The national question in the USSR l. I. Sherstova. The collapse of the USSR and the formation of the CIS. development of national relations in the former Soviet republics and within Russia
The policy of perestroika and glasnost, announced by the country's leadership led by M. S. Gorbachev, led from the mid-80s. to a sharp aggravation of interethnic relations and a genuine explosion of nationalism in the USSR. These processes were based on deep causes that went back to the distant past. Even under the conditions of Brezhnev's pomp and show, crisis phenomena in the sphere of interethnic relations in the 60-70s. gradually gained strength. The authorities did not study interethnic and national problems in the country, but fenced themselves off from reality with ideological guidelines about a “close-knit family of fraternal peoples” and a new historical community created in the USSR - the “Soviet people” - yet another myth of “developed socialism”.
Since the mid-80s. as part of the democratization process interethnic problems in the USSR, in fact, came to the fore. One of the first ominous signs of disintegration processes and manifestations of national separatism was the unrest in Central Asia caused by the purges of the party leadership of the Brezhnev draft, accused of bribery and corruption. When V. G. Kolbin was sent to replace D. A. Kunaev in Kazakhstan as the leader of the republic, who launched a campaign to strengthen “socialist legality” and combat manifestations of nationalism in the republic, real riots broke out in a number of cities. They took place under national-Islamist slogans, and their main participants were representatives of young people. In December 1986, major unrest took place in Alma-Ata for three days, which was only “pacified” by sending in troops. Subsequently (1987-1988), major clashes on ethnic grounds, accompanied by numerous casualties, broke out in Fergana (against the Meskhetian Turks) and in the Osh region (against immigrants from the Caucasus who settled here).
At first, national movements in the Soviet republics operated within the framework of the popular fronts that emerged during this period. Among them, the popular fronts of the Baltic republics were the most active and organized (already on August 23, 1987, in connection with the 48th anniversary of the “Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact” a protest rally took place). After the start of political reform in the USSR, when, thanks to changes in electoral system Alternative elections of deputies to the revived congresses of people's deputies of the USSR were held; the popular fronts of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, as well as Armenia and Georgia demonstrated that their candidates enjoyed significantly more trust and popularity among voters than representatives of the party-state bureaucracy. Thus, alternative elections in higher authorities The authorities of the USSR (March 1989) served as an important impetus for the start of a “quiet” mass revolution against the omnipotence of the party-state apparatus. Discontent grew throughout the country, and spontaneous unauthorized rallies took place with increasingly radical political demands.
Already on next year During the elections of people's deputies to republican and local authorities, national radical forces opposed to the CPSU and the Union Center received a stable majority in the Supreme Councils of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Armenia, Georgia and Moldova. They now openly declared the anti-Soviet and anti-socialist nature of their program settings. In the conditions of an increasingly growing socio-economic crisis in the USSR, national radicals advocated the implementation of full state sovereignty and the implementation of fundamental reforms in the economy outside the framework of the all-Union state.
Along with the national separatism of the union republics, the national movement of peoples who had the status of autonomies within the USSR was gaining strength. Due to the fact that small nations that had the status of autonomous republics, or ethnic minorities that were part of the union republics, in the context of the adoption of a course towards acquiring state sovereignty by republican titular nations experienced pressure from a kind of “little power”; their national movement was, as it were, defensive in nature. They considered the union leadership as the only protection against the expansion of nationalism of republican ethnic nations. The interethnic conflicts that sharply escalated during perestroika had deep historical roots. One of the first turning points In the spring of 1988, the perestroika process began with the Karabakh crisis. It was caused by the decision of the newly elected leadership of the autonomous Nagorno-Karabakh region to secede from Azerbaijan and transfer the Karabakh Armenians to the jurisdiction of Armenia. The growing interethnic conflict soon resulted in a long-term armed confrontation between Armenia and Azerbaijan. At the same time, a wave of ethnic violence spread to other regions Soviet Union: a number of republics of Central Asia, Kazakhstan. There was another explosion of Abkhaz-Georgian contradictions, and then followed the bloody events in Tbilisi in April 1989. In addition, the struggle for the return to the historical lands of the Crimean Tatars, Meskhetian Turks, Kurds and Volga Germans, repressed in Stalin’s times, intensified. Finally, in connection with the granting of the status of the state language in Moldova to the Romanian (Moldovan) language and the transition to the Latin script, the Transnistrian conflict broke out. Its peculiar difference was that the population of Transnistria, two-thirds consisting of Russians and Ukrainians, acted as a small people.
At the turn of the 80-90s. the former union republics not only ceased to function as a single national economic complex, but often blocked mutual supplies, transport links, etc., not only for economic, but also for political reasons.
The tragic events in Vilnius and Riga in January 1991 prompted M. S. Gorbachev and his associates from among the reformers in the union leadership to organize an all-Union referendum on the preservation of the USSR (the referendum took place on March 17, 1991 in 9 out of 16 republics). Based on the positive results of the popular vote, a meeting was held with the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Azerbaijan, which ended with the signing of the “Statement 9 + I”, which declared the principles of the new Union Treaty. However, the process of forming a renewal of the Union of Sovereign States was interrupted by the August putsch.
The collapse of the USSR entered a decisive stage in August 1991. The Baltic republics announced their withdrawal from it. On December 1, a referendum was held in Ukraine, in which the population of the republic spoke out for their independence. On December 8, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus B. Yeltsin, L. Kravchuk, S. Shushkevich signed the Belovezhskaya Agreement on the denunciation of the Union Treaty of 1922 and announced the creation of the CIS. On December 21, in Almaty, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan joined the CIS. This confirmed the fact of the collapse of the Soviet Union as a single state. December 25, 1991 M.S. Gorbachev resigned from the post of President of the USSR due to the disappearance of this state.
In theory and practical terms, of great interest is the specific historical experience of implementing a program on the national issue, the corresponding national policy, the result of which was the establishment of new interethnic relations in the USSR.
IN Russian Empire The national question was one of the most pressing issues in social and political life. Its significance, complexity and severity were determined by the fact that non-Russian nationalities made up the majority of the population (57%), the ethnic structure of the population was unusually variegated (over 200 nations, nationalities, ethnic groups), the historical relationships between peoples in many regions were very complex and confusing : national outskirts were often at a pre-capitalist level of development and were extremely backward; interethnic contradictions and conflicts were often intertwined with religious ones. The official policy of the autocracy on the national question with a well-known bias towards Great Russian sovereignty and the official ideology of “autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality” stimulated, especially from the end of the 19th century, discontent among the peoples of local ethnic groups (Poles, Finns, Jews, etc.).
The solution to these the most pressing issues, including the problems of forming new relationships between peoples, required a deep development of theoretical provisions and program tasks in all areas related to plans for socialist construction. The first legislative act of the Soviet government on the national question was the “Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia”. Subsequently, many other official documents on this issue were adopted.
One of the significant steps in resolving the national question after the victory of the October Revolution was the creation by many peoples of their own national statehood.
