REPUBLIC OF DAGHESTAN: THNOPOLITICAL AND ETHNOSOCIAL SITUATION AND THE RECENT CONFLICTS
Abstract
Daghestan is a unique region of the Russian Federation: its past, culture, polyethnic and Poly confessional nature, climate and landscape, economic and demographic potential, as well as geostrategic and geographic location, set it apart from all the other regions of Russia.
Its specific nature and key role on Russia’s southern borders have made it a special constituent of the Russian Federation. By the beginning of the democratic changes, the Republic of Daghestan (RD) had accumulated a heavy load of ethnic contradictions and conflicts.
The Soviet policy of moving the highlanders down to the plains, which was carried out insistently and consistently, altered beyond repair the republic’s ethnic composition, which became even more varied and culturally diverse in the plains. Kumyks, Nogays, Chechen-Akkintsy, Azeris, and Russians, who formed compact ethnic groups, found themselves outnumbered by the newcomers (Avars, Darghins, Lakhs, and Lezghians). Tension between the old and new settlers and the latent conflicts between them were a natural result of the upturned balance.
The situation was aggravated by the high level of migration outside the republic (to other CIS countries and Russian regions), as well as inside the republic (from the mountains to the plains and back), which is typical of Daghestan and caused by the surplus (up to 25 percent) workforce. The republic has people living in it who have still not been rehabilitated or reinstated on their own territory: this applies to the Chechen-Akkintsy and a large number of mountain-dwellers moved to Chechnia by force in 1944 and returned to their original place of residence in 1957. The assimilation policy regarding smaller ethnic groups was equally harmful While the Soviet Union was falling apart and the socioeconomic system undergoing radical changes, numerous hitherto suppressed local conflicts flared up to create new zones of confrontation and tension. Private life became less comfortable socially and politically, which forced people to keep within their ethnic groups and form ethnic public movements.
They became part of the republic’s ethnopolitical context; more than that: they were more diverse than elsewhere: there were unitarian, separatist, ethno-confessional, nationalist, democratic, and other movements. Many of them consolidated on the ethno-corporate basis, a fact that spoke of politicized clans, tukhums, and social groups. All this created an ethnic paradox: internationalization of culture, on the one hand, and an obvious trend toward the national, on the other. The republic had 17 parties, 22 national and public political movements, 17 centers, and other associations.1
The movements formed with humanitarian, educational, and cultural centers, which set themselves the aim of reviving the local cultures, tongues, and traditions, betrayed a trend toward politics at a very early stage. Some of the local nations even went as far as falsifying their histories and distorting the past.
Downloads
References
See: K.M. Tsagolov, Dokladnaia zapiska pravitel’stvu RF, Tekushchiy arkhiv Minnatsinformvneshsviazi RD,Makhachkala, 1998, p. 5.
Ibidem.
See: Kongress narodov Daghestana, Makhachkala, 2000, p. 6.
See: K.M. Tsagolov, op. cit.
See: Respublika Daghestan: sovremennye problemy natsional’nykh otnosheniy, Makhachkala, 1995, pp. 48, 102.
Ibid., pp. 69-70.
Osnovy natsional’nykh i federativnykh otnosheniy. Textbook, ed. by R.G. Abdulatipov, Moscow, 2001, pp. 241, 243.
Ibidem.
See: Respublika Daghestan: sovremennye problemy natsional’nykh otnosheniy, p. 171.
See: Respublika Daghestan: sovremennye problemy natsional’nykh otnosheniy, p. 134.
Ibid., p. 46.
See: Tekushchiy arkhiv Minnatsinformvneshsviazi.
Sovremennoe sostoianie i perspektivy razvitia istoricheskoy nauki Daghestana i Severnogo Kavkaza, Makhachkala,1997, p. 9.
See: Problemy russkogo i russkoiazychnogo naselenia respubliki Daghestan, Makhachkala, 1996, p. 49.
See: Respublika Daghestan: sovremennye problemy natsional’nykh otnosheniy, p. 8.
Ibidem.
Ibid., p. 106.
See: Molodezh Daghestana, No. 46, 2004.
The authors’ calculations are based on the 1989 census data.
See: E.F. Kisriev, “Soprotivlenie sistemy politicheskikh institutov Daghestana protsessu sozdania edinogo pravovo-go prostranstva v Rossii,” in: Federalizm v Rossii, Kazan, 2001, pp. 123-143.
See: V interesakh narodov Daghestana, Machachkala, 2003, p. 3.
See: V.D. Dzidzoev, Kavkaz kontsa XX veka: tendentsii etnopoliticheskogo razvitia (istoriko-politicheskoe issle-dovanie), The Vladikavkaz Sceintific Center, RAS RSOA, Vladikavklaz, 2004, p. 146.
Daghestanskaia pravda, No. 333, 2006.
See: Chernovik, No. 46, 2006.
RVGK. Aktsenty TV program, 26 June, 2006.
RVGK Vesti Daghestana TV Program, 18 February, 2007.
See: Nezavisimaia gazeta, 17 January, 2007; Rossiiskaia gazeta, No. 244, 2006, Chernovik, No. 28, 2006.
See: Molodezh Daghestana, No. 38, 2006.
See: Novoe delo, No. 50, 2006.
Ibid., No. 4, 2007.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2007 Author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.