WHAT IS RUSSIA? PERSPECTIVES FOR NA

WHAT IS RUSSIA? PERSPECTIVES FOR NATION-BUILDING

The Context of Debate

After the demise of the Soviet Union under a slogan of national self-determination, Russia (as well as other successor states) will remain a multiethnic country with complex historical and cultural legacies and with a challenging and uncertain agenda for a future. Besides economic and political transformations, the most serious challenge is the problem of governing a multiethnic society in a framework of one state. Even established democracies do not have often good records on this home task, not speaking of less modernized and not so well-being countries. Here we formulate a question: is Russia a legitimate state after being accept into the United Nations? And could it be considered a nation-state as the rest of the UN members? The question is not so simple and the answer is not obvious because the very possibility of the nation-building project for Russia is considered as "mission impossible" by a number of experts and policy-makers from many strands. Zbigniew Brzezinski putting it in a way: "Is Russia primarily a nation-state or is it a multi-national empire?" called for a firm creation of "a felicitous environment for Russia to define itself purely as Russia" and expressed a sentiment: "in not being an empire, Russia stands a chance of becoming, like France and Britain or earlier post-Ottoman Turkey, a normal state"1

Another outside observer, "in defence of liberal nationalism" listed the Russian federation among states, like India, Pakistan, South Africa, Iraq which could be ripped apart by the wave of disintegrative nationalism the next few decades2. The same kind of question "What is Russia?" is asked by many social actors in the country itself. The ethnic Russian nationalists and "empire-savers" resist to recognise new geopolitical reality and want to restore the Soviet Union or the Russian Empire which "were built by the brain, labor and blood of generations of Russian people"3. Those among non-Russian nationalists following the separatist scenario elaborate an ideology and impose political slogans like "Tatarstan is not Russia" or "Moscow should define what is Russia first and then to start negotiating with those who has already defined its sovereign statehood4.

Among cited doubts of Russia's legitimacy are distinctive ethnic ingredients of its population and demands on a number of non-Russian nationalities to establish their own states. But even those who stand for Russia after its December 1991 configuration express a great variety of confusing and vague ideas on the future of the state. It equally concerns academic discourse and political domain as well. Being for the recent years as one the contributors to this academic and political search for a formula for a new Russia, the author came to the conclusion that the major obstacle for Russia to become a "normal" state is not an ethnic mosaic per se but a real "fire in a brain" seeded by elitist social engineers into mentality and language concerning ethnicity and nationality issues. This inflamed and imagined picture quite often has nothing to do with reality. To read and to deconstruct it in a peaceful and cooperative manner is probably not an easier task then to build a market economy or a democratic system of governance.

Legacies of the Past


States are made first of all by territories and by citizenship as well as by legal-constitutional basis. But when one have a situation of newly emerged or radically transforming states it is no less important a role of what Ian Lustick called a "hegemonic idea of a state", especially concerning its territorial and civic entities5. Only shared values, symbols and mutually accepted legal order can provide bottom up (grass-root) legitimization and make a state viable. Top-level agreements, upper power declarations and international recognition are far not enough to construct a co-citizenship, that is a nation-state, even if it is listed among members of the United Nations. All post-Soviet states are now on a way to "nation-building" with different degree of success and failures. Russia is not in a front-line of this historical race. There are few reasons for this besides a lack of political wisdom and will.

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 2:

WHAT IS RUSSIA? PERSPECTIVES FOR NATION-BUILDING The Context of Debate After the demise of the Soviet Union under a slogan of National self-determination, Russia (as well as Other successor States) Will remain a multiethnic Country with Complex historical and Cultural legacies and with a challenging and. uncertain agenda for a future. Besides economic and political transformations, the most serious challenge is the problem of governing a multiethnic society in a framework of one state. Even established democracies do not have often good records on this home task, not speaking of less modernized and not so well-being countries. Here we formulate a question: is Russia a legitimate state after being accept into the United Nations? And could it be considered a nation-state as the rest of the UN members? The question is not so simple and the answer is not obvious because the very possibility of the nation-building project for Russia is considered as "mission impossible" by a number of experts and policy-makers from many strands. Zbigniew Brzezinski putting it in a way: "Is Russia primarily a nation-state or is it a multi-national empire?". called for a firm creation of "a felicitous environment for Russia to define itself purely as Russia" and expressed a sentiment: "in not being an empire, Russia stands a chance of becoming, like France and Britain or earlier post-Ottoman Turkey, a. Normal State "1 Another Outside Observer, "in defense of liberal nationalism" listed the Russian Federation among States, like India, Pakistan, South Africa, Iraq which could be ripped Apart by the Wave of the next few Decades2 disintegrative nationalism. The same kind of question "What is Russia?". is asked by many social actors in the country itself. The ethnic Russian nationalists and "empire-savers" resist to recognise new geopolitical reality and want to restore the Soviet Union or the Russian Empire which "were built by the brain, labor and blood of generations of Russian people" 3. Those among non-Russian nationalists following the Separatist scenario Elaborate an Ideology and Impose Political slogans like "Tatarstan is not Russia" or "Moscow should define what is Russia First and then to Start negotiating with those Who has already defined its Sovereign Statehood4. Among cited. doubts of Russia's legitimacy are distinctive ethnic ingredients of its population and demands on a number of non-Russian nationalities to establish their own states. But even those who stand for Russia after its December 1991 configuration express a great variety of confusing and vague ideas on the. future of the state. It equally concerns academic discourse and political domain as well. Being for the recent years as one the contributors to this academic and political search for a formula for a new Russia, the author came to the conclusion that the major obstacle for. Russia to become a "normal" state is not an ethnic mosaic per se but a real "fire in a brain" seeded by elitist social engineers into mentality and language concerning ethnicity and nationality issues. This inflamed and imagined picture quite often has nothing to do with reality. To read and to deconstruct it in a peaceful and Cooperative Manner is probably not an easier Task then to Build a Market Economy or a Democratic System of Governance. Legacies of the Past States are Made First of all by Territories and by Citizenship as well as by. legal-constitutional basis. But when one have a situation of newly emerged or radically transforming states it is no less important a role of what Ian Lustick called a "hegemonic idea of a state", especially concerning its territorial and civic entities5. Only shared values, symbols and mutually accepted legal order can provide bottom up (grass-root) legitimization and make a state viable. Top-level agreements, upper power declarations and international recognition are far not enough to construct a co-citizenship, that is a nation-state, even if it is listed among members of the United Nations. All post-Soviet states are now on a way to "nation-building" with different degree of success and failures. Russia is not in a front-line of this historical race. There are few reasons for this besides a lack of political wisdom and will.