The problem of interethnic and interconfessional relations: Democracy as a method for their solution
Muratbek Imanaliev, exclusively for IPP
What is the basis for forming a constructive national government policy – spirituality, law or indeed economics, whose social and political expression is revealed by consumer communities created, or being created by other states?
National politics (a term worthy of definition in itself) is probably a function of a set of certain cultural, political, legal and economic guidelines founded upon a common system of values, supported by the majority in a polyethnic and polyconfessional population, and classified as universal in international practice.
Political-legal, socio-economic and cultural-humanitarian regimes descend from European philosophy, law, politics and economics over more than the last five hundred years, as well as the use of their development and implementation in European states. More recently many of these ideas were adopted in North America and are known today as Euro-Atlantic values and guidelines. The role of the Christian religion in their foundation, development and dissemination is undisputable.
On this tortuous and difficult path, the West has undergone several revolutions: English, American, French and Russian. It also underwent reformation, colonialism and two World wars before it reached two important peaks of democratic development:
1) The restriction of absolute power of one person or a family (dynasty) in Europe and
2) Consolidation of individual freedoms in North American, measured by the right to choose in a political–legal context, including in the ongoing work of democratic electoral systems, the political and public regulation of power change and the freedom to manage purchased property. In the end, the sovereignty of the individual has almost been equated with state sovereignty.
It is worth noting that in Europe and Central America racism and ethnocentrism as a ‘biopolitical’ hierarchy founding communities, have vanished as human rights and personal freedoms developed and strengthened. Today however, we observe a reformatting of the structures and ideas related to interracial and interethnic relations that will tend to protect from invasion rather than to justify colonial aggression. In this sense, Christianity is also facing complex processes.
Nowadays serious advances in this direction are evident in North America, Europe, and Russia, although in various countries and various regions they are forming and developing differently. These processes will have a fundamentally different logic for creating other legal, political and moral values.
Therefore one of the current global issues is the religious component of political and public state legal systems’ performance, which some modern philosophers and politicians equate with civilized identity. (Personally I do not have confidence in a civilized unity of, for example, Muslims in East Arabia and South-Eastern Asia, or in Europe and Central Asia. Multitudes of historical, cultural, political and other factors are working towards shaping different commonalities in civilizations with a common religious bias. Such diversity is present in other confessions and communities too. Religious identity is not always the brightest or the strongest core for individual and collective self-identification models).
The problem of inter-confessional confrontation lies in something different: in recognizing and accepting each other’s political-legal values when adaptation mechanisms are not available. The degree to which the individual has rights and freedoms is a function of the understanding of the rights and freedoms of ethnic minorities.
Our Socialist past was not completely negative: a lot of the achievements of USSR nations were related to the politics and activities of Soviet communists. However, it is worth recognizing that aligning people by rank and receiving goods by membership list led to the emergence of an unbridled nationalism that was strangely combined in some cases with servility, and we can se hang-ups from this even today in some Post- Soviet countries. Ranking by ethnic grounds has an obvious predetermined informal “citizenship”.
In a history of socialist states there were absolutely wild cases of “allocating people” into a certain nationality or ethnic group. I remember events of 1982 in Bulgaria when the party management of the country orchestrated a forced “bulgarization” of local Turks by issuing them with new passports with Bulgarian names, etc. Only the extreme discontent of local ethnic Turks, which threatened to grow into a serious interethnic conflict, and the decisive protests of Turkey and Western countries, forced Bulgarian communists to cancel the procedure of unlawful bureaucratic assimilation. There are many similar examples in the socialist past of our countries. These are lessons that we need to learn from and remember.
It is absolutely clear that along with retaining our own successful projects in the past it is necessary to admit our mistakes on the level of national consciousness ,and learn from others’ achievements by thoroughly and critically absorbing them. We need to study what is advanced and progressive in the world but not imitate or copy it. I will also emphasize another point: national culture and religion are not obstacles if they are not made into an ideological framework for chauvinism, nationalism, fascism, etc, including the complicated issue of interethnic and interconfessional relations.