In the process of self-determination, various shapes national statehood: union republic, autonomous republic, autonomous region, national district. There were also different shapes administrative-territorial structure for compactly living ethnic minorities (rural, district, volost national councils). The bodies of national republics and regions were built primarily from local people who knew the language, way of life, morals and customs of the respective peoples. Special laws were issued to ensure the use of the native language in all government bodies and in all institutions serving the local foreign population and national minorities.
However, the division of a unified multinational Russia into national-territorial entities was initially an unproductive, contradictory step. The division of the territory was carried out arbitrarily; it immediately contained contradictions that made themselves felt decades later. The republic-states, which received their names from the names of indigenous nations, in reality, in terms of the actual composition of the population, were multi-ethnic entities. In addition, different ethnosocial communities received varying degrees sovereignty: some – the status of union republics, others – autonomous. Many peoples found themselves in multi-level subordination - autonomous republics were part of the union republics, autonomous regions were part of the territories, national districts were part of the edge or region.
In accordance with the principles of the proclaimed national policy The Soviet government recognized the independence and right to independent state existence of Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, which were previously part of the Russian Empire. Ukrainian, Belarusian, Azerbaijani and other Soviet republics were formed. Turkestan, Bashkir, Tatar, Chuvash, Mari, Udmurt, Karelian and other autonomous republics and regions were proclaimed.
The formation of the USSR in December 1922 was a triumph of Lenin's national policy. Further development The multinational state followed the path of improving the national-state structure and national-state relations. If by the beginning of 1923 there were 33 national-state and national-territorial entities in the country, then by 1937 their number increased to 51. Among them were 11 union republics, 22 autonomous republics, 9 autonomous regions and 9 autonomous (national) districts.
At the center of the national policy of the Soviet state was practical activity to overcome the enormous backwardness of many peoples of the country. To solve this most difficult task, accelerated rates of growth of their economy and culture were ensured. If in the central industrial regions during the years of the first five-year plan (1928-1932) the volume of industrial production increased by 2 times, then in the national republics and regions - by more than 3.5 times, and in the republics of Central Asia - by almost 5 times. During the years of the first two five-year plans (1928-1937), the gross output of large industry in the USSR as a whole increased by 9 times, and in Kyrgyzstan - by 94 times, in Tajikistan - by 157 times. No less impressive were the achievements of the cultural revolution in the national republics. So, if in the early 1920s. National regions and republics in terms of literacy levels lagged tens of times behind the also low-literate regions of the center of the country, but by 1939 this level came close to the Union average.
Direct assistance to the national republics played an important role in eliminating the actual inequality of peoples. Thus, for decades, the budgets of a number of Union republics were covered in their expenditures mainly through all-Union subsidies. Numerous groups of specialists, scientists, engineers, higher education workers and other qualified personnel were sent to the national republics. In addition, representatives of indigenous peoples were enrolled in universities in the central cities of the country on preferential terms in the republics. The republics themselves created a network of their own universities, scientific centers. The process of indigenization of government bodies and their apparatus in the national republics was important. For 56 previously unliterate peoples, writing was created, and it became possible to conduct schooling in their native language.
As a result of the enormous creative activity and outstanding role of the Russian people, by the 1970s. levels of economic and cultural development peoples, not only legal but also actual equality of peoples has been achieved. The friendship of peoples and international unity have been established, and interethnic enmity and discord have become a thing of the past. The national question in the form in which we inherited it from the Russian Empire was successfully resolved. The achievements of national policy and a new stage in the development of national relations in the USSR were recorded in the Constitution of the USSR of 1977.
However, after this, attention to the problems and tasks in the field of national relations in the center and locally was weakened. It was obvious that, despite the successes achieved, the national issue is not removed from the agenda and requires constant attention. close attention. New problems and circumstances arose in the sphere of national relations, characteristic of the stage of highly developed nations and mature national self-awareness. These new aspects were not taken into account in practical national policy. Essentially, national relations were left to chance.
In such a situation, the shadow aspects of interethnic relations began to appear more and more clearly. Errors and distortions in personnel policy have become more frequent, serious omissions have been made in economic and social policy and other ill-considered actions have been made that undermine the stability of interethnic relations. Nationalist and separatist forces intensified in the republics (especially in the 1980s), and tendencies in opposition to the center, as well as anti-Russian and anti-Russian sentiments among local political elites, intensified. There was no opposition to these and other negative phenomena from the allied bodies. All this, one way or another, undermined the established friendship of peoples, undermined interethnic relations and, ultimately, led to the collapse of the USSR. At the same time, the collapse of the USSR does not at all mean that positive results were not achieved in national relations, that there was no friendship between peoples, or that the collapse occurred due to the unviability of the union multinational state. It is known that the USSR ceased to exist as a single state due to the subjective act of several high-ranking statesmen.
Test questions and assignments
1. What is the essence of the national question in the broad sense of this concept?
2. On what conditions and factors does the specific content of the national question depend?
3. Remember the history of the formation of Russia as a multinational state. Why did most peoples voluntarily join the Russian state?
4. What was the national policy in the Russian Empire?
5. Was Russia classical? colonial empire? Was there any reason to call it a “prison of nations”?
6. What are the known ways and forms of solving the national question?
7. What was the state of interethnic relations in Russia in 1917?
8. What were the principles and methods of solving the national question proclaimed by the Soviet government?
9. How was the USSR formed? Why did it break up?
10. Friendship of peoples in the USSR - was it a reality or a myth?
11. What interethnic problems in the modern world do you know?
Literature
1. Abdulatipov R.G. National question and government system. - M., 2001.
2. Public service Russian Federation and interethnic relations. - M., 1995.
3. National policy of Russia: history and modernity. - M.,
4. National problems of Canada. - M., 1972.
5. The national question in the State Duma of Russia. - M., 1999.
6. The national question abroad. - M., 1989.
7. Fundamentals of national and federal relations. - M., 2001.
8. Ways to resolve the national issue in modern Russia. - M.,
9. Russia in the 20th century: problems of national relations. - M., 1999.
10. Tavadov G.T. Ethnology. Dictionary-reference book. - M., 1998.
11. Tishkov V.A. Essays on the theory and politics of ethnicity in Russia. - M., 1997.1897 Died Jindrich Wankel- Czech doctor, archaeologist and speleologist. The excavations he carried out at the sites prehistoric man in the Moravian Karst region gave important results on the history of the Czech Republic during the period of human settlement.
Work theme:
Interethnic relations in the USSR at the turn of the 80-90s.
