Strategic priorities and forms of the applying ethnopolitics in the Arctic areas of the Russian Federation

In multiethnic Russia, throughout its historical development, the ethnic issue was one of the vital problems. As a rule, interethnic relations exacerbated during fundamental social transformation and weakening of the central government. The politicization of ethnicity was typical for the revolutionary events of 1917 and again manifested itself in the 1990s. On the one hand, the

^∗ For citation:

actualization of the ethnic issue conditioned the historically established model of interaction between the center and territories on the principles of centralization.

On the other hand, it is a consequence of the socio-economic crisis, ethnic inequality, miscalculations and mistakes of the ethnopolitics. On the third, it is due to a subjective component, namely, the desire of ethnopolitical leaders to expand their power and possession of resources, especially in regions with significant economic potential. At times, the national intelligentsia unwittingly makes its contribution to the mobilization of ethnicity, which systematically actualizes the preserving and reviving the culture of the ancestors. In the modern world, global trends, in particular, the expansion of cross-border relations, the intensification of migration processes and intercultural contacts, are a powerful tool for interethnic conflicts and contradictions. The interaction of peoples with significant differences in behavior patterns and worldviews carries the threat of worsening of interethnic relations and xenophobic attitudes.

In the political practice of the Arctic region, the ethnic component is determined by a combination of external and internal factors, global, national, regional and local trends. The ethnocultural landscape of the Arctic region is represented by almost all the peoples of Russia, residents of neighboring countries, the Asia-Pacific region, and Europe (especially it's Northern part). Here there is a significant representation of autochthonous ethnic groups, as evidenced by the constitutional and legal status of territorial entities. Note that 6 out of 9 Arctic territories of Russia are created considering the ethnic component: The Republic of Karelia, the Komi Republic and the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Nenets, Yamal-Nenets and Chukotka Autonomous Districts. The Arctic is the territory of Karelians, Komi, Yakuts, and other smaller indigenous peoples. 18 of the 47 indigenous peoples of Russia live there: Veps, Dolgan, Kerek, Kets, Mansi, Nganasans, Nenets, Saami, Selkup, Khanty, Chuvan, Chukchi, Chulym, Evenki, Evens, Enets, Eskimos, and Yukagurs. Environmental factors should include the actualization of the problem of ensuring the rights and guarantees of the indigenous peoples of the world by the world community. In particular, the Convention of the International Labor Organization No. 169 of June 27, 1989 “On Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries” initiated the rejection of the assimilation policy concerning these peoples. Indigenous peoples were recognized with fundamental human rights and freedoms, incl. the independent choice of priorities for economic and cultural development.1

In the context of global trends to prevent environmental catastrophes, the destruction of traditional areas by the industrial development of the Arctic, the issues of indigenous peoples, and their rights and freedoms became a priority in the activities of regional organizations — the Arctic Council and the Barents Euro-Arctic Region.

Attempts to comprehend the deep foundations of ethnicity, the origins and laws of ethnic and cultural development, intercultural interaction and the development of effective models of ethnonational state politics have caused a considerable array of research on the problem. A long research tradition has a conceptual justification for the main categories of ethnopolitics. In particular, the subject of sharp scientific discussions is the interpretation of the concepts of “ethnos” and “nation”, which are interpreted oppositely by supporters of primordialism and instrumentalconstructivist approach [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. A significant body of scientific literature is devoted to the analysis of state mechanisms for settling relations with specific objects of national policy: indigenous and small indigenous peoples of the country, migrants, etc. [6, 7]. In recent years, the ethnic policy of modern Russia has become the object of scientific attention [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13].

A severe methodological base for the study of ethnopolitical processes was formed abroad (the concept of “ethnopolitics” in foreign studies is synonymous with the concept of “national policy” in Soviet/Russian science). A small number of foreign studies is devoted to the analysis of ethnopolitical processes in the post-Soviet space since they were mainly studied in the context of the political system of Russia. Moreover, since the end of the 1950s, leading foreign universities got specialized centers of “Russian” (“Slavic”) research². It was their scientific developments that formed the basis of the foreign historiography of the ethnopolitics of the Russian Federation.

The idea of the ethnopolitics of Russia as neo-imperialist was and remained the dominant concept in foreign historiography. According to supporters of this approach, imperialistic tendencies in Russian politics are manifested in relations with post-Soviet states, as well as in relationships of the federal government of the Russian Federation with its non-Russian population [14, 15]. The manifestation of neo-imperialism is considered to be Russia's leading role in resolving inter-ethnic conflicts in the post-Soviet space and concern for compatriots who find themselves abroad after the collapse of the USSR, who constitute, according to researchers, the “fifth column” of Russia abroad [16]. However, the neo-imperialistic approach to the study of Russian ethnopolitics is criticized by several foreign researchers. They convincingly argue that many conflicts that took place in Russia and the post-Soviet space in the 1990s did not have an ethnic political nature but reflected a clash of interests of regional elites and the Russian authorities never sought to mobilize Russians abroad [17].

In general, among the advantages of foreign historiography of ethnopolitics of Russia, it is possible to mention the extensive use of comparative and interdisciplinary research methods. Among the shortcomings is the use of the “imperial mentality” axioms of ethnic Russians and “double standards” in the study of various ethnic groups of Russia. It is important to note that in the conditions of modern societies that formed in the post-Soviet space, with their inherent high level of interethnic tension, the study of ethnic political processes, in addition to the increment of theoretical knowledge, has a pronounced practical significance. It consists of the elaboration of a state national policy adequate to the external and internal challenges facing Russia; politicians able to ensure sustainable development, peace and inter-ethnic harmony.

The regional section of historiography is represented by an array of ethnographic works on the analysis of the origins of ethnicity and the culture of small indigenous peoples. In recent years, attempts to comprehend ethnic-social processes and inter-ethnic relations in the Arctic territories of the Russian Federation [18, 19, 20, 21] have intensified. The legal and political foundations of federal and local legislation are subjected to analysis in a comparative context [22]. Scientific achievements are visible in the study of the ethnopolitics of the Arctic territories and its implementation [23, 24].

However, the territorial limits of studies