Therefore I will let myself express a contradictory and a paradoxical thought (arguably). National and religious politics in Kyrgyzstan should be deconstructed in terms of ideology, nationalism and confessionalism. The goal of such politics is to consolidate people around the common values of various nations and their,rights and needs - not a hierarchical ranking of these people by ethnic, religious or some other value into ethnic closets. Therefore the very first objective of our politics is the construction and strengthening of a Kyrgyz national government.
It is known that the construction of a competitive state requires three essential elements:
1) socio-economic foundation;
2) A total package of cultural values and
3) behavioural parameters of national leaders.
The socio-economic foundation is, in my opinion, interpreted as an establishment of a national, or overall ethnic socio-economic space that is harmonically built into world economic ties. The socio-economic space is a national economic culture that, first of all, precludes earning money by begging.
Cultural values are not only financial and spiritual. There is first of all a culture of relations between people of different categories, but then there is a culture of obedience to law, which is sadly absent in Kyrgyzstan. Until the question “what is stronger in Kyrgyzstan - law or kinship? A law or a telephone call” is resolved in favor of a law, it makes no sense to talk about obedience to the law.
The behavioral parameters and stereotypes of leaders is the behavioral culture of elites, which we do not have in our country yet. Why leaders or elites? Because it is they who lead the people and not the other way around. I am not even talking about future generations and many other things related to non-material sphere of people’s lives.
In this range of “cultures” one of the most important is the culture of interethnic and interconfessional relations. I do not want to elaborate on this well-known issue for too long – I will only say that from my point of view, in order to achieve any of the above, we should start with the formation of the following:
1) The self-identification of citizens of the country;
2) The formation of a multi-ethnic elite that has common civic attributes
3) The creation of a common system of values.
Self-identification in general is not an easy process. What should come first? Ethnic, civil, economic or cultural self-identification? I think everything should be promoted.
Which is more important of the political, economic, intellectual, military and scientific elites? I think all of them are important.
In my view, the formation of a common national system of values should start from the only correct idea related to identification and elites. The idea is simple: a nation as a co-citizenship. Correspondingly everyone is responsible for one another regardless of their ethnic or religious background. In this sense, government is power and the space of co-citizenship; a country is the space of a common home.
Are we, living in Kyrgyzstan, capable of achieving the above? I think so, but on condition that we finally learn that the construction of these structures is only possible with the tough yet flexible and fair performance of democracy, and that we understand what democracy is. Democracy is a multidimensional value but not a commodity that can be bought and sold. Democracy is a way of life, the adoption of which it is necessary to struggle and to work hard for. It is not a front used to hide the true desires of functionaries and shadowy figures involved in political intrigues. Democracy is nothing more than slyness if one uses it as a game. If democracy is not “hobbled” and not regulated by LAW or MORALITY then it is something like ochlocracy. “A democracy of lawlessness and immorality” is a way to nowhere. Democracy without rights and truth will also go nowhere. Democracy assumes the presence of an ongoing dialogue between managers and those managed that is often complex in form and nature, but a dialogue nonetheless. In the end it is necessary to understand the essential meaning of democracy; that it is the only real instrument for achieving long-term success. Democracy should work in our country, with all our advantages and disadvantages, not because it is wanted in the West or in the East but because we need it. One should not confuse the politics of kinship with a democracy.
As a general rule, an ethnic minority tends to seem an outsider - but not always and not everywhere. For example, the whites in SAR, the Chinese in Malaysia, etc.
For the ethnic Kyrgyz people that received the status of a state-forming nation after gaining independence one question still remains: have we stopped being an ethnic minority in spirit and mind? In other words, have we stopped being outsiders? It is not about a number or a constitutional title but in our outlook and the nature of our actions.
A republic that used to be the eleventh state in the Soviet ranking system, and in this sense a national minority, the Kyrgyz ethnicity has all of a sudden become the first: The first according to the state Constitution, but not people’s real feelings and actions. What feelings and what changes have the top rank brought?
The intermediary elite of Kyrgyz ethnicity formed in Soviet times turned out not to be ready to provide adequate responses and actions.