Collapse of the USSR
Introduction
The relevance of studying interethnic relations in the USSR at the turn of the 80-90s is determined by the need for close attention to the sphere of national relations and national security of the state, since the reality of recent years is due to the fact that processes are developing on the territory of the former USSR, which are characterized by interethnic and interethnic conflicts, the strengthening tensions along the "center-periphery" line, expressed in the "parade of sovereignties", the trend of autonomy up to separatism, the war in Chechnya, the growth of terrorism and extremism. The words “refugee”, “migrant”, “forced migrant”, “illegal armed groups”, “interethnic conflicts”, etc., which have become part of the mentality of a Russian citizen, have become part of the lexical use. As a result of the collapse of the USSR, the politicization of Islam, the growth of Muslim fundamentalism, and the implementation of ideas are increasing. Pan-Islamism.Not a single country in the world, not a single region, is immune from the improvised explosion of “ethnic bombs” on alert. As events in the Balkans, Afghanistan, the Middle East, and the Caucasus show, modern civilization does not have effective military means of ending conflicts that have already arisen on ethnic grounds.
All this requires qualitatively new approaches to the analysis and study of existing interethnic relations, identifying their features, because the modern Russian Federation, like the USSR, is a multinational federal state built on contractual relations. Interethnic relations constitute a very important part of the life of society. Their dynamic and balanced development is the key to the existence of the Russian Federation as a single state. And such development is impossible without deep knowledge and correct consideration of the lessons of ancient and recent history.
The degree of scientific development of the problem. There are a lot of works on the history of “perestroika”, which examine the reasons for the aggravation of interethnic relations and the collapse of the USSR. Economists and lawyers, political scientists and sociologists, philosophers and ethnographers, historians and representatives of other specialties provide their understanding of the reasons for the collapse.
The problem of studying the nature and specificity of interethnic and interethnic relations was addressed in different time(O.I. Arshiba, R.G. Abdulatipov, A.G. Agaev, V.A. Tishkov, V.G. Kazantsev, E.A. Pain, A.I. Shepilov, V.L. Suvorov, A. A. Kotenev, N. V. Bozhko, N. A. Fedorova, I. P. Chernobrovkin, V. G. Babanov, E. V. Matyunin, V. M. Semenov);
The influence of nationalism on the nature of political processes was studied by V.A. Tishkov, E.A. Pozdnyakov, G.G. Vodolazov, Yu.A. Krasin, A.I. Miller, N.M. Mukharyamov, V.V. Koroteeva.
The influence of ethnic communities and nations on the political process is also considered in the works of many Western authors (P.L. Van den Berg, A. Cohen, E. Lind, F. Tudgeman, O. Bauer, M. Burgess, F. Barth, B. Anderson, E. Smith, K. Enlos, M. Weber, N. Glaser, E. Durkheim, D. Bell, G. Cullen, H. Ortega - and - Gasset, T. Parsons, J. Habermas, P. Sorokin, S. Huntington, J. Fauvet).
In the mid-1990s. When the rethinking of the consequences of the collapse of the single political space of the USSR began, the need arose for a scientific analysis of new trends in the process of Russia’s interaction with new neighboring states. 1 The interest of researchers in this issue is confirmed by the appearance of a set of serious works covering the strategy of power in the post-Soviet space. 2
Thus, in the scientific literature there are a variety of, sometimes opposing, points of view on issues of interethnic relations, and assessments of the role of interethnics in the fate of the USSR. This indicates that the problem needs further serious study.
The purpose of this work was to analyze interethnic relations in the USSR at the turn of the 80-90s.
To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:
- analyze national policy in the USSR during the specified period of time;
identify possible reasons and the origins of the manifestation of interethnic conflicts on the territory of the Soviet Union;
consider common reasons collapse of the USSR;
trace the chronology of events that led to the collapse of the USSR;
identify the role of interethnic conflicts in the collapse of the USSR.
1. Interethnic relations in the USSR
1.1. Interethnic relations and national politics in the USSR
Interethnic (international) relations are relations between ethnic groups (peoples), covering all spheres of public life.The following levels of interethnic relations can be distinguished:
1) interaction of peoples in different spheres public life;
2) interpersonal relationships of people of different ethnic backgrounds 3.
For Russia, as a multinational state, ensuring interethnic peace and harmony, resolving interethnic and ethnopolitical conflicts is regarded by experts as the most important component of the country’s national security sphere.
In the recent past, during the Soviet period, national policy in a number of parameters was based on different values and principles than it is now. In particular, it was subordinated to the task of building a socialist state, the world of socialism. In it, first of all, there was the initiative and determining role of the CPSU, while the structures of the executive and legislative branches had to more constitute the directives of the Soviet party and political leadership.
The development processes of the modern national policy of the Russian state have their own origins and basis, and are based on previous experience, both positive and negative.
National Primary Policy Soviet period in the country was determined by the leadership of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and was aimed at attracting to its side the peoples of the Russian outskirts with a policy of broad prospects for independence and self-determination. On initial stage bodies of people's representation represented by Councils at various levels played a very active role in resolving national issues. However, over time and with consolidation Soviet power At the local level, the party leadership began to curtail their independence in decision-making. The attitude of the Bolsheviks towards the peoples of Russia was determined, first of all, by revolutionary expediency, for the sake of which they often made concessions that were considered “one step back.”
In line with this policy and in pursuance of its declarations, the Soviet leadership decided to create the Federation of Free Republics represented by the Union of the USSR, which soon became not a federation, but a strictly centralized state. In practical terms, the leadership of the USSR began to build a very cumbersome multi-level territorial-administrative system (union, autonomous republic, autonomous region, autonomous district, national districts, national village councils). When declaring high goals, for example, self-determination, the main documents, including the Constitution of the USSR, did not provide for procedures for implementing these principles in practice.
As practice has shown, the Soviet leadership inherited from Tsarist Russia a rather disdainful attitude towards the legislative power in the field of national politics. The councils were essentially the executors of the decisions of the party leadership, which determined this policy. But, compared to the Duma, the Soviets found themselves in an even more vulnerable position: they could not even really discuss the most pressing national problems, but only follow the party line 4.
At the same time, the Soviet government implemented a number of fundamentally important decisions for the development of the national outskirts - economic development, increasing literacy and educational level, publishing books, newspapers and magazines in numerous languages of the peoples of the USSR. But, at the same time, without creating a research base in the field of national politics, the government turned a blind eye to the presence of hidden contradictions and often itself planted time bombs in the form of arbitrarily drawn boundaries between national entities, based on the principle of political expediency. Thus, the foundation of a multinational state was laid, which had its own strengths and vulnerabilities.
Due to the closedness to research and discussion of national problems in scientific circles during the Soviet period, judgments on the most pressing problems of national politics and interethnic relations were, first of all, made by the country's top party leadership.
