International Policy Fellowship

Draft Policy Study

Diversity Management and Concepts of Multiculturalism in Russia

Victoria Antonova

Background and Current Issue

Even after fifteen years of social, economic and political transformation in Russia, we have not met our aspirations on elimination of the so-called ‘national question’ in the country. Today the structures of the ‘national question’ and the reasons for ethnic tensions have been recently changed. From one hand, an existence of one’s multiple identity in contrast to a single identity known as ‘soviet people’ has become less questionable. However, from the other hand, the ways of accommodation of ethnic and cultural diversity have not been developed in a clear manner.

An urgent need for seeking the ways to manage diversity and to develop a more appropriate ethno-policy in Russia has been articulated in a number of official documents and programmes, including  the Programme for Promotion of Tolerance and Improving Interethnic Relations in Russia, sponsored by the European Union and a renewed Concept of the National Ethno-Policy of the Russian Federation developed by the group of the leading scholars of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences under the supervision of Valery Tishkov.  Recently, the concept of multiculturalism has been incorporated into the ethno-policy agenda. However, ethno-policy is not just a matter of terms and concepts, it is more a matter of  understanding, adopting and applying of the meaning of these concepts to real life in Russia. 

Comprehension of multiculturalism in Russia requires civil servants and bureaucrats to take and active part in promoting ethnic diversity in society and in developing public attitudes to diversity and multiculturalism. Being responsible for decision making and for implementation of the policies launched, civil servants have power to intensify and popularize policies, or on the contrary, to slow down them. What strategy they will choose depends on how they perceive and accept ‘nationality question’ and ethnic diversity personally and on professional basis.

As the Russian historical legacy has shown, granting different rights to different group of national and ethnic minorities would not be accepted in Russia as a fair outcome of the multicultural policy and would probably lead to the rise of tensions between the Russian majority and non-Russian groups as well as within the minority groups themselves.  Moreover, it is simply impossible to correctly put the majority of the non-Russian population of the Russian Federation into the boxes of national or ethnic minorities. For example, how would one attribute minorities from the so-called ‘internal diasporas’, such as Tatars, Bashkirs, and Chivash,  who have their own ‘titular republic’ within the Russian Federation but who live outside of it?  Similarly, how would one refer to the Russians who live in the autonomous republics within Russia? Is it appropriate to consider these people to be immigrants? Or are they more likely to be national minorities? Depending on the tremendous diversity and complexity of cultures living together within Russia’s territory  and sometimes on the historical pre-conditions of their contemporary status, it is sort of dangerous to draw a line between ‘hosts’ and ‘guests’ in Russia.

Therefore, multiculturalism taken as a ‘normative response to the fact of diversity’ explains what civil servants do with this fact while designing and launching ethno-policy.  Hence, the main principles of multiculturalism, such as equal opportunities for all citizens, social inclusion, and understanding and respect of ethnic and cultural diversity ought to fit the Russia’s social and political reality in order to become the basis for ethno-policy developed in the country.

Society where multiculturalism is accepted and run as an option for ethno-policy  can be described as ‘a polity in which every individual receives equitable recognition of the identity both as a citizen, and as a member of a particular faith, ethnic group, or other cultural community’ (Tyler, 2004: 20). It is quite clear  that certain actions must be taken by the state in order to make all the members of the society  feel equally valued and recognized. In a similar manner, the necessity of a state’s intervention can be derived from one more observation of the multicultural society presented by Raz (1994). The three strengths of a multicultural society highlighted by Raz were as follows:

-         the life of most cultural groups instantiates ‘true values’ and a valuable way of life. A multicultural society  allows a plurality of valuable cultures to co-exist with the minimum tension;

-         a multicultural society is more likely to provide individuals with opportunities to escape groups that  repress some ‘important aspects of one’s nature’, such as sexual orientation;

-         it should not be forgotten that some people are so tightly entwined in their original culture hat they could not leave it without being psychologically crippled (Raz, 1994: 183; 185; 178-80).

Based on the evidence from the interviews with the regional civil servants from Perm and Saratov this paper gives a brief description of conceptualization of multiculturalism in Russia’s regions and offers some explanations to the lack of multicultural policies in Russia.

Civil Servants Personal Attitudes Impact on Conceptualizing

of Multiculturalism

As the research has shown, a big load of problems related to the demise of the Soviet Union as such, to its consequences not only for the Russians but for all the other nationalities, as well as the unresolved question of the ethnicity-based federation have had an impact on the respondents’ personal attitudes to diversity, multiculturalism and  the ‘nationality question’. As it could be observed, for the interviewees from the regions the historical legacy along with the personal experiences of a negative and insulted nature have rather often  dominated in the opinions on the ‘nationality question’ in the regions.  All the issues mentioned above might be also seen as serious obstacles on the way to the ‘Russian multiculturalism’ within the civil service in the regions studied.