The situation for the Kyrgyz is full of contradictions, inconsistencies and destructive mechanisms. It turned out that there are no self-identification mechanisms, except mythological ones.
A kind of primitive ethno-egoism relating to outsiders has suddenly found itself in a small and large politics with the use of the pronouns “we – they”. Moreover, this dichotomy became the subject of politics not only for the Kyrgyz, but also for the Russians, Uzbeks and others. “We are the chiefs and you live on our land” – this is the first slogan received from the hands of Moscow independence. “We? Where do we live?” – fearful slogans from new ethnic minorities have started to be heard. This became the beginning of a virtual, spiritual and mystical emigration of people of non-titular ethnicities. Many of them seemed to live in Kyrgyzstan but their soul was there, on their historical homeland, which was not too kind to them and in many cases manipulated circumstances in the interests of cynical politics. Later ethnically Kyrgyz people have also joined this process. Then the real migration started.
There is nothing chauvinistic or nationalistic in the fact that the Kyrgyz people want to build their own national state –many want this. But it is necessary to build it together with everyone living on this land – Kyrgyzstan is their homeland too. One must build it by helping national minorities to develop their culture, to speak their native language, etc. On the other hand, they are just as obliged to help the Kyrgyz to build this national state – as there is no other place for ethnic Kyrgyz people in this constructive context. It is the duty of ethnic Kyrgyz people to properly explain this goal to everyone. Everyone has a historical homeland, and it is here for Kyrgyz people. But Kyrgyzstan should become a true homeland for everyone without exception. This is a true mindset of democracy, and a democracy of prosperous mutual development.
How are we in Kyrgyzstan represented abroad? For example, people living in the US call themselves Americans regardless of the origin, in Canada – Canadians, in France – French, etc. Is such a title as a “Kyrgyzstani” in common use? I am afraid that it is not. A Kyrgyzstani person abroad says that he is ethnic Kyrgyz, Russian or Uzbek or calls himself Russian or Uzbek or in the best case they say “I am from Kyrgyzstan” but not “I am Kyrgyzstani”.
We citizens of Kyrgyzstan continue to divide ourselves into “us” and them”. “They want to throw us out”, “They do not want to speak Kyrgyz”, “They, they, they” – “We, we, we”. Do we even understand each other? That is yet another question.
The issue of ethnic minorities is not resolved in the legislative framework except in very short points in the state Constitution and a small number of legislative acts of indirect application. There are also international conventions and intergovernmental agreements. We need the serious development of a legal framework on this issue.
Equally, we need public agreements transforming into traditions and customs. In this context, the role of public figures and leaders - regardless of their ethnic background - is quite significant. They should become the driving force for the process of interethnic integration and interconfessional harmony, based on public agreements and public political education, in the process of establishing a Kyrgyz national civic space.
“They” should be within a country and not beyond its borders. “We” are here and “we” all are citizens of the country, which means we are its patriots.
The unhealthy attitude of ethnic Kyrgyz people to the requests of ethnic minotirites is a residual problem from the prolonged positioning of the Kyrgyz themselves as an ethnic minority, if not to say anything more complex and more offensive. That justifies radical shifts towards the requests of the Russian-speaking and Uzbek speaking populations, and as such the significance of the external factor is not minimized at all.
Staff and language. These issues are on the surface of interethnic relations. Deeper layers of these relations including the issue of developing ethnic mental unifying structures are yet to be studied.
Speaking about staff, the system of recruitment and the assignment of people to positions, inherited from former regimes, does not only infringe upon the rights and opportunities of representatives of ethnic minorities but the ethnic Kyrgyz themselves. I will demonstrate it through the following example: does Kyrgyzstan need people that have graduated from, let’s say, Harvard University, for public service? If a graduate has no support from “above”, then no. The staff recruited is not based on government needs but based on the needs of power holders, based on personal loyalty or “corrupt accounting”.
Therefore having recognized the weaknesses we should blame the Kyrgyz not of a “Kyrgyz-like” staff recruitment but of the fact that the Kyrgyz took the role of a government-forming ethnic unit and had failed (together with others) in the creation of a civilized system of state management.
