The Public Chamber discussed issues of strengthening the friendship of Russian peoples

On Monday, the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation hosted a scientific and practical conference “Russia in new dimensions: unity and diversity.” The anti-Semitic riots at the Makhachkala airport that preceded the event gave the reports on national security issues unexpected significance and relevance. The scientists gathered at the OP mainly associated such ugly manifestations with the work of unfriendly propaganda centers and recommended more careful work on the historical, interfaith and multinational education of citizens.

The least formal speech for the opening of the conference was prepared by Magomed Omarov, Doctor of Political Sciences, Director of the Center for Political Research and Information Technologies of the Russian State University for the Humanities. “Based on the example of what is happening now, we understand how (important.— “Kommersant”) the seemingly routine words “harmony,” “unity,” “civil identity,” said the professor. “Those events that are taking place in Makhachkala… Here, in Dagestan, there is an ancient mosque, an ancient synagogue, an ancient Armenian church, an Orthodox temple nearby. “People have lived together for centuries!” Mr. Omarov emphasized that the unrest that had occurred was nonsense for the North Caucasus, and suggested that the conclusions based on their results would be “the most serious.” The scientist also promised his colleagues that all the theses put forward by them would be “taken into account and studied,” since it is their experience that is most relevant in solving “the biggest political problem of a large state – so that all citizens of a large country feel like fellow citizens”: “You are all major specialists, I I hope for your vision, and I think serious changes will be made to the national policy strategy.”

The topic of national security was discussed in one form or another by speakers in all planned sections. Thus, the head of the department of management in the field of interethnic and interfaith relations of the Faculty of Public Administration of Moscow State University, Alexander Polunov, pointed out that the focus on national problems is characteristic of the intensified ideological struggle in the world: “The spread of such destructive influences is an indicator of a global crisis in the sphere of values: not just political or diplomatic, but a crisis of values.” He also described two channels for the dissemination of such propaganda – the use of so-called pan-ideologies based on the factor of ethnic cross-border kinship, and the deliberate actualization of “problems of historical memory” in regions where such problems exist: “In particular, in the territory of the North Caucasus, where the concepts of pan-Islamism and some pan-Turkism also resonates.” In general, the second mechanism is reflected in the concept of “decolonization of Russia”, “thrown in” with the beginning of the special operation in Ukraine, the scientist added.

In parallel, within the framework of another section, Associate Professor of the Department of Political Analysis and Social-Psychological Disciplines of the Russian Economic University. Plekhanov Valery Cherdantsev pointed out eight potentially dangerous points of manifestation of nationalist extremism: anti-Russian extremism on the part of small nations or migrants, Russian extremism against Caucasians or Central Asian peoples, Russian fascism, “ukrofashism”, anti-Semitism and liberal fascism (associated with the arrogant attitude of “bearers of European values”). “The Russian world is embraced by common values, this is the opposite of division along ethnic lines,” Mr. Cherdantsev emphasized. “Actions of an extremist nature challenge the historically established meta-ethnic community, calling into question the civilizational identity of entire peoples.”

Alexander Polunov answered his colleague from the other section in absentia, proposing to counter this with “an in-depth study of the history of interethnic and interfaith relations in Russia” and “propaganda of the ideas of the historical unity of its peoples.” The latter, in his opinion, dictates “the need to strengthen the all-Russian civic identity,” which will not be formed without “adequate historical memory.”

Olga Vasilyeva, candidate of political sciences, who spoke after Mr. Polunov, actually proposed to work on the de-Westernization of scientific tools, since “understanding ethnic relations (within the framework of Western concepts.— “Kommersant”) occurred in accordance with their scientific discourse.” This fact, she argues, carries the risk of “promoting certain narratives and images” that “preach sensitivity to cultural otherness combined with the liberation of minorities from the oppression of the majority.” “Russia is a unique state-civilization; the introduction of the Western view in Russian science is difficult: this suggests that the search for unifying concepts can only be done on the basis of its own categorical apparatus,” the scientist concluded.

The necessary reason for optimism for everyone was given by the report of Doctor of Philosophy Yuri Granin “What kind of state does international Russia need?” In his speech, he gave a completely unambiguous answer: “The civilizational-imperial paradigm of Russia’s development is the most successful, historically confirmed form of existence of Russia as a state-civilization.” According to the philosopher, modern Russia successfully inherits all previous forms of statehood. The main thing on this path is to maintain a balance of “federal centralism and regional diversity,” advised Mr. Granin. True, his conclusions, it seems, will not be included in the official summary of the conference, since the moderators considered his speech not entirely consistent with the stated agenda.

Grigory Leiba