Nation and state. National state. Nation-states Modern nation-states

NATION STATE OR CIVILIZATION STATE?

1. Lyrical preface

When I find myself on a business trip in Moscow, I always try to buy as many different newspapers and magazines of the patriotic opposition as possible. I would like to keep abreast of new ideas and trends of the direction of socio-political thought to which I myself belong, and in the province in which I live, nothing from the huge spectrum of the patriotic press, except, of course, " Soviet Russia” and “Pravda”, it is impossible to get. So last time, about a year ago, when I was in the "first city" in the subway, I noticed a tent with newspapers and hurried there. "Do you have anything patriotic?" - I asked, and the saleswoman willingly immediately handed me the newspaper "I am Russian." For some reason, my obviously non-Russian, but rather Asian appearance didn’t bother her ... For the sake of curiosity, I took, along with the highly respected “Tomorrow”, “Special Forces of Russia”, also “I am Russian”. I started reading and immediately came across an article directed against Eurasianism and imperial ambitions. The author went on about the fact that supposedly the Russians do not need these “blacks”, the maintenance of national regions, the retention of large territories, big game in international politics they require forces, which the Russian nation already has few, it is necessary to grant independence to the Volga region, the Caucasus, to separate Siberia and the Far East and build a small, racially pure Republic of Rus' ...

And then suddenly I remembered the speech of one major Turkic nationalist, which I heard in my native Ufa during one scientific conference devoted to the problems of interethnic communication (as in other national regions, we have small-town nationalists, as a rule, humanities professors). He began his report with the words: "I love genuine Russian nationalists very much and wish them the speedy realization of their aspirations ...". These words shocked the audience, because the speaker was a well-known Russophobe, an outspoken supporter of the separation of Bashkiria from Russia and the solution of the “Russian question” in the republic by deporting all Russians and Russian speakers to central Russia(in accordance with the slogan, popular then and now among the few Bashkir separatists: "Russians - to Ryazan, Tatars - to Kazan!"). Noticing the general bewilderment, the nationalist professor explained that the real Russian nationalists for him are not those who advocate the revival Soviet Union, within which the Russians did not even have their own state, and those who advocate the creation of a small, mono-ethnic "Republic of Rus" within the boundaries of several central regions - Moscow, Vladimir, Tula, etc. Here the goals of the Bashkir, Tatar, Chuvash and other nationalists coincide with the goals of the Russian nationalists - the professor concluded his thought - since each nation will take up its own national construction, the Russians will not interfere in the affairs of the Bashkirs, and the Bashkirs in the affairs of the Russians ... "

When I read this issue of the newspaper “I am a Russian” that fell into my hands, I could not get rid of the impression that it was all written by the same Turkic nationalist, only hiding behind a Slavic pseudonym for some reason ... The argumentation, at least, completely coincided ... And then I thought that the dialecticians were right: the opposites converge and that the supporters of the revival of the Russian Superpower, to which I belong, are not on the path with any nationalists of the Eurasian space.

It was then that the idea for this article was born.

2. Hidden premises of "fighters against foreigners"

Among modern Russian patriots - both "right" and "left", maxims about the dominance of "foreigners" in Russia are extremely common today, which means, first of all, representatives of Muslim peoples former USSR and most Russian Federation. At the same time, we are talking not only and not so much about “ethnic crime”, that is, about criminal offenses and offenses committed by immigrants from the republics of the former USSR and immigrants from the Russian Caucasus, living in the center of Russia, primarily in Moscow. To combat this, as well as any other crime, well-coordinated work of law enforcement agencies and the appropriate legislative framework is sufficient, and "fighters against foreigners" translate the problem into a political plane. As a rule, they argue that Russia is a mono-ethnic Russian state, since about 80% of the population in it are ethnic Russians, that this is exactly the percentage of Russians in the authorities of the Russian Federation and in the media, that, finally, foreigners - " migrant workers” are taking away jobs from Russian people, so it is necessary to fight illegal migrants mercilessly, and this requires blocking borders, tightening customs control, creating privileged conditions for the national proletariat, etc.