The Constitution of the USSR, adopted in 1977, characterized the “developed socialist society” built in the USSR as a society “in which, on the basis of the rapprochement of all social strata, the legal and actual equality of all nations and nationalities, a new historical community of people arose - the Soviet people.” Thus, the “new community” was presented in the preamble of the new Constitution as one of the main distinguishing features of “developed socialism”. The Soviet people were proclaimed the main subject of power and lawmaking in the country. “All power in the USSR belongs to the people. The people exercise state power through the Councils of People's Deputies... all other state bodies are controlled and accountable to the Councils,” read Article 2 of the new Constitution. Other articles declared the equality of citizens regardless of race and nationality (Article 34), asserted that “the country’s economy constitutes a single national economic complex” (Article 16), and that the country has a “unified system of public education” (Article 25). At the same time, the fundamental law of the country stated that “each union republic retains the right to freely secede from the USSR” (Article 71), each union and autonomous republic has its own Constitution, taking into account their “peculiarities” (Articles 75, 81), the territory of the republics “cannot be changed” without their consent (Articles 77, 83), “the sovereign rights of the Union republics are protected by the USSR” (Article 80). Thus, the “Soviet people” in the Constitution were presented in words as one, but in reality cut into various “sovereign” and “special” parts. The latter was also consistent with the spirit of the never-revoked Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia, which proclaimed at the dawn of Soviet power (November 2, 1917) not only “the equality and sovereignty of the peoples of Russia,” but also their right “to free self-determination up to the point of secession and the formation of an independent state.” " 5 .
Researchers identified in a single “new historical community” nations, nationalities, ethnic and national groups that clearly differed in their ability to realize their sovereignty. There was no consensus on their relationship in Soviet times. M.I. Kulichenko in his work “Nation and Social Progress” (1983) believed that out of 126 national communities recorded during the processing of the 1959 census materials, 35 nationalities belonged to the category of nations, 33 to nationalities, and 35 to national groups , To ethnic groups- 23. Of the 123 communities identified by the 1979 census, 36 were classified as nations, 32 as nationalities, 37 as national groups, and 18 as ethnic groups 6 . But this was only one of the options for typologizing communities; there were others that differed significantly from the one given. “Titular” and “non-titular” peoples, national majorities and minorities had different opportunities to realize their vital interests.
The economic crisis, which became especially acute in the 1980s, affected the socio-political sphere and, as a consequence, the state of interethnic relations in the USSR. The country's top leadership could no longer adequately respond to the problems and challenges of domestic and foreign policy, and its national policy began to acquire a reflexive nature. This crisis had a particularly serious impact on national relations, called into question the entire Soviet system of territorial-state and national structure, contributed to the growth of nationalism and, ultimately, largely predetermined the collapse of the USSR. However, the crisis led to the fact that Soviet leaders dared less and less to solve national problems on their own and more and more to transfer them to the legislative level, as a result of which the role of their legal regulation by the supreme legislative authority - the Supreme Soviet of the USSR - began to increase.
The President of the USSR and his entourage too quickly embarked on political reforms, not realizing the obvious fact that the dismantling of the Soviet ideological internationalist system, which essentially cemented interethnic relations, would lead to collapse Soviet system national-territorial structure of the country, which is what happened. Even their positive actions - the inclusion of science in the study of national relations, of legislative bodies in the process of their legal regulation - looked like concessions and, ultimately, turned against them. As in the transition period of 1917, national relations became an instrument in the struggle for power between the Union leadership and the leadership of the RSFSR, grouped around B.N. Yeltsin. Moreover, the initiative clearly belonged to the latter. As a result, many nationalists received more and more concessions that they could not have previously dreamed of. A return to traditional forceful methods of resolving disputes with them could no longer work for the Soviet leadership.
Late Soviet experience showed that activities in the sphere of national politics can be effective in conditions where the executive branch pursues a fairly clear, realistic and consistent political line. If the actions of the latter, as was observed during the period of perestroika, are characterized by a lack of system, inconsistency and contradiction, then the efforts of all branches of government will become just as ineffective.
The unfolding political struggle for power in the country in the period 1992-93. had the most negative impact on the formation of the system of interethnic relations. The Russian parliament, represented by the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation, practically stopped dealing with national problems, which were increasingly used by opposing forces in their own interests. National politics temporarily became hostage to the political struggle for power.
1.2. Interethnic conflicts on the territory of the USSR and their origins
Over time, the territorial principle of the national-state structure of the USSR revealed an increasing contradiction with the growing internationalization of the population of “national” entities. A good example was the Russian Federation. In 1989, 51.5% of the total population of the USSR lived there. The total number of Russian peoples was most often indicated by the vague expression: “More than a hundred.” The republic had a complex hierarchical system of national-state and administrative structure. It included 31 national-state and national-territorial entities (16 autonomous republics, 5 autonomous regions and 10 autonomous okrugs). There were 31 eponymous peoples (after which the autonomous entities are named). At the same time, in four autonomous entities there were two “titular” peoples (in Kabardino-Balkaria, Checheno-Ingushetia, Karachay-Cherkessia, in the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug). The Buryats and Nenets each had three autonomous entities, the Ossetians two (one in Russia, the other in Georgia). The Dagestan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was inhabited by 26 indigenous peoples. Other ethnic groups did not have their own territorial national entities. Along with autonomous national entities, the Russian Federation included “Russian” territories and regions that did not have official national status. In such a situation, movements naturally arose among different peoples to equalize and increase their “state” status or to acquire one.The peoples living in the USSR during the period under review differed significantly from each other in the rate of growth of their numbers. For example, the number of peoples, each of which numbered more than a million people in 1989, has changed since 1959 as follows. The number of Latvians and Estonians increased by 3 and 4%; Ukrainians and Belarusians - by 18 and 26%; Russians and Lithuanians - by 27 and 30%; Kyrgyz, Georgians, Moldovans - by 50-64%; Kazakhs, Azerbaijanis, Kyrgyzstans - by 125-150%; and Uzbeks and Tajiks - by 176 and 200%. 7 All this created a natural concern among individual peoples about the demographic situation, which was aggravated by unregulated population migration.
Contradictions in the national sphere quite often emerged from a latent state to the surface of public life. Thus, throughout the entire period under review, the movements of the Soviet Germans and Crimean Tatars, who lost during the Great Patriotic War, made themselves felt. Patriotic War their autonomy, for the restoration of national-territorial entities. Other previously repressed peoples demanded permission to return to their places of former residence (Meskhetian Turks, Greeks, etc.). Dissatisfaction with living conditions in the USSR gave rise to movements among a number of peoples (Jews, Germans, Greeks) for the right to emigrate to their “historical homeland.”
Protest movements, excesses and other acts of dissatisfaction with national policies arose on other occasions. One can note a number of events that took place long before the collapse of the USSR. Let's mention just a few. Since 1957, especially in the 1964-1970s, in response to the strengthening of the course of “complete internationalization” - the policy of Russification in the management of the republics, the redrawing of the republics, the opposition of “special settler” peoples to the indigenous ones, etc., protests appeared in a number of republics sentiments against the national policy of the center, which often resulted in interethnic conflicts.
Thus, on April 24, 1965, in connection with the 50th anniversary of the Armenian genocide in Turkey, an unauthorized funeral procession of one hundred thousand people took place in Yerevan. Students and workers and employees of many organizations who joined them walked to the city center with the slogan “Justly resolve the Armenian question!” Rallies began at noon on Lenin Square. By evening, a crowd surrounded the opera building, where an official “public meeting” was being held on the 8th anniversary of the tragedy. Stones flew through the windows. After this, the demonstrators were dispersed using fire trucks.