Civil Servants Professional Views Impact on Conceptualizing

of Multiculturalism

As the interviews have shown, the civil servants from the both Perm and the Saratov region are not ready at the moment to absorb the ‘beauty of multiculturalism’ in terms of a more deeper understanding and respect for the particularity and universality of different nationalities. However, the main reason for that might be arguably seen in the fact that most of the respondents were not familiar with the multicultural approach to the solution of the nationality question. Or, in other words, they have never specifically thought about the feeling of ‘one united people’ of the USSR, or about the presence of a number of the minority nationality schools in the country, or about the literature, the art and music of non-Russian nationalities being taught as a piece of the Russian heritage in every ordinary school in Russia, or about any other the attributes of multiculturalism. These attributes, except for the ‘Soviet people’ feeling shared by all the nationalities,  have been interwoven into the life of the people of Russia at the every-day basis, and hence have been taken for granted, but under the name of ‘internationalism’, not of ‘multiculturalism’.

It is also important to recognize, based on evidence from the data collected, that the attitudes and values of the senior civil servants in two Russian regions toward ethnic diversity determine the way the relations between the civil service institution and national minority groups are being developed. In its turn this makes the ethnic dimension of social, political and economic relations in the regions more or less visible depending on what strategy is chosen by the authorities to manage regional diversity.

Currently, as the interviews have revealed, it is more likely that the civil service as a social institution would prefer to stick to the old-fashioned assimilation approach to the NQ, given that the majority of the senior civil servants were in favour of not emphasizing cultural differences and concealing them rather than trying to learn from the multicultural policy, which within the multicultural community celebrates incorporation not as inclusion per se, but as the achievement of diversity.

The most commonly expressed opinion of the Russian civil servants has described diversity and therefore multiculturalism as a problem, rather than a response. On the conceptual level, the respondents from the Russian regions have on average referred to multiculturalism in its descriptive usage and less frequently in its ‘norms and ideology’ usage.  A more or less positive meaning of diversity and multiculturalism has been attributed to the first approach. At the same time, the second, more analytical approach to multiculturalism has been seen as making a destructive impact on good inter-ethnic relations in Russia. It has not been perceived either personally or professionally as a competitor to the well-known and already tested option of assimilation.

Does The ‘National Question’ Influence The Civil Service in Russia?

In summary, it can be inferred that there are a number of factors which the respondents from Perm and Saratov have considered to be the main reasons for the lack of the ethnic minorities among the senior civil service in the regions in Russia.

Among them the following might be pointed out as most influential:

-         the Russians’ domination in the regions;

-         the reluctance of the minorities to apply for civil service vacancies;

-         the lack of vacancies in many departments;

-         the ‘unofficial’ taboo regarding minority members within the senior civil service;

-         the lack of trust in minority leaders as a civil servants;

-         the non-transparent and unfair selection and appointment process;

-         the corruption of the administrative system;

-         the traditional ‘non-occupation’ of civil service posts by minorities.

         These reasons could probably be systematized into certain categories depending on what social, administrative, or ideological basis underlies them. I suggest the following categories:

-         the reasons depending on the common values and norms of the respondents rooted in the Soviet legacy;

-         the reasons depending on the authoritarian administrative system;

-         the reasons depending on social disparity;

-         the reason depending on the primacy of the ideological purpose of ethnic relations.

     Thus, these reasons might be considered to be as social, administrative,

or ideological barriers for the potential adoption of multiculturalism in the Russian civil service. In other words, the declared conformity of the civil servants in Russia to the idea of the equality of all the nationalities is not supported by a lot of evidence in real life and actually have turned out to be an obstacle on the road to a ‘Russian multiculturalism’ in the civil service.

Does Multiculturalism Fit the Civil Service in Russia?

One of the main goals of the current project was to find out, based on the empirical data, whether the civil servants in the regions in Russia were ready to incorporate multiculturalism into the civil service. I order to do that the following approaches have been made . Given that in the Russian context the term ‘nationality question’ was used instead of ‘multiculturalism’ and that the respondents generally spoke about different nationalities when addressing the ethnic diversity of the regions, this goal might be considered in the two following ways. First of all it can be suggested that ‘to be ready for multiculturalism in the civil service’ would have meant to my respondents something close to – would they welcome the idea to have a diverse civil service, based on the principles of multiculturalism, such as equal opportunity, social inclusion, understanding and respect for ethnic diversity. Second, it is possible to  assume that their willingness to adopt multiculturalism could also be based on the long-term outcomes, which they might have expected from a diverse civil service in the regions.