Moreover, maxims of this kind can often be found not only on the Black Hundred monarchist websites of the Internet, but also in the organ of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the newspaper Pravda. One has to be surprised that these statements come from people who call themselves patriots of the Russian Empire and the USSR. After all, it is easy to see that their conclusions have two basic premises that cannot be combined with the ideas of restoring the Greater Russian Space, neither within the borders of the Russian Empire, nor within the borders of the USSR, and even with the ideas of the integrity of the current post-Soviet Russian Federation.

The first premise is that the peoples of the post-imperial, post-Soviet space, as well as the Russian Federation, do not constitute one single civilization. Russians, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Tatars, Kabardians, etc. from this point of view, it is not a family of peoples objectively linked by a common historical destiny and many other factors, but competitors in an interstate, international struggle. It is significant that when our "patriots" talk about the dominance of Caucasians in Moscow, they draw comparisons with Turkish problem in Germany or with the Arab problem in England. Thus, they mean as something natural and self-evident that, say, an Azerbaijani and a Russian are as far apart as a German and a Turk. The fact that the grandfathers of these Azerbaijanis and Russians were sitting in the same trench near Stalingrad, and the great-great-grandfathers took Paris together, while the Germans and the Turks never had any stable intercultural ties, is completely ignored. In fact, the starting point is 1991 and the existence of post-Soviet independent states” is not perceived as a pathology that must be corrected, but as a norm that only needs to be formalized through border treaties and immigration laws. In fact, in this case, those “Russian patriots” who consider the “Azerbaijani issue” in Russia to be an analogue of the “Turkish issue” in Germany, paradoxically, take the same position as the nationalists from the former Soviet republics, who also believe that Big Russia in all its forms - from the Muscovite Kingdom to the USSR, it was an unnatural construction, an association of alien national formations, held only by the repressive power of the state, and it is normal and positive that Russia defends its Russian interests, Azerbaijan its Azerbaijani, Latvia its Latvian, Ukraine its Ukrainian without propaganda archaisms about "friendship of peoples".

The second premise of reasoning in the spirit of “Russia for Russians” is that if in any territory the majority is made up of representatives of some people, then it has the right to create a mono nation state in the manner of Western national republics. In other words, the essence of the second premise is that the Western institution of the nation-state is applicable not only in the West itself, but everywhere - from South America and Africa to Russia and India. In fact, this acknowledges that the nation-state is that very notorious “universal value”, a cultural product of Western civilization, which has not local, but universal value. The only difference between Western liberals and such "patriots" is that the liberals (let's call them conscious Westerners) consider the institutions of parliamentary democracy, the capitalist market economy, atomized civil society, and the Western model of the “nation-state” is relegated to the background, and sometimes even discarded, it is considered obsolete in the “age of globalization”, the creation of a “single universal home”, naturally, under the leadership of the “most democratic democracy” of the United States. In turn, some of our "patriots" (let's call them unconscious Westerners), on the contrary, recognize democracy and the market as secondary values, and sometimes even completely deny their universal, "universal" status, arguing that they are rather associated with geopolitical, psychological and the historical features of the West itself, but the Western idea of ​​the “nation-state” is readily adopted.

The falsity of the first premise was proved long ago by both domestic (N. Danilevsky, P. Savitsky, N. Trubetskoy) and Western (O. Spengler, A. Toynbee) culturologists. There are a number of scientific arguments - from geopolitical to the argument of "common historical destiny", proving that most of the peoples that were part of the Russian Empire and the USSR constitute a single civilization and its dismemberment is unnatural and only leads to severe suffering for these peoples. We are not going to retell these fairly well-known proofs, but rather turn to the second premise, which is given immeasurably less attention.

3. The perniciousness of the “nation-state” model for Russia

This issue was discussed in more detail by the English historian and philosopher of culture A. J. Toynbee. In his work The World and the West, Toynbee noted: “... there is a classic example of what harm an institution can bring, torn out of its usual social environment, and transferred by force to another world. Over the past century and a half… we, the Western political institution of “nation states”, have broken through the borders of our original homeland, Western Europe, and paved the way, studded with thorns of persecution, slaughter and deprivation(emphasis mine - R.V.) to Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia and India ... The turmoil and devastation caused in these regions by the establishment of a borrowed Western institution of "nation states" is much larger and deeper than the harm caused by the same institution in Great Britain or France".