On October 8, 1966, rallies of Crimean Tatars took place in the Uzbek cities of Andijan and Bekabad. On October 18, they held rallies on the occasion of the 45th anniversary of the formation of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic in Fergana, Kuvasay, Tashkent, Chirchik, Samarkand, Kokand, Yangikurgan, and Uchkuduk. Many rallies were dispersed. At the same time, more than 65 people were detained in Angren and Bekabad alone, 17 of them were convicted of participating in “mass riots.” When dispersing rallies in these two cities, the police used fire cannons, smoke bombs and batons.
On May 22, 1967, during the traditional meeting and laying of flowers at the monument to Taras Shevchenko in Kyiv, several people were detained for participating in an unauthorized event. Outraged people surrounded the police and chanted “Shame!” Later, 200-300 meeting participants went to the Central Committee building to protest and seek the release of those arrested. Authorities tried to stop the movement of the convoy with water from fire trucks. The Minister of Public Order of the Republic was forced to release the detainees.
On September 2, 1967, the police dispersed in Tashkent a demonstration of many thousands of Crimean Tatars protesting against the dispersal of a two-thousand meeting on August 27 with representatives of the Crimean Tatar people who returned from Moscow after receiving them on June 21 by Yu. V. Andropov, N. A. Shchelokov, secretary Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR M. P. Georgadze, Prosecutor General R. A. Rudenko. At the same time, 160 people were detained, 10 of them were convicted. On September 5, 1967, a decree of the Presidium of the USSR Armed Forces was issued, removing the charge of treason against the Crimean Tatars. They were given back their civil rights. Tatar youth received the right to study at universities in Moscow and Leningrad, but Tatar families could not come and settle in Crimea.
It took a long time to overcome the consequences of the clash between Uzbek and Russian youth that occurred during and after the football match between the teams “Pakhtakor” (Tashkent) and “Wings of the Soviets” (Kuibyshev) on September 27, 1969 at the Tashkent stadium, which seats more than 100 thousand people. According to some sources, several hundred people were arrested. Instead of making these cases public and taking measures to prevent similar excesses in the future, the republic’s leaders tried to minimize information about the scale of what happened. Understanding the ugliness of the incident, especially against the backdrop of assistance to Tashkent by the RSFSR and other union republics after the devastating earthquake of 1966, Sh. R. Rashidov did not want the incident to be regarded as Uzbek nationalism, and did everything to hide it from Moscow.
In 1974-1976 Protest rallies took place throughout all the union republics and a number of autonomous republics against the new wave of Russification - restrictions on the languages of titular nationalities, which often grew into a serious formulation of the national question 9 .
The period of the 60-80s is characterized by a significant increase in Zionist sentiments among Soviet Jews, inspired by foreign Zionist centers. The consequence of the “awakening of Jewish consciousness among young people” was the growth of emigration sentiments. According to the population census conducted in January 1970, there were 2,151 thousand Jews in the USSR. But this figure did not include the so-called hidden Jews, the total number of which, according to some estimates, was up to 10 million people. Zionism and the accompanying anti-Semitism as a protest against this ideology became a serious problem in many cities of the USSR. In order to refute accusations that a policy of state anti-Semitism is allegedly being pursued in the USSR, an official brochure “Soviet Jews: Myths and Reality” (Moscow: APN, 1972) was published. It presented facts showing the far-fetchedness of such judgments. In particular, it was indicated that, according to the 1970 census, in the USSR Jews made up less than 1% of the total population of the entire country. At the same time, out of 844 Lenin Prize laureates, there were 96 (11.4%) Jews, 564 (66.8%) Russians, 184 (21.8%) representatives of other nationalities. The highest honorary title of Hero of Socialist Labor was received by 55 people of Jewish nationality, 4 Jews were awarded this title twice, three representatives of this nationality were awarded three times. In 1941-1942, from the front line (the western regions of the country, where Jews lived in a relatively compact population), about 2 million citizens of Jewish nationality were sent to the rear (13.3% of 15 million of all evacuees), which was due to the policy of state anti-Semitism would hardly be possible. It was also emphasized that “the Soviet passport is an important means of national identification; the indication of nationality in it is a tribute to the nation of its owner.”
In the Baltic republics, the spread of anti-Russian sentiment was facilitated by local party authorities, who clearly pursued a policy of separating population groups along ethnic lines.
In January 1977, it came to terror on ethnic grounds. Three Armenians, Stepanyan, Baghdasaryan and Zatikyan, who were members of the underground nationalist party, came to Moscow with the aim of illegally fighting against the Russian people. On Saturday, January 8, during the school holidays, they detonated three bombs - in a subway car, in a grocery store and not far from GUM on 25 October Street. The result was 37 dead and wounded. After a failed attempt to detonate three charges at the Kursk station on the eve of November 7, 1977, the criminals were discovered.
After the adoption of the 1977 Constitution, the situation in interethnic relations did not change for the better in other regions of the country. The originality and severity of the situation is shown in the book by O. A. Platonov. “The outflow of the resources of the Russian people to the national regions of the USSR,” he writes, “greatly weakened the main nation, sharply worsened its financial situation. Instead of building factories and factories, roads and telephone exchanges, schools, museums, theaters in Central Russia, values created by the hands of Russians , provided conditions for the preferential development of other peoples (and above all their ruling layers). As a result, in the national republics there arises a significant number of people living on unearned income, due to speculation and manipulation of the resources of the Russian people. It is in this environment that the are mafia clans, “protecting” various kinds of “shadow workers” and “guild workers", and nationalist organizations (always associated with Western intelligence services). It is very characteristic, according to Platonov, that the more a particular national republic unjustifiably consumed at the expense of the resources of the Russian people , the stronger were its mafia and nationalist organizations (Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Estonia). In Georgia, mafia and nationalist organizations, closely intertwined with each other, have become an influential force in society, and their leaders have become role models for young people, especially students... The situation in Armenia is not the best. Here, mafia-nationalist clans paid special attention to the “education” of youth. From an early age, Armenian children and teenagers were instilled with ideas about the exclusivity of the Armenian nation. Many Armenians by adulthood became convinced nationalists, and with an anti-Russian orientation, which they received with the help of the widely branched underground nationalist organization of the Dashnaks. The collapse of the USSR actually crushed all the existing basic structures of society: state space, political security system, culture, infrastructure. Today they are being formed anew, already within the framework of 15 independent states. Such a radical transformation of social structures often became a source of national conflicts. Radical changes in the USSR in 1985-1991. were carried out during the so-called “perestroika” - a revolutionary radical form of transformation of society. As a political term, it opposes such concepts as “improvement,” which is characteristic of a different, evolutionary type of development.
In Russian historiography there is a huge range of assessments, opinions and concepts that examine and explain the phenomenon of transformation of the USSR in 1980-1991 from different methodological approaches, which in general can be differentiated into three groups.