When the government is criticized for the fact that state bodies do not have representatives of these or other ethnic minorities then the authorities usually put in a list of people taking certain state positions: he is Russian, that one is Korean, while this is a woman. But as paradoxal as the following thesis might sound, it only proves the failure of the human resources policy.
The issue of languages: In its essence, the pain and complexity of translating bureaucracy, economics, etc in government language is a politicized fuss between Kyrgyz politicians, and not the position of ethnic minorities.
As a matter of fact, the Kyrgyz themselves cannot deal with this issue, giving mostly insignificant and unsupported reasons. Therefore, this is more of an issue of interethnic tension and confrontation, which is broken down into many more components including city vs village, and not the resistance of ethnic groups. Therefore the development of a Kyrgyz language does not go further than “hyphen” reforms. It seems to me, that reform should start from reforming the alphabet: the phonetics of the Kyrgyz language, the sound range in it should correspond to a graphic image, i.e. letters. It is time to deal seriously with the principles and mechanisms of forming a modern vocabulary for the Kyrgyz language. It is necessary to strengthen the instrument of the expanding Kyrgyz informational space.
Russian language as the official one has a more international utilitarian meaning. There is no other language in Kyrgyzstan that can play the role of an “international liaison”. For now it is Russian. On the other hand, we should recognize (I understand that many will not agree) that Russian is a national cultural heritage of the Kyrgyz people as well as of other Central Asian cultures in the same way English or French became so in a number of Asian and African states.
I suppose it is possible to summarize the above as following: a real democracy does not put the interests of ethnic groups in a hierarchy, but makes an effort to bring their legal interests into a realm of titular ethnicity, and this is done together.
The expression of personal interests (ie. of an individual) through personal needs and personal goals, that in addition “intercommunicate” with interests of the society, are the essential social qualities of a human being, stimulating the unification of social, national and confessional characteristics being shaped and “educated” through interaction with people (individuals) and groups of people (collectives and communities).
An aggregate of rights and freedoms from the point of view of applying them - and being equally responsible for actions (in a legal, political and other aspects) - spread to all members of the community, represents both target structures (what it is necessary to achieve) and the system of mechanisms (of how one may achieve them) providing quality of life and the sustainability of ensuring rights and freedoms.
In this sense, civil self-identification can only be expressed through exercising real rights and freedoms (the identification of an individual with citizenship of the country - the legal aspect, and self-realization and self-identification of the individual as a permanent resident of the country – the social and humanitarian aspect, and the self-expression of an individual as a voter or a selectee - are political aspects).
The third entity in the “person – society – government” triad, the government, must realize that the process of civil self-identification is a fundamental factor for forming and cultivating the political, legal, ecological and cultural–humanitarian framework of the country (“internal force”). The underlying base of this is the “construction” of ethnicity as co-citizenship. As the practices of a number of states shows, the resources of the country may indeed be enhanced through nationalism if it is positive. However, if resources cultivated on nationalism are “monocultural” (neither comprehensive in function and goals nor polyethnic) then they will be prone to crisis and will end up being destroyed.
The self-identification of a person is directly related to his socialization, which, first of all, means adherence of the human being to a general national system of values (both traditional and modern).
In Kyrgyzstan, civic self-identification could be determined by three basic principles:
1. Through the idea that “All people living in Kyrgyzstan are citizens and compatriots of the country and not representatives of their historical homelands”. Ethnic self-identification of minorities, of course, foresees a certain historical-cultural and humanitarian connection with a historical homeland and in this sense “dual self-identification” does not particularly conflict with this on condition that it is not politicized or ideologized. That mainly depends on the activity of the government and civil society. Modern history gives a few examples of it;
2. Through the idea of civic equality: “ All people living in Kyrgyzstan have equal rights and equal opportunities for the fulfillment of individual interests”;
3. Through the idea of the government’s and civil society’s responsibility: “All people living in Kyrgyzstan have the right to demand the implementation of their needs from the government and civil society.”