Toynbee also explains why the nation-state model is explosive everywhere except in Western Europe, where this model originated: “In Western Europe, it (the institution of the nation-state - R.V.) does not cause much harm ... in Western Europe it corresponds to a natural distribution languages ​​and political boundaries. In Western Europe, people who speak the same language, in most cases, live in compact communities on the same compact territory, where fairly clear linguistic boundaries separate one community from another; and where linguistic boundaries form a kind of patchwork quilt, this linguistic map conveniently matches the political one, so that the "nation-states" appeared as a natural product of the social environment ... It is worth looking at the linguistic map of the whole world and we will see that the European field .. - there is something special and exceptional. Over a much larger area, stretching southeast from Danzig and Trieste to Calcutta and Singapore, the language map does not look like a patchwork quilt, but rather like an iridescent silk blanket. In Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, India and Malaya, people who speak different languages ​​are not as clearly separated as in Western Europe, they are mixed geographically, as if alternating houses on the same street of the same cities and villages .. " .

So, it turns out that the inapplicability of the nation-state for Russia is not even a consequence of the specifics of the Russian-Eurasian civilization, which was and is being noted by the patriots of the soil. This is a common place for all civilizations of the world, excluding, of course, the European one. All over the world, in addition to Western Europe, an organic institution is not a nation-state, but a civilization-state - a large multinational state, united not according to the principle of ethnic kinship, but according to the principle of a common religion or ideology, complementarity of cultures, a similar geopolitical position, and finally, a common historical fate. Such states-civilizations were the Byzantine Empire, the Arab Caliphate, the Russian Empire, in modern times USSR, Yugoslavia. State-civilizations should be distinguished from the Western colonial empires of modern times - British, French, etc., which were completely artificial formations and were supported only by military force and the most severe terror in relation to the conquered population (of course, the British and Indians or the French and Algerians were not united by either a common religion or a common historical fate). Strictly speaking, the Western empires of the colonial type were not empires in the full sense of the word - they were the same "nation-states" with a makeweight of foreign territories that had no cultural connection with the mother country.

The attempt to transfer the model of the nation-state to any non-European territories after the fall of the colonial systems has led and leads, as a rule, to a violation of this well-established picture of a patchwork ethnic quilt, to ethnic conflicts, wars, oppression and genocide on a national basis. A. Toynbee compared the Western idea of ​​nationalism, that is, the desire of each nation to form its own national state, with diseases from which the Europeans had immunity, but the natives of non-European civilizations did not, because the contact between them ended in the death of entire non-European tribes. Toynbee, who wrote the mentioned work in the middle of the last century, cited as an example of the devastating consequences of the expansion of the nation-state model outside of Europe, the Kurdish conflict on the territory of the Turkish Republic and the conflict between Muslims and Hindus in India, which led to its split into two ethnically Indian states - Indian union and Pakistan.

At that time, the traditional model interethnic relations persisted to some extent in Russia-USSR, Yugoslavia and China. The events of the 80s - 2000s in Russia-USSR once again confirmed the correctness of Toynbee. When the Soviet Union collapsed and new nation-states began to emerge on its territory, this was especially acute. The nationalists who came to power strove for the desired mono-ethnicity, taking the West as a model. They declared their states "Georgian", "Ukrainian", "Moldovan", etc. But the very nature of organic civilization lies in the fact that this civilization is built on the principle of unity. This means that every smallest element of such a civilization carries all the diversity of this civilization. So, the former Georgian USSR, the Moldavian USSR are also multinational, like the Soviet Union as a whole, an attempt to create "Georgia for Georgians" gave rise to the problem of Adzharian, Abkhazian separatism, an attempt to construct Moldova for Moldovans - the separation of Russian and Ukrainian-speaking Pridnestrovie from it. If the dreams of extreme Russian nationalists come true and the project "Russia for Russians" is implemented, this will cause an explosion of separatism in the national regions of Russia. The result will be the collapse of even the current, stripped-down Russia, to the great joy of nationalists from among the Russian "small peoples." However, they, too, should not flatter themselves, this law also applies to the national regions themselves. Let's say - God forbid! - the most daring dream of some small-town national radicals, for example, Tatar ones, will come true, and an independent Tatar state will arise. The implementation of the “Tatar for Tatars” policy will lead to already intra-Tatar separatism: after all, there are entire areas where, along with the Tatars, Russians, Bashkirs, Chuvashs, etc. So the next day after the declaration of independence, yesterday's nationalists, who loved to talk about the right of nations to self-determination, will turn to the rhetoric of their recent enemies and talk about territorial integrity, about malicious separatism ...