The first group of researchers of the “tectonic shift,” conventionally defined by the author as a sovereign-patriotic group, analyzes transformation and modernization processes from a critical position - as destructive processes and cataclysms caused by successive failures in the political, economic, and social practices of public administration. The difference in the views of researchers in this group lies only in different definitions of specific political, social, ethnosocial and other actors who “failed” the implementation of optimal transformations in a single country-power. V.A. Tishkov, applying the social-constructivist paradigm in an instrumentalist vein, defines the entire ethnic policy of the perestroika period as a colossal failure, the main argument in favor of the abolition of the USSR for its opponents, and “the enormous success of the leaders of non-Russian nationalities who managed to peacefully dismember the USSR” 10. Other experts, also adhering to the paradigm of the collapse of a “great power,” are guided by the “foreign conspiracy theory” and identify the culprits of disintegration – some as “American imperialism,” others as “international Zionism,” others as “a conspiracy of external and internal enemies,” etc. . A.V. Tsipko explains the collapse of the state by the resistance of the people themselves to the overdue perestroika, its values and, accordingly, reforms 11 .
The second group of researchers, defined as conventionally liberal-democratic, studies historical events, which led to fundamental changes, incl. and to the death of a single state, as an objective process of democratization of a powerless society, as a generally positive modernization systemic phenomenon on the way to universal human values and generally recognized international principles of equal rights of peoples and their right to self-determination.
The third group of experts studies the Soviet state as an ordinary totalitarian model, shaped by the entire national history. The Soviet bureaucratic system is also a product of the previous political culture and its classical imperial thinking. Academician G. Lisichkin points out that the main problem of the state and society is the imperial consciousness of the masses: “Russia has not been sick since 1917. The Bolsheviks continued and aggravated the destructive processes that have been eroding the body for centuries Russian society" 12 .
It is noted that the huge range of judgments, views and concepts of social scientists about this difficult period of the state and its society testifies to the incompleteness of the epochal transformations objectively initiated by the country's political leadership in all spheres of social practice, and to the continued dominance of ideological attitudes and the political dimension. The expediency of localizing the search to identify the ethno-mobilizing factor of the main federal reforms initiated by the political authorities is emphasized.
2.2. Chronology of events
The collapse of the USSR took place against the backdrop of a general economic, foreign policy and demographic crisis. In 1989, the beginning of the economic crisis in the USSR was officially announced for the first time (economic growth was replaced by decline).In the period 1989-1991. the main problem of the Soviet economy reaches its maximum - chronic commodity shortages; Almost all basic goods, except bread, disappear from free sale. Rationed supplies in the form of coupons are being introduced throughout the country.
Since 1991, a demographic crisis (an excess of mortality over the birth rate) has been recorded for the first time.
Refusal to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries entails a massive collapse of pro-Soviet communist regimes in Eastern Europe in 1989, and a number of interethnic conflicts flared up on the territory of the USSR.
The Karabakh conflict that began in 1988 was particularly acute. Mutual ethnic cleansing is taking place, and in Azerbaijan this was accompanied by mass pogroms. In 1989, the Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR announced the accession Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan SSR begins blockade. In April 1991, a war actually began between the two Soviet republics.
In 1990, unrest occurred in the Fergana Valley, a feature of which was the mixing of several Central Asian nationalities (Osh massacre). The decision to rehabilitate the peoples deported by Stalin leads to an increase in tension in a number of regions, in particular, in Crimea - between returning Crimean Tatars and Russians, in the Prigorodny region of North Ossetia - between Ossetians and returning Ingush 13
etc.................
Moscow Psychological and Social Institute.
Odintsovo branch
Essay
in the subject of political science
on the topic: “The national question and interethnic relations in our country: history, methodology, modernity”
Student of group 28EZ/1
Khodakova Elizaveta Sergeevna
Teacher
Daryina E. R.
Odintsovo 2009
Introduction………………………………………..…….……. page 3
National relations in modern………………..p. 3
Historical background of conflicts on the territory of the former USSR…………………………..………………………….… page 5
Nationalism……………………………………………………pp. 7
Interethnic marriages……………………………..….. page 11
Ways to resolve interethnic conflicts……………….p. 12
Conclusion…..………………………………………………………………pp. 13
Introduction.
Russia is one of the most multinational countries in the world. It is difficult to name the exact number of nationalities living in Russia. In 1926, 194 peoples appeared on the census sheets, in 1939 - only 99, and in 1994 - 176 peoples of Russia. The overwhelming majority - over 94% - falls on just the 10 largest nations in terms of population. Moreover, unlike other countries, for example the United States, where people of different nationalities have their own ancestral homeland and re-emigration is possible for them, which was the case after the Great Depression of the 30s, in our country the majority of peoples are indigenous residents.
Currently, the problem of interethnic relations in Russia is one of the most pressing, since the integrity and well-being of our country ultimately depends on its correct solution. Representatives of approximately one hundred nationalities and nationalities now live on the territory of the Russian Federation.
The independent existence of the states that emerged as a result of the collapse of the USSR, contrary to expectations, did not bring tangible changes for the better in the lives of peoples. At the moment, the situation in the field of interethnic relations remains tense and continues to worsen. In the last decade, starting in 1987, over 150 ethnopolitical conflicts took place within the borders of the former Union, in which hundreds of thousands of people died and continue to die. Until recently, Russia suffered from such conflicts to a lesser extent than other CIS countries, but even here there are dozens of pockets of ethnopolitical instability (North Ossetia and Ingushetia, the Chechen Republic, Dagestan, the Volga region, South Eastern Siberia, etc.).
Thus, the national question, as a complex of acute contradictions, requires a speedy resolution. Therefore, almost all well-known and recently formed political parties and movements in Russia have, to one degree or another, decided on this issue.
NNNa National relations in the modern world
In a multinational state, interethnic relations are an integral part of political relations. The state establishes and regulates relations between nations and nationalities. The set of principles, norms, and rules by which national relations are managed constitutes national policy. In each multinational country, national policy has its own characteristics. At the same time, there are ways and methods of solving the national issue and optimizing national relations, proven by historical experience.
In the system of national relations, political aspects are key and decisive. Directly related to the sphere of politics are such issues of national relations as national self-determination, the combination of national and international interests, equality of nations, and the creation of conditions for free development national languages and national cultures, representation of national personnel in the power structure and some other issues. At the same time, the formation of a national idea, political attitudes, political behavior, and political culture is significantly influenced by historically developing traditions, social feelings and moods, geographical and cultural living conditions of nations and nationalities. Essentially, all issues of interethnic relations acquire political significance and can be resolved at the political level. The most important expression of the essence of national relations is the national question.
The national question is, first of all, relations of national inequality, inequality in the levels of economic and cultural development of different nations, the lag of unequal and oppressed nations from privileged, great-power nations. This is an atmosphere of national discord, hostility and suspicion on national grounds, naturally arising on the basis of inequality and actual inequality of nations in access to economic and cultural values. The national question is not so much an ethnic problem as a socio-political one.