Summing up the views and opinions of the Russian civil servants, it is important to  point out what the main outcomes would be, from the respondents’ point of view, if the regional civil service happened to be ethnically diverse. All in all they show that ethnic diversity and multiculturalism with its principles nowadays are not likely to fit the civil service in Russia and gain some significant support from the current civil servants. Among the most impressive and sometimes rather controversial results of a possible multicultural civil service in Russia are the following:

-         the decrease/increase of the public’s trust in the civil service institution and the regional government;

-         the increase of negative attitudes and stereotyping towards ethnic minorities;

-         the supposition that minority civil servants will carry out a sort of ‘ethnic expansion’ within the civil service and will flood the civil service institution with members of their own ethnic groups;

-         the supposition that the interests of the Russian population will be infringed;

-         the supposition that social and ethnic circumstances in the regions will deteriorate;

-         the supposition that uncontrolled lobbying of the explicit and implicit interests of the minorities will begin.

-          

Assessment of the ‘Russian Multiculturalism’ Alternatives  and Some Strategies to Action

One of the fundamental findings of the present study is that at the moment the civil service in Russia is not ready to adopt multiculturalism in its norms, practices and values.

At the same time, this has given us the evidence, that the civil servants in the regions in Russia are not satisfied with the principles the appointment process is built on and with the practice of exploiting the painful and complicated ‘nationality question’ just as an effective ad-hoc tool in the pre-election period.  A deep understanding and great concern upon the lack of the relevant ideology and policy which would make all the people regardless of their nationality and ethnicity feeling equally valued and recognized within society, has been articulated in the  majority of the interviews with the civil servants in the Perm and Saratov regions.

This finding makes us think that some strategy could be suggested in order to make changes in the existing approaches to the solution of the ‘nationality question’ in the civil service and in the Russian society as a whole and therefore to make the adoption of the kind of  the ‘Russian multiculturalism more feasible.

Among the main aims of this strategy, the following positions could be mentioned. First, it would seek to prepare the multinational population of the Russian Federation to think about the spectrum of the existing nationalities, including the Russian majority, and about the state response to ethnic diversity,  in a way quite different from the primordial,  and assimilationist approach of ‘soviet internationalism’.  This kind of enlightenment stage of the strategy proposed seems to be the most important and time-consuming, as any change in the way of thinking usually takes a lot of time and has to be incremental. However, in this particular case of the adoption of multiculturalism in the Russian civil service, the process of educating the civil servants about ethnic diversity and multiculturalism could not be skipped, as the vacuum in their heads and minds on the issue of the ‘nationality question’ resolution within the civil service and in Russia as a whole has to be filled up. The fact that the national strategy in the field of inter-ethnic relations and the nationality policy has been missing in the country since the beginning of the 1990s makes it clear that neither federal, nor regional governments have yet tried to create a workable policy in order to accommodate ethnic diversity within the civil service system. Thus, an enlightenment and education, which is promoting the main principles of  multiculturalism, such as social justice, equal opportunity and respect for all the nationalities would be the first step of the strategy proposed in democratic Russia. Evidently, it would call for the working out of new courses in the universities curricular, which would build diversity awareness among the civil servant and develop their professional and personal diversity competence.

After the first step of the strategy is fulfilled and the attitudes of the civil servants to ethic minorities and the ‘nationality question’ is changed in direction to valuing of and respect for ethnic diversity, the next step might be taken with regard to the second aim of the strategy suggested.   This aim assumes that the strategy would seek to adjust the policy of multiculturalism to the Russian context,  in order to make it more suitable for the Russian circumstances and more functional.