So, the planting of a mono-ethnic state in Russia - Eurasia - "Russian Russia", "Tatar Tataria", "Bashkir Bashkiria", "Estonian Estonia" leads only to blood, suffering and genocide, to a war of all against all, as a result, to the weakening of our peoples and the danger of their mutual annihilation. The “threads” of our ethnic groups are so closely intertwined that those who want to unweave them and weave a new, “monochrome” fabric will be forced to destroy the social world throughout society down to the level of villages, quarters and even individual families (since in Russia and in general on the territory of the former USSR there is many multicultural families). We already see all this on the example of the Batian republics, which all the time of their “independence” stand on the verge of civil war, since hundreds of thousands of representatives of the "non-titular" Russian-speaking population are deprived of elementary political rights. Usually the leaders of these states are accused of some kind of unprecedented extremism, while in reality they are implementing the trivial Western model of the “nation-state”. References to the fact that "Baltic nationalists" ignore the "humane" policy of the West towards national minorities can hardly act as a serious argument. First of all, the Russian population of the Baltic States, which fell into the category of “non-citizens”, is not at all a national minority, it is comparable in number, and in some places almost exceeds the number of the “titular ethnic group” (as far as we know, there are entire cities in the Baltic states where “Russian-speaking” more than Estonians or Latvians). Further, all the measures taken by Western states to resolve conflicts between "foreigners", for example, Arabs, and Europeans, for example, the French, by and large are aimed at the naturalization of immigrants from other countries, their dissolution in European ethnic groups. This means that in a generation, the descendants of today's Arabs living in France will speak French and consider French culture as their own. Not a single program of tolerance towards national minorities assumes that Arabs will always live near Paris, who do not consider themselves French and identify themselves with another state.

So, the conflict between the Baltic authorities and the Russian population is a clash of two points of view on the issue of interethnic communication; the Russian population here professes an imperial paradigm: on the same territory, within the same state, representatives of different ethnic groups can coexist, moreover, none of these ethnic groups seeks to absorb the other. The Baltic leadership professes the paradigm of Western “liberal nationalism”: each state is a form of existence for only one nation, all the rest must be ready for future assimilation among the “titular nation”. Naturally, there can be no compromise between these two positions, so the conflict between the Baltic nationalists and "Russian-speaking non-citizens" will be long and will lead to nothing but extreme exhaustion and defeat of one of the parties.

Of course, our geopolitical opponents are not going to calmly look at the intra-Eurasian squabble, they will take advantage - and are already using it! - a situation for the realization of their interests, diametrically opposed to the interests of ours, the Eurasian states and peoples. There is only one way out - to abandon the obviously harmful and unnecessary adventure of planting national states of the European type in Eurasia, which is fundamentally different from Europe in key parameters - from history to geography, and return to a state-civilization that is organic for Eurasia, a multinational superpower. This will also be a rejection of the last Western stereotype that has penetrated into the patriotic worldview - the stereotype about the "universal character" of the Western nation-state. The form of this superpower, its ideology, all this is another question that needs to be addressed right now.