The national question always has a specific historical and social content, including a set of national problems at a certain stage of development of a given country. The specific content of the national question reflects the features of the historical development of the country and its peoples, the specifics of their socio-economic and political structure, social class structure, national composition of the population, historical and national traditions and other factors. Moreover, with the solution of some problems, others arise, sometimes more complex, due to the increasing level of development of the nations themselves. Therefore, there cannot be a complete and final solution to the national question in all aspects and social dimensions.
The national issue in the former USSR was resolved in several aspects: national oppression and, to a certain extent, national inequality (economic and cultural) were destroyed, conditions were created for the economic, social and cultural progress of the former national borderlands. At the same time, serious mistakes and violations were made in the implementation of national policy. Contradictions and conflict situations were generated by the very fact that more than 130 nations, nationalities, national and ethnic groups lived together in one union state. National entities differed significantly in ethnosocial, ethnocultural, and ethno-demographic characteristics. These differences led to differences in the interests and needs of peoples, which gave rise to contradictions.
The collapse of the USSR caused numerous tensions and conflicts in different levels and in different regions of one sixth of the planet. Against the backdrop of an intensifying trend towards national self-determination and a rise in national self-awareness, centrifugal, separatist aspirations of ethnopolitical forces emerged, putting their ambitions above the vital interests of peoples. The following can be considered the causes of interethnic conflicts on the territory of Russia: committed acts of injustice and lawlessness against certain peoples (for example, the resettlement of entire peoples); uneven economic, social and cultural development of the republics, national and cultural entities; the predominance of the sectoral management principle, as a result of which national conditions and traditions, social and economic interests of the integrated development of territories were not always taken into account; the general socio-economic crisis that has gripped the state; changes in the ethnic composition of the population of certain regions as a result of demographic and migration processes; the problem of relations between the indigenous and non-indigenous populations of the regions; growth of national self-awareness; underestimation of the national factor by power structures.
The search for mechanisms and ways to solve them is being intensively carried out today in many directions. The conclusion of the Federal Treaty, the adoption of a new Constitution and a number of laws that directly or indirectly regulate relations between the subjects of the Federation, bilateral agreements on the division of powers - all this creates a legal basis not only for the development of interethnic relations, but also for the normal functioning of the entire social organism, the successful formation new federal statehood. The experience accumulated in this direction requires its timely and comprehensive analysis, taking into account the fact that interethnic relations are closely connected with all other types of social relations, and their content and forms of manifestation are determined by the general situation in the country.
Historical background of national conflicts in the territory of the former USSR
Until 1986, nothing was said publicly about interethnic conflicts in the USSR. It was believed that in it the national question was finally resolved. And we must admit that there were no major open interethnic conflicts. At the everyday level, there were many interethnic antipathies and tensions, and crimes were also committed on this basis. The latter were never separately accounted for or tracked.
At the same time, there was an intensive process of Russification of non-Russian peoples. Reluctance to learn Russian did not entail any sanctions, as they are trying to do in Estonia or Moldova, but its study itself was placed at the level of a naturally necessary thing. At the same time, knowledge of Russian as a federal language opened up great opportunities for non-Russian peoples for learning, professionalization and self-realization. The Russian language made it possible to become familiar with the culture of all the peoples of the USSR, as well as with world culture. It performed and continues to perform the same function that falls to the lot of the English language in international communication. It would also be blasphemy to forget that the outskirts of the Union, being more backward, developed at the expense of infringing on the interests of the peoples of Central Russia.
All this, however, did not exclude the formation of latent ethno-conflict situations caused by the flawed national policy of the Soviet government. The proclamation by the Bolsheviks of an attractive, but crafty for that time, political slogan about the right of nations to self-determination entailed an avalanche-like process of sovereignty of territories. Even during the civil war, 35 republics of the red regimes and 37 of the white regimes were formed. This trend intensified after the Bolshevik victory. However, its full implementation was impossible. Yes, the Bolsheviks did not intend to implement it. Based on the principle of “divide and conquer,” they gave formal independence in the form of a national name for the territory only to “supporting” nations. Therefore, out of more than 130 nationalities inhabiting the USSR, about 80 did not receive any national education. Moreover, the “issuance” of statehood was carried out in a strange way. Estonians, for example, whose total number in the country as a whole, according to the 1989 population census, was 1,027 thousand, had union statehood; Tatars, whose number is more than 6 times greater than the number of Estonians (6,649 thousand) - autonomy, and the Poles (1,126 thousand) or Germans (2,039 thousand) did not have any national entities.
The fictitious federalization and autonomization of the country with four unequal levels of national-state and national-administrative entities (union republic, autonomous republic, national region, national district) on voluntaristically divided territories in which other peoples historically lived, laid a mine under the national question in the USSR slow action. Subsequent volitional changes in the boundaries of national entities and the transfer of vast territories (for example, Crimea) from one republic to another without taking into account historical and ethnic characteristics, the deportation of entire peoples from their native lands and their dispersion among other nationalities, huge migration flows associated with the mass eviction of people political motives, with great construction projects, the development of virgin lands and other processes, finally mixed up the peoples of the USSR.
According to the 1989 census, 25 million 290 thousand people live outside Russia alone. In addition to Russians, there were 3 million Russian-speaking representatives of other nations outside Russia. And how many Russian and Russian-speaking citizens, being inside Russia, with their ancestral lands, were annexed to the territories of other national-state entities or arrived there due to some kind of “call”, in which they, regardless of their share (in 9 republics out of 21 titular peoples do not constitute the majority of the population, and in another 8 republics the number of Russians, Ukrainians and other non-titular nations is 30% or more) are listed among national minorities with all the ensuing consequences. The main problem is that titular nations, regardless of their number, claim exclusive control of state institutions and property, often created by the hands of “alien” peoples and at the expense of the all-Union budget, as was the case in Estonia, Lithuania, and Kazakhstan. In some cases, the Russian-speaking population remains hostage to nationalist criminal adventures, as happened with the 250 thousand Russian-speaking population in Chechnya.
Thus, the national policy pursued in the multinational USSR and now continued in Russia (through the creation of unequal federal subjects) and other countries of the post-Soviet space, formulated by Lenin using the formal principle of “the right of nations to self-determination,” destroyed the old Russian national-territorial system and put At the forefront is not the individual with his inalienable rights and legitimate, including national interests, but individual nations with their special rights and special national-power-territorial claims, implemented to the detriment of other peoples, often living on the same territory for centuries, to the detriment of generally recognized human rights. National-cultural autonomy, accepted throughout the world and allowing, without causing harm to other peoples, to satisfy their national-cultural needs in a single general legal space, was rejected by the Bolsheviks, most likely not by chance, because with such a solution to the issue it was more difficult to govern the country.
