The State Duma discussed the legislative strengthening of friendship between peoples

The State Duma on Monday discussed “Issues of legislative support for the implementation of the Strategy of the State National Policy of the Russian Federation”: hearings on this topic were initiated by the specialized committee on nationalities affairs. The deputies unanimously agreed on the need for interethnic, intercultural and interfaith unity, but slightly argued on migration issues. The invited officials, however, brought this discussion to naught.

President Vladimir Putin approved the current State National Policy Strategy until 2025 back in 2012. The document, among other things, consolidates the “unifying role of the Russian people” in the formation of a “unique Russian nation” and at the same time “mobilizes the multinational Russian society for unity and harmony.” In 2018, the president supplemented the strategy with several points – in particular, about the “expected results of implementation”, among which are strengthening the unity of the multinational leadership of Russia, preventing interethnic conflicts, creating conditions for the adaptation of foreign citizens, etc.

Today, legislators intend to update the principles of national policy, explained the head of the Duma Committee on National Affairs Gennady Semigin (SRZP) during the hearing on December 4: “With success, stability, good results, analysis in this direction still (revealed.— “Kommersant”) shortcomings, potential, reserves that can be increased.”

The deputy pointed to the opportunity to expand the regulatory framework (especially since the preparation of a new strategy, not limited by a date, is in full swing), to consider the concepts of the Cossacks, language policy and the development of small peoples.

Next, we should focus on the implementation of these provisions, work out planning, coordination, vertical lines, criteria and methods of monitoring, explained Mr. Semigin.

Along with all this, migration policy and, of course, the actions of external and internal ill-wishers require the attention of the authorities, as follows from the speech of the head of the committee. “There are constant provocations against us (SRZP.— “Kommersant”): the site was hacked, an article was posted that was intended to provoke ethnic hatred, discrediting the soldiers of the Northern Military District,” said Gennady Semigin. “An investigation was carried out, a criminal case was opened, there will be more than one, the traces lead to Ukraine.” (Probably, they were referring to a publication signed by Gennady Semigin posted on September 30 on the website of the Patriots of Russia movement, which, in particular, said that the Chechen Akhmat battalion had to “kick the soldiers of the Russian Armed Forces onto the battlefield.” In the morning 2 October, the text was deleted, and the SRZP announced a hack.) Dozens of resources “replicated this lie, playing into the hands of the enemy,” Spravoross continued, putting on a par with this incident the anti-Jewish unrest in Dagestan and some other “strikes on the websites of deputies and committees “: “We need to think about a whole range of serious initiatives here.”

“In the context of new geopolitical challenges, it is necessary to strengthen the responsibility of all branches of government to prevent discrimination and incitement of interethnic hatred on national and religious grounds,” agreed Deputy Speaker of the Duma Sergei Neverov (ER).

He added that the “correct formulations” of the goals of the new strategy of the authorities will certainly be found “in dialogue with civil society and between departments,” and emphasized the importance of reducing “social inequality between regions” and improving the forms of adaptation of foreigners. Patriotic education can contribute to the latter, the United Russia member pointed out.

SRZP leader Sergei Mironov was also concerned about migration issues, but from a noticeably more radical position: “The introduction of a visa regime with the countries of Central Asia is a forced but necessary measure.” As proof, the party member cited a sixteen-fold increase (from 2002 to 2020) in the number of Russians “whose nationality is not indicated in the census forms” (according to the Socialist Revolutionary, all of these are from Central Asia), and “actual figures for the increase in ethnic crime.” “Russia must remain Russia, where the Russian people are the state-forming people,” Mr. Mironov concluded.

The “Russian question” was also raised by the first deputy chairman of the Duma Committee on CIS Affairs, Konstantin Zatulin (ER):

“If the nation, which today lives in the Russian Federation in such proportions, is not satisfied, then other problems arise… I will not provoke and say what Russia could do without, but absolutely Russia cannot exist without Russians.”

At the same time, the deputy traditionally advocated for clarification of the term “compatriots” and called for “with all respect to everyone to explain who historically lives in Russia.” Pro-Russian rhetoric, however, did not prevent Mr. Zatulin from remembering the economic feasibility of attracting migrants and arguing with the Right Russia: “You cannot give grounds for xenophobia, for people to shout “hey!” God forbid that we move this avalanche today, the USSR was thinking about this issue.”

Deputy Nina Ostanina (Communist Party of the Russian Federation) also predictably recommended remembering the Soviet experience. “I don’t agree that this is a subtle matter and should not be overly politicized,” she replied to United Russia member Ildar Gilmutdinov, who had previously called for “disturbing” the topic less. “It’s also impossible to create showcase well-being, otherwise this subtle matter will turn us all into people who would not like to take decisive action.”

However, those who are required to take these “decisive actions” by virtue of their positions stood in solidarity with the United Russia members and gently brought the internal political discussion to naught.

Representatives of the Federal Agency for National Affairs explained to the hearing participants that the main goal of both the developing and the current national policy strategy remains “ensuring the unity of the Russian nation,” they recalled the insidiousness of the collective West and promised to adjust the target indicators taking into account “strengthening the all-Russian national identity.” In addition, the deputies were promised to “smuggle” the necessary innovations into explanatory dictionaries, because “many concepts” require clarification (among which, for some reason, there were completely destructive terms like discrimination, Russophobia and genocide). No one dared to argue with the direct implementers of the state national policy.

Grigory Leiba