4. The "Russian question" and the new Eurasian empire

This could be the end of our study, if not for one last argument of the "fighters against foreigners" from among the Russian nationalists. They rightly point out that the Russian people are now in a catastrophic state, the demographic crisis is such that Russians are losing a million people a year, national morality is collapsing, the mentality is being replaced by the mass culture of the Western persuasion, the alcohol and drug epidemic is expanding ...

“Why do we need a Eurasian empire if it will soon be dominated by Asians and Caucasians? Why do we need Moscow, the capital of a superpower, if it is populated by Azerbaijanis?” - such nationalists ask with sarcasm. The conclusion that they draw from this is simple: instead of “tearing” the forces of the nation with imperial construction, they need to abandon imperial ambitions, create their own small state, the “Republic of Rus” within the borders of the central regions of present-day Russia and gradually overcome the crisis (to this openly calls, for example, Ivanov-Sukharevsky).

We will not talk about the fact that, in fact, the demographic crisis and all the other side "charms" of colonial capitalism also hit other peoples of the former Soviet superpower. The extensive growth of post-Soviet Asians against the background of the extinction of Russians is a myth (although the pace of degeneration of post-Soviet Asia is indeed slower, but this is due to the fact that it is more imbued with a traditional spirit, modernization there began much later than among Russians, not in the 18th century, and after 1917). We will confine ourselves to proving the assertion that the re-establishment of the empire is the only salvation for all the peoples of the former Soviet Union, including and above all for the Russian people.

Indeed, what is the current ethnic catastrophe of Russians connected with? It seems that we will not be mistaken if we answer that with the defeat in " cold war and the sad realities of colonial capitalism. Even fifteen or twenty years ago, the demographic situation was much more favorable. The corrupting action of the Western mass cult, the systematic destruction of the economy and the entire life order of our civilization by the pro-Western leadership of Russia - these are the true causes of the "Russian tragedy". And now let's ask ourselves the question: “Will the West leave alone the dream of nationalists - a small “mono-ethnic Russia” that has abandoned imperial ambitions? In no case! On the contrary, he will take advantage of her even greater weakness and loneliness and head for her finishing off. Only the revival of imperial greatness, the imperial military-nuclear shield, imperial geopolitical power can cool the Western architects of the final “solution of the Russian question”, save the Russians and all the other fraternal peoples of the Empire, give impetus to a new cultural and demographic upsurge! This is our deep conviction, stemming from the realization of the fact that the West has never been merciful towards weakened former enemies, the West understands only the language of force, the language of imperial and strong-willed, and not conformist diplomacy. So, the Turanophobic, anti-imperial argument of the Russian nationalists is reminiscent of cursing the medicine, which alone can save from the disease... How can one not recall the words of Lev Gumilyov: "If Russia is destined to be reborn, then only through Eurasianism"! That is, we will add, through overcoming nationalist temptations and creating a new state-civilization from Brest to Vladivostok.

A nation state is a state formed by an ethnos (nation) on the basis of an ethnic territory and embodying the political independence and independence of the people. The theoretical and ideological basis of such a state was the principle of nationality, under the flag of which the economically and politically strengthened bourgeoisie fought against obsolete feudalism. The desire to create a nation-state is largely due to the fact that the preservation of the socio-economic (or ultimately ethnic) integrity of the nation is possible only if it is within the framework of one state. The formation of a nation-state best of all satisfies these requirements of social development and is therefore the tendency of every national movement.

Nation-states usually took shape in conditions where the formation of nations and the formation of the state took place simultaneously, in connection with which political boundaries most often coincided with ethnic ones. Thus, the states of Western Europe and Latin America arose. This was typical, normal for the capitalist period of development. Since in the countries of Western Europe, where the formation of nations began for the first time in history, this process coincided with the emergence and centralization of states that developed in territories with a predominantly ethnically homogeneous population, the term “nation” itself acquired a political meaning here - belonging of people to one, “national ", to the state. The principle of "one nation - one state" began to be promoted in Europe during the French Revolution. In Europe, for a long time there was a point of view that the nation-state is the optimal model for organizing society. nation states
formed here in the form of a monarchy, parliamentary and presidential republics.

