor legislation, to fight various gray payment schemes that make possible the over-exploitation of migrants.
In general, there are quite a few differences between Russia and Western countries in this aspect. A detailed listing of them would probably require a separate discussion, but since our main topic today is nationalism, then we can say that in the West people with a migratory past are now considered part of the national community. For example, in many European countries, steps are being taken to reform school education in order to make history and literature courses more pluralistic – they introduce chapters on Islam, on the history of slavery and colonialism. Here, I repeat, migrants are usually perceived as strangers.
– Returning to the process of the formation of the Russian nation, do I understand correctly that it can end both with the fact that all the peoples of Russia will become brothers, and with the fact that some of them will remain strangers?
– Probably, we can no longer become completely strangers to each other – after all, we have lived side by side with many peoples for more than one century. The Russian language and culture in many ways act as the “glue” that connects our gigantic Eurasian expanses. At the same time, as we found out, there is still something to work on – it cannot be said that a conventional Dagestani feels at home in Moscow, given the attitude of many people towards himself … In general, it is a pity that in recent years the idea of a Russian nation somehow disappeared from official discourse. The same Putin speaks mostly about the Russian people. Perhaps he himself does not like the word “Russians”, because under Boris Yeltsin it was used much more often.
– How can you achieve interethnic harmony in Russia?
– Any attempt to unify Russia leads to a dead end. Russia is a country of such cultural complexity that it can be built only through the management of these cultural differences, through their harmonization. It is obvious, for example, that we cannot liquidate the national republics, as is sometimes suggested – that would be suicide even in the current political reality. It will not be possible to turn Tatarstan into a conditional Kazan region, and this should not be done. It must be understood that Russian unity is not threatened by decentralization, but by an attempt at forced unification. In the political, economic, language spheres. And in the sphere of historical memory, by the way, too – you need to be aware that figures like Ataman Yermak, General Ermolov or Ivan the Terrible can be perceived differently in the national republics than in the “Russian” regions.
The same goes for migration. It should be understood that in the coming years Russia will need migrants. Especially against the backdrop of negative demographics, which are exacerbated by the coronavirus. Any sane demographer will tell you that without an influx of foreign labor, the Russian economy will not be able to develop. Therefore, instead of pedaling the topic of the crimes of migrants, it is necessary to conduct real educational work with the population, including explaining that migration is a natural process.
– It turns out that in order to achieve interethnic accord in Russia, we need to fight with human nature, because by default we strive for separation?
– Here one can argue about to what extent xenophobia is a basic feature of the human psyche, and to what extent it is a consequence of some acquired delusions and stereotypes. But it is indisputable that anti-immigration sentiments do not constitute some feature of Russian society. Xenophobia is everywhere. In recent years, we have seen a powerful growth of right-wing populist forces in many countries. These forces are rising largely on the anti-immigration agenda. Probably, the fundamental difference between Russia lies in the fact that we hardly hear the voices of those who consider it necessary to pursue a different policy in relation to migrants. There are, of course, experts, scientists, but it is difficult to attribute them to the leaders of public opinion. They do not set the agenda. For example, in Russia there are no political forces that would clearly declare that migrants are not only a challenge, but also new opportunities for the country.
– So I don’t understand why, despite the Soviet past, in which everything was basically normal until the mid-1980s, now in Russia there is not a single parliamentary party that would declare that migrants are not evil, not a hotbed of crime, and exactly the same people as everyone else.
– Yes, this is an interesting point. From the experience of other countries, we can say that the left and left-liberal forces usually come out with such an agenda. In the Russian party system, despite the seeming variety of players, there is still no influential left-wing party. The eclectic nature of the ideology of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation does not allow defining it as such. The same can be said about Fair Russia – For the Truth. Rather, these are parties in which leftist rhetoric is mixed with “national-patriotic”, and slogans about building socialism coexist with an appeal to “Russian civilization” and the need for Russia to expand its “geopolitical space”. In such a situation, there is simply no room left for a discourse on human rights, human solidarity and real internationalism.
