By Vestnik Kavkaza
The Ministry of Regional Development of the Russian Federation presented the federal program "Strengthening the unity of the Russian nation and the ethnic and cultural development of the peoples of Russia." According to Alexei Vlasov, editor-in-chief of Vestnik Kavkaza, “only 44% of the population are willing to call themselves and identify themselves as "Russian citizens". The question arises as to how likely the increase will be in the number of citizens and residents of the country who form their own identity, considering themselves Russian citizens and people of Russian origin. Judging by the fact that the Ministry of Regional Development is ready to allocate sufficient funds for significant consolidation and strengthening of this position, based on the public interest, it can be assumed that in the near future, the number of people positioning themselves as Russians will significantly increase. Once the information on this program was made public, a number of articles appeared online and in print media which again revived the debate about whether it is good that we are building a pyramid of some identities, and at the top of the pyramid, judging by the public interest, there must be the identity of "Russians." Everyone else, apparently, is assumed to be below. Is this an indication that for us it is really a very important question - do we belong primarily to an ethnic group, or do we put civic identity to the fore?”
Oksana Solopova, Deputy Dean of the History Department of Lomonosov Moscow State University, thinks that “the dualism “Russians/Russian citizens” does not pose a conflict component. The fact is that we see today in the public discourse of Russian society attempts to artificially turn this dualism into a conflict. There is no need to urgently look for a unifying national idea. There is no need to rapidly create a Russian nation. There is no need to save the Russian people, who allegedly fall under the wheels and grindstones of creating the civic nation. We should learn to look at ourselves not only critically, but to see the positive things that have happened to us.
The process of creating a civic nation is an objective, progressive, historical process. In terms of the processes that took place in the 1990s in the former Soviet Union, Russia was ideologically more disadvantaged than those states that gained their independence, and until recently they had been republics. Because they got a clear national idea. The establishment of the nation-state, the ability to create a nation-state became a rallying point, and a civic nation began to form, which, in most cases, had a direct binding to the ethnicity of the state. Russia did not need to create a state - it already existed. On the contrary, Russia felt the territorial damages and geopolitical damage.
For it all comes down to a very clear idea uniting our society: our differences are our unity. Retaining ethnic diversity, we can come together to the civil level and keep our ethno-cultural specificity, on the one hand, and revive the state on the other. There was a kind of legislative framework, which really allowed to bring this to life. This year is the 17th anniversary of the adoption of the law on national-cultural autonomy: every people of Russia has the opportunity to form its cultural and social association. The law took the existence of ethnic groups away from the plane of conflict, the law made it possible for real leaders to realize their ambitions, to revive this specificity - and to continue to feel a part of Russian society, a society that respects these people and gives them real tools to save themselves."
Speaking about the media coverage of the problems associated with ethnic relations in Russia, Margaret Liange, chairman of the Guild of Ethnic Journalism, reminded that “in Soviet times we thought that the national question was settled. But it was resolved at another level entirely. The whole administrative machinery of the whole country, the ideological apparatus worked to resolve this issue. There was little need to solve it in the information space. We went up to the period of change in the economic space with complete unwillingness. We started to learn 20 years ago. This is a very short period.”
“There are news agencies that conduct journalism schools, where, among other things, they provide training on "inter-ethnic tolerance in the media," Alexei Vlasov defended the mass media. “These are RIA Novosti or the agency "Vestnik Kavkaza". It is clear what the government can do in this directions. . And what about civil society? The civil society initiatives can involve universities, academia, professional associations, including journalists.
“Uniting!” Oksana Solopova answered. “Everything should be based on the interaction with national groups. Round-table discussions should be held, regular columns in newspapers, which will show that this interaction exists.
“We cannot agree. We would rather be offended,” Margarita Liange complained. “ "We sent you a great press release, and the journalists threw it in the rubbish bin and did not publish it." I say, "Show me this great press release." And it is quite an unprofessional thing. You begin to explain that journalists work in time pressure situations, and they do not have to pick out those grains of information somewhere in this five-page press release, that this should be done in a completely different format. We need to teach each other to communicate. These things, I think, are necessary. On the other hand, we need to teach society to talk. We have no one to do this, unfortunately. We cannot talk to each other. We may be offended, we can write a letter, at once, of course, to Putin, we have no one else in the country to write letters. These things look like they are being done by some teenagers. We cannot look calmly at what is happening to us. Growing up is necessary for our society.”