Given the integrity of the strictly centralized and virtually unitary Soviet state, interethnic relations did not cause much concern. On the one hand, a person of any nationality considered himself a citizen of the entire federal space, on the other, party and state structures firmly held peoples within the framework of internationalism. Even individual nationalist statements by some leaders in the union and autonomous republics were mercilessly suppressed. The weakening of the union “hoops” in the process of the beginning of perestroika, glasnost and sovereignization of national-territorial entities exposed many of the vices of the communist regime, its national policy and actualized dormant interethnic tensions. Nationalist-minded groups striving for power and property in many union and autonomous republics, who overnight became national heroes, rushed to explain all the people’s troubles by the actions of union bodies and exploitative internationalism. And there was some truth in this. However, as with any mass psychosis, extremes began to dominate in interethnic relations.
It was no longer possible to contain interethnic conflicts by force, and the peoples had no experience of independent civilized solutions without the participation of a strong center. Not without the help of nationalist extremists, many of them, who instantly forgot real international assistance, began to feel that their meager life was due to the fact that it was they who, to their detriment, “feed” the Center and other nations. After some time, many republics, having “swallowed their sovereignties” (in the words of N. Nazarbayev), will gradually begin to realize real reasons their troubles, and at the beginning of perestroika, nationalist euphoria was dominant. The gradual collapse of the USSR triggered massive interethnic conflicts in many union and autonomous republics. After the legal collapse of the USSR, its territory became a zone of ethnic disaster.
In the mid-80s. On the initiative of the party and state leaders, the renewal of the economic foundations, political structure and spiritual life of society began. Radical changes in the conditions for the development of production and methods of managing the economic transformation in the socio-political sphere have gone beyond the limits outlined by “perestroika”. They led to the collapse of the Soviet system that had existed for more than seven decades.
In March 1985, M.S. Gorbachev became the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. The Council of Ministers of the USSR was headed by N.I. Ryzhkov. M.S. Gorbachev and the radical political figures who supported him took the initiative to “renew socialism.” The essence of the “renewal of society” is its initiator M.S. Gorbachev saw socialism and democracy as a combination.
The democratization of public life could not but affect the sphere of interethnic relations.
The first open mass protests took place as a sign of disagreement with the number of national schools decreasing from year to year and the desire to expand the scope of the Russian language.
Gorbachev's attempts to limit the power of national elites sparked even more active protests in a number of republics. The country's leadership turned out to be unprepared to solve the problems caused by interethnic and interethnic conflicts and the growth of the separatist movement in the republics.
In 1986, mass rallies and demonstrations against Russification took place in Almaty (Kazakhstan). Open forms caused public discontent in the Baltic republics, Ukraine, and Belarus. Armed clashes based on interethnic conflicts have become more frequent.
In 1988, hostilities began between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, a territory populated predominantly by Armenians, but which was part of the AzSSR. An armed conflict between Uzbeks and Meskhetian Turks broke out in Fergana. The center of interethnic clashes was Novy Uzen (Kazakhstan). The appearance of thousands of refugees was one of the results of the conflicts that took place. In April 1989, mass demonstrations took place in Tbilisi for several days. The main demands of the demonstrators were democratic reforms and independence of Georgia. The Abkhaz population advocated revising the status of the Abkhaz ASSR and separating it from the Georgian SSR.
Against the background of the impotence of the Union authorities, in May 1988, popular fronts were created in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. If at first they spoke “in support of perestroika,” then after a few months they declared secession from the USSR as their ultimate goal.
The requirement to introduce the native language in state and educational institutions sounded in Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova.
In the Central Asian republics, for the first time in many years, there was a threat of penetration of Islamic fundamentalism.
In Yakutia, Tataria, and Bashkiria, movements were gaining strength that demanded that these autonomous republics be given union rights.
Gorbachev’s “team” was not ready to offer ways out of the “national impasse” and therefore constantly hesitated and was late in making decisions. The situation gradually began to get out of control.
The situation became even more complicated after the elections in union republics based on the new electoral law. Leaders of national movements won almost everywhere.
The “parade of sovereignties” began: on March 9, the declaration of sovereignty was adopted by the Supreme Council of Georgia, on March 11 - by Lithuania, on March 30 - by Estonia, on May 4 - by Latvia, on June 12 - by the RSFSR, on June 20 - by Uzbekistan, on June 23 - by Moldova, on July 16 - by Ukraine , July 27 - Belarus.
All this forced Gorbachev to announce, with great delay, the beginning of the development of a new Union Treaty. This work began in the summer of 1990.
The main idea embedded in the draft of this document was the idea of broad rights for the union republics, primarily in the economic sphere. However, it soon became clear that Gorbachev was not ready to do this either. Since the end of 1990 The union republics, which now had great independence, decided to act at their own discretion: a series of bilateral agreements were concluded between them in the field of economics.
On March 17, 1991, a referendum was held on the fate of the USSR. 76% of the population of the huge country spoke in favor of maintaining a single state.
In the summer of 1991, the first presidential elections in Russian history took place. During the election campaign, the leading candidate from the “democrats,” Yeltsin, actively played the “national card,” inviting Russia’s regional leaders to take as much sovereignty as they “could eat.” This largely ensured his victory in the elections. Gorbachev's position weakened even more.
In the summer, Gorbachev agreed to all the conditions and demands presented by the union republics. According to the draft of the new treaty, the USSR was supposed to turn into a Union of Sovereign States, which would include both former union and autonomous republics on equal terms.
In the absence of Gorbachev in Moscow, on the night of August 19, the State Committee for a State of Emergency (GKChP) was created, which in his absence removed Gorbachev from power.
The State Emergency Committee introduced a state of emergency in certain areas of the country; declared the power structures that acted contrary to the 1977 Constitution disbanded; suspended the activities of opposition parties; banned rallies and demonstrations; established control over the media; sent troops to Moscow.
On the morning of August 19, the leadership of the RFSFR issued an appeal to the citizens of the republic, in which they regarded the actions of the State Emergency Committee as a coup d'état and declared them illegal.
On August 22, members of the State Emergency Committee were arrested. One of the decrees of B.N. Yeltsin, the activities of the CPSU ceased. On August 23, its existence as a ruling state structure was put to an end.
The attempt of members of the State Emergency Committee to save the USSR led to the exact opposite result - the collapse single country accelerated.
On August 21, Latvia and Estonia declared independence, on August 24 - Ukraine, on August 25 - Belarus, on August 27 - Moldova, on August 30 - Azerbaijan, on August 31 - Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, on September 9 - Tajikistan, on September 23 - Armenia, on October 27 - Turkmenistan .
In December 1991, a meeting of the leaders of the three sovereign states of Russia (B.N. Yeltsin), Ukraine (L.M. Kravchuk) and Belarus (S.S. Shushkevich) was held in Belovezhskaya Pushcha (BSSR). On December 8, they announced the termination of the 1922 union treaty and the end of the activities of state structures of the former Union. Instead, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was created, which initially united 11 former Soviet republics (excluding the Baltic states and Georgia). On December 27, Gorbachev announced his resignation. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ceased existence.
“Perestroika,” conceived and implemented by some party and state leaders with the goal of democratic changes in all spheres of society, has ended. Its main result was the collapse of the once powerful multinational state and end of the Soviet period in the history of the Fatherland.