After World War I, at the instigation of US President Woodrow Wilson, the principle of "one nation, one state" is applied in Central and Eastern Europe. The borders of new countries are cut along national lines. This helped to remove many of the old contradictions, but gave rise to new ones. The fundamental difficulty of successfully applying such an approach is that even if one tries to objectively determine the dividing lines between nations, it is impossible to do so consistently. There are almost no ethnically homogeneous massifs that would not mix in a significant part of their border or deep territories with other national borders, which, being enclosed within the borders of another national state, would not turn into national minorities. Thus, the division of the Ottoman Empire and the collapse of the Habsburg Empire in Europe were marked by the creation of small states, the process of fragmentation into which was called "Balkanization", and with a negative meaning.

The states of Europe and other continents within the boundaries that we know were formed over several centuries. Most of them have become mononational. In this regard, the term "nation" itself acquired a political meaning - the belonging of people to one "national" state. In this case, the term "nation" is used in a statist sense and refers to states that have arisen on the principle of "one nation - one state." Consequently, the concept of "nation-state" is valid only for mono-national states.

The nation state creates the necessary conditions for the economic, social, cultural progress of the people, for the preservation of the national language, traditions, customs, etc. Therefore, the creation of their own statehood is the desired goal of each ethnic group. However, all ethnic groups cannot achieve this goal. This requires at least two conditions: compactness of residence and small number.

In this regard, the question of whether statehood is an obligatory, necessary sign of a nation has been discussed more than once in the scientific literature. Most researchers think not. In practice, when attributing one or another ethnic community to a nation, special importance is often attached to the presence of its own state. This is largely due to the fact that the preservation of the socio-economic (and ultimately ethnic) integrity of the nation is possible only if it is within the framework of one state. However, "one's own" state is by no means an obligatory sign of a nation. History knows many examples of the presence of several nations in the composition of one state. The Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Russian empires included various nations that did not have their own statehood. It is also known that the Polish nation was deprived of its statehood for a long time, but did not cease to be a nation.

AT modern conditions the term "nation state" is used in two senses. First, to designate states with an absolute majority of an ethnically homogeneous population. These national states include Japan, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Greece, Poland, Hungary, France, most Arab and Latin American countries, where representatives of the titular nation make up 90 or more percent of the population of these states. Secondly, the concept of a nation-state is also used in relation to those states where, in addition to the titular nation, significant groups of other ethnic entities live. However, historically, a state was formed on this territory, bearing the name of the largest ethnic group settled in this territory. Among these states are Romania, Sweden, Finland, Syria, Iraq, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, etc. Due to the growth of interstate migrations and the multi-ethnic population, the number of such nation-states will gradually increase.

It should be noted that, although in the Russian Federation the state-forming nation - Russians - makes up 82% of the population, it does not belong to the category of nation-states, but is multinational state. This is due to the fact that in addition to Russians, dozens of indigenous peoples live on the territory of Russia, many of which have formed here into a nation and have their own national statehood, being part of the Russian Federation. Therefore, Russia is the ethnic territory of many non-Russian peoples, who, together with the Russians, constitute a multinational people.

After the October Revolution, most of the peoples living in the territory Russian Empire, created various forms of national-state formations and nation-states. Moreover, the forms of national statehood chosen by ethnic groups did not remain unchanged: they improved and developed. Most peoples have passed from the original lower form to a higher form of national statehood. For example, the Kyrgyz ethnos in a short period has gone from an autonomous region to a union republic within the USSR.

According to the 1977 Constitution, there were 53 nation-states and national-state formations in the USSR: 15 union republics, 20 autonomous republics, 8 autonomous regions and 10 autonomous districts. In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993, the Russian Federation includes 21 republics (national states), some of them are binational, for example, Kabardino-Balkaria, and even multinational (Dagestan); one Autonomous region and 10 autonomous regions. In fact, all republics and national-state formations are multi-ethnic. Therefore, the republics within the Russian Federation are the statehood not only of the “titular” nation, but of the entire multi-ethnic people of this republic, citizens of all nationalities living on their territory.

