Ethnocultural Associations as Political Actors. Part 2.

Abstract

At the turn of the 1980–1990s, a large number of various ethnic and ethnopolitical organizations emerged in Russia that were called upon to represent the interests of different ethnic groups. Many of them sought to become real political actors at the level of their regions, but only a few were able to significantly influence local governments and their decisions. This contributed to the crisis of ethnonational movements and organizations that began in the second half of the 1990s and saw a sharp fall in their public influence. Furthermore, many ethnopolitical associations actually ceased to exist. The article discusses the history of the formation of the three largest ethnopolitical associations of Russia — the Confederation of Peoples of the Caucasus (CPC), the Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East (RAIPON), the Association of Finno- Ugric Peoples (AFUP). It is indicated that the cooperation of ethnonational organizations and movements into broad associations had its own logic, which was associated with the limited political resource of regional organizations representing the interests of individual peoples, and with the need to strengthen the lobbying capabilities of ethnopolitical associations at both regional and national levels. It is shown that the three largest Russian ethnopolitical associations arose from different cultural foundations: linguistic, cultural-economic, regional, but they all sought to develop into some kind of alternative or parallel institutions of political representation. However, ethnic associations did not succeed in becoming influential political forces and only RAIPON has a certain political weight, since it has initially chosen the tactics of partnership with the legitimate authorities in the Center and in the Regions. In the North Caucasus, ethnic leaders failed to provide a real alternative to the Islamic idea and local political elites became the reason for the failure. As for the AFUP, the failure is connected to the obvious attempt of its ideologists to juxtapose ethnicity and citizenship and to the very decorative nature of the organization, which was originally organized as a political tribune, and not as an organization of action. But all three of these organizations are experiencing serious difficulties in their development and their continued existence as independent political actors is possible only if their lobbying capabilities and public importance are enhanced.