Even though the data of the study explains that multiculturalism can not be invented directly as an option of nationality policy, the same empirical data provides us with the evidence that after some corrections  it still may be helpful for initiating and developing the ‘Russian multiculturalism’ within the civil service in the regions . Based on the evidence from the present research,  it is possible to suggest the introduction of the ‘Russian multiculturalism’ as a policy, which will stand for acknowledgment  of variations rather than diversity of cultures. These variations are familiar to the current population from the past Soviet times, when they were celebrating the friendship and flourishing of the fifteen Soviet republics with their titular nationalities. At first glance, the variations of cultures do not  underline their differences, but seek to describe their variety and richness. Second, the belief that all cultural segments merit equal value used to be also rather well known even only from the declared soviet ideology of the ‘united soviet nation’. Hence, the belief that all cultural variations can be presented on the fair competitive basis within the regional civil service may also become one of the main points of multiculturalism in Russia. Third,  the ‘Russian multiculturalism’ should be seen as open to further development and flexible policy, rather than a fixed one, similar to the dogmatic ideal of the ‘internationalism’ of the Soviet times. As the pure ideological component is replaced in multiculturalism with the business and moral rationale,  therefore, it would arguably work out for all  cultural variations presented in the regions – for the Russians, for ethnic minorities residing in the regions for a long time, as well as for  newcomers, as economic migrants from the republics of the former USSR.  Trying to meet the needs of majority and minority groups alike, the ‘Russian multiculturalism’ needs to call for adjustment of the claims and aspirations from both ethnic minority and Russian majority. However, all the potential adjustments have to be done in conformity with the main principles of multiculturalism. 

Another alteration multiculturalism would arguably undergo to become more relevant for the Russian case, would include the change of the main foundation for the principle of social inclusion. The generally declared civil rights for all the citizens of Russia regardless of one’s nationality and ethnic origin, and the prohibition of the discrimination stated in the Constitution of the Russian Federation and in a number of the federal acts, have been widely violated and thus could not be considered as the main rationale of the social inclusion of all the nationalities in the society’s life in Russia. As the present study has shown, it is more likely that in the case of Russia the existence of a number of similar unresolved issues of social and economic nature could serve as a basis for social inclusion, because the vast majority of the respondents have seen the need to overcome these problems together as the uniting factor for all the nationalities in the country. 

One more correction has to be made in order to adjust multiculturalism to the Russian context. As the interviews have observed, the civil servants from Russia are not in favour of  implementing affirmative actions and quotas as the attempts to resolve the ‘nationality question’.  As the Soviet and the Russian history testifies,  the issue of power sharing and equal participation in decision making has always been the main stumbling-block for the more broad  representation of ethnic minorities within the civil service and the government. Thus, the principle of equal opportunity in the Russian context would arguably mean first of all equal opportunity for all the nationalities to enter the senior civil service positions and to equally participate in decision making.

This principle would probably appear to be one of the most controversial for the civil servants and hard to agree with. But at the same time, based on the finding of this study, for the non-Russian nationalities it would mean not only gaining access to resources. It would also mean that if they equally participate in decision making , they would also share the  responsibility for the outcomes of the decisions made. From the one hand, according to the conventional wisdom the presence of a greater number of the minority representatives would probably make an impression that the Russian ruling majority is getting weaker. But if the power sharing and fair representation of the minorities in the civil service and in the regional government has been the result of social inclusion and a transparent appointment process, based on the principle of equal opportunity for all the citizens, then it is more likely that Russians and non-Russians would try to find the best solution to the issues they face together without blaming each other for the selfish motivation and aggressive lobbying. On the other hand, being fairly appointed, according to the professional and educational characteristics, ethnic minority civil servant  would arguably strengthen the confidence in the regional government and in the civil service as social and political institution. 

All the alterations to the policy of multiculturalism described above justify the preventive nature of the ‘Russian multiculturalism’, which might be based on the modified principles of respect for the variations of cultures, equal opportunity and social inclusion.  Therefore, the Russian kind of multiculturalism can be recognized as an ‘introductory policy’, aiming to prepare civil servants and the population in the region to understand, recognize, value, respect and manage the variations of cultures. This policy may be seen as a transition from the ‘internationalism’ to some new national policy, which has yet to be worked out.  Being a proactive, rather than a reactive policy, the ‘Russian multiculturalism’ would serve as the mitigating factor in dealing with the sensitive and still scary for the majority of the civil servants the ‘nationality question’ in Russia. This proactive character of the ‘Russian multiculturalism’ is exactly the specific feature, which makes it different from rather  reactive multiculturalisms from abroad. 

As one more important specific feature of the Russian approach to multiculturalism the following aspect has to be mentioned based on the evidence given in the interviews. In order to be adopted appropriately as a policy within the civil service,  multiculturalism fist has to be stabilized and fixed in the Russian society as its descriptive characteristics, and next  it has to be developed and accepted as an ideology and norms to live with. These three different concepts of multiculturalism if being  realized one after another would make it possible for the ‘Russian multiculturalism’ to appear as a successful and appropriate policy not only within the civil service, but within society as a whole.

 
Back to my Home Page