On this day:

a state formed on the historically established ethnic territory of a particular nation (ethnos) and embodying its sovereignty.

Historically G.n. usually took shape where the beginning of the formation of a nation (ethnos) coincided in time with the formation of the state, in connection with which state borders most often basically coincided with ethnic ones (for example, in Western Europe and Latin America). Creation of G.N. - one of the most important trends in social development, especially in the early stages of national movements. The national in statehood finds its expression in its construction according to the national-territorial principle; functioning government agencies and conducting office work in the relevant state language; in a wide representation in the bodies of G.n. the nationality that gave him the name and is the "titular"; in reflection national characteristics in legislation, etc.

The concept of "G.N." in ethnic terms, it is used in a double sense. First, to designate states with an almost homogeneous national (ethnic) composition of the population (Japan, North and South Korea, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Bangladesh, Denmark, Brazil, Poland, Iceland, Hungary, many Arab countries, especially on the Arabian Peninsula). And, secondly, when characterizing a state that currently has a more or less noticeable part of a foreign population, but historically formed on the territory of the settlement of one nation, one ethnic group as a result of its self-determination and therefore bearing its name (Bulgaria, Sweden, Finland, Turkey , Syria, Australia, New Zealand and etc.).

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

NATIONAL STATE

one of the most important principles of the organization of modern statehood, which arose as a result of the collapse of traditional social ties and a sharp increase in the mobility of the population in the process of developing commodity-capitalist relations. The nation-state as a political and legal reality arises from the need to clarify the traditional status of the state's subjects, who now, unlike foreigners, are subject to more stringent criteria of political loyalty, as well as civil rights and obligations defined by law. One of the most important functions of the nation state was the regulation of population migration. The principle of the nation-state is determined primarily by the system international relations and is not only the realization of the desire of national movements to create their own statehood. This is the meaning of the international recognition of new states or, on the contrary, non-recognition of separatism and rebellious territories; this also explains the tough policy of rich countries in relation to poor migrants.

The real subject of the nation state can be two kinds of nations: ethnic and civil origin. The first type of nation is created by ethnicity, which gives such objective criteria of nationality as a common origin, a common language, a common religion, a common historical memory, a common cultural identity. Accordingly, a nation-state with a single ethnic basis seeks to identify its political boundaries with ethno-cultural ones. This kind of nation-states is typical, for example, for Central and of Eastern Europe(Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, etc.). A nation of civil origin has a non-ethnic (and in this sense cosmopolitan) ideology (mythology) as its starting point. This role can be played by: the idea of ​​popular sovereignty, "human rights", the communist worldview, etc. In any case, a nation of civil origin emphasizes the non-natural aspects of the national community, although it also implies the presence of such natural unifying moments as a common (state) language, common cultural and historical traditions, etc. The classical states formed from nations of civil origin were France and the United States. In the 20th century, such a type of nations of civil origin as "socialist nations" arose, many of which were composed of several ethnic communities (USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, etc.). Although the population of many nation-states of civil origin is multi-ethnic, this in itself does not mean that they are less cohesive compared to the population of mono-ethnic nation-states. ethnic background. However, as historical experience shows (in particular, the collapse of the "socialist nations"), the politics of large ethnic groups creates a potential or actual threat to the existence of civil nations.

As a result of the processes of modernization and globalization, the distinction of nation-states mentioned above is becoming more and more relative. On the one hand, none of the modern ethno-national states is completely mono-ethnic, and ethnic minorities existing or appearing in it are in no hurry to assimilate into the dominant (titular) ethnicity (nation). On the other hand, no nation-state of civil origin has ever been quite a "melting pot" for the ethnic characteristics of its citizens. The latter, expressing full loyalty to the national state and developing a cultural identity consistent with it, at the same time can retain important features of their ethnic origin (language, traditions), such as, for example, "Russian Armenians" in the Russian Federation or "American Chinese" in the USA . Taking into account the growing convergence of various types of nation-states, a number of common features can be distinguished for them:

