By Vestnik Kavkaza
In late November, Moscow will round up the 6th All-Russian Contest of Mass Media (SMIrotvorets-2014) on the best coverage of interethnic and inter-religious relations. Russian regions are currently selecting the winners of district contests that will enter the final. An awards ceremony for the best North Caucasus journalists covering interethnic relations was held in Grozny.
Maksim Shevchenko, a member of the Russian Presidential Council for Interethnic Relations, believes that Russia has unique experience in harmonizing interethnic relations. "The development of capitalism that entered our country in the 1990s gave Russia personal choice and a personal situation. Russia formed centers for attracting financial capital, which are also associated with investment opportunities, thus, with attraction of human resources. Moscow is an undeniable leader in that aspect, and Moscow attracts huge human streams from not only all over the Russian Federation, but from the post-Soviet space as well, like a magnet, assures Shevchenko.
Shevchenko reminds that Moscow has never had a ghetto: "There were districts formed in the 19th century and populated by natives of Tatarstan or the Caucasus, from Trans-Caucasus states, often from Central Asia. But they were mostly wealthy people. Bolshaya Tatarskaya Street, the Tatarsky District were inhabited by very rich Tatar merchants who controlled the situation and were leaders of their community. Of course, historians describe how natives of different peoples were working in Moscow. Tatars, for example, were traditionally bath attendants or street sweepers. The Azerbaijanis, they were called Persians before the revolution, were trading vegetables. Similar processes are happening today. Moscow is committed to its old traditions because they are natural."
Nonetheless, the expert sees major changes in the situation. "Russia cannot be switched into the schemes that have been working effectively in one place in the European Union, in Western Europe, less effectively in another. So, Russia is not an analogy for any country of the European Union. It is more like an analogy of the European Union itself. Since the return of Crimea to the RF, the territory of the RF has 194 peoples, 194 ethnicities with different languages," said Shevchenko.
In his opinion, one of Russia's problems is the lack of subjectivity: "The Russian state is de facto having a dialogue with two types of ethnic subjects. The first ones are Chechnya, Ingushetia, Tatarstan, Bashkartostan, on behalf of which heads of some regions associated with a certain ethnicity are usually chairing, they are the best example. Of course, the head of the Chechen Republic involuntarily, though it is not stipulated in any laws, serves as the person responsible for the activities of every Chechen, although de facto, in terms of civil law, this is absurd. Because a man committing a crime in Moscow or doing something good in Moscow may be associated with the authorities of Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan or Kabardino-Balkaria just by willing to be associated with that. But the government faces a complicated choice when a problem arises, who to go to? Who to solve the problem with?"
"The second types of subjects are national cultural autonomies that have been effectively and successfully working in Russia, mainly in the sector of cultural, ethnic cultural development. The more topical the problem, the more successful the national cultural autonomy works. For example, gypsies. Nadezhda Georgiyevna Demet is the head of the national cultural autonomy of gypsies, of those who maintain a constant subjective dialogue on key crisis issues with the government, government functionaries. There are national cultural autonomies whose ethnicities experience no conflict situations in the country. We create institutions and instruments of dialogue in the country, in Moscow, as the most powerful, most unusual region on the territory of the RF," says Shevchenko.
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin added "strengthening of unity of the Russian nation, harmonization of interethnic relations, assistance in religious dialogue and realization of activities for social and cultural adaption and integration of migrants" to the list of state support for national cultural autonomies.