Incomplete definition ↓

One of the most important principles of the organization of modern statehood, which arose as a result of the collapse of traditional social ties and a sharp increase in the mobility of the population in the process of developing commodity-capitalist relations. The nation-state as a political and legal reality arises from the need to clarify the traditional status of the state's subjects, who now, unlike foreigners, are subject to more stringent criteria of political loyalty, as well as civil rights and obligations defined by law. One of the most important functions of the nation state was the regulation of population migration. The principle of the nation-state is determined primarily by the system of international relations and is not only the realization of the desire of national movements to create their own statehood. This is the meaning of the international recognition of new states or, on the contrary, non-recognition of separatism and rebellious territories; this also explains the tough policy of rich countries in relation to poor migrants.

The real subject of the nation state can be two kinds of nations: ethnic and civil origin. The first type of nation is created by ethnicity, which gives such objective criteria of nationality as a common origin, a common language, a common religion, a common historical memory, a common cultural identity. Accordingly, a nation-state with a single ethnic basis seeks to identify its political boundaries with ethno-cultural ones. Such kind of national states are typical, for example, for Central and Eastern Europe (Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, etc.). A nation of civil origin has a non-ethnic (and in this sense cosmopolitan) ideology (mythology) as its starting point. This role can be played by: the idea of ​​popular sovereignty, "human rights", the communist worldview, etc. In any case, a nation of civil origin emphasizes the non-natural aspects of the national community, although it also implies the presence of such natural unifying moments as a common (state) language, common cultural and historical traditions, etc. The classical states formed from nations of civil origin were France and the United States. In the 20th century, such a type of nations of civil origin as "socialist nations" arose, many of which were composed of several ethnic communities (USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, etc.). Although the populations of many nation-states of civil origin are multi-ethnic, this does not in itself mean that they are less cohesive than the populations of nation-states of mono-ethnic origin. However, as historical experience shows (in particular, the collapse of the "socialist nations"), the politics of large ethnic groups creates a potential or actual threat to the existence of civil nations.

As a result of the processes of modernization and globalization, the distinction of nation-states mentioned above is becoming more and more relative. On the one hand, none of the modern ethno-national states is completely mono-ethnic, and ethnic minorities existing or appearing in it are in no hurry to assimilate into the dominant (titular) ethnicity (nation). On the other hand, no nation-state of civil origin has ever been quite a "melting pot" for the ethnic characteristics of its citizens. The latter, expressing full loyalty to the national state and developing a cultural identity consistent with it, at the same time can retain important features of their ethnic origin (language, traditions), such as, for example, "Russian Armenians" in the Russian Federation or "American Chinese" in the USA . Taking into account the growing convergence of various types of nation-states, a number of common features can be distinguished for them:

National language as a means of official communication;

The system of officially adopted national-state symbols (coat of arms, flag, etc.);

State monopoly on the legitimate use of violence and on taxation;

Rational-bureaucratic administration and common legislation for all;

Stable currency with national symbols;

Access to the labor market and social guarantees for "citizens" and corresponding restrictions for "non-citizens";

If possible, a unified education system;

Development and promotion of national-patriotic ideas and symbols.

a priority national interests in foreign policy.

A special type of state, characteristic of the modern world, in which the government has power over a certain territory, the majority of the population are citizens who feel themselves part of a single nation. Nation-states appeared in Europe, but in modern world they are distributed globally.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

nation state

nation-state), public.territ. an education that has the status of a state with appropriately drawn up borders (self-determination), and the people living in it are united in self-identification based on a common culture, history, race, religion and language and consider themselves a nation. N.g. forms a single and sovereign polit, community, authorities to-rogo majority of us. recognized as legitimate (legitimacy). Almost all state-va in order to nurture a sense of nat. participation use, although not always successfully, symbolism, rituals, shrines, educational system, means mass media and armed strength. N.g. are subject international law on the basis of mutual recognition and membership in the international. org-tions, for example. UN. However, after the collapse of the columns, the system of borders pl. state-in were carried out artificially, without regard to ethnic. and religions, idiosyncrasies, which led to the inevitable division of us. on the basis and minorities. In such formations, the likelihood of conflicts is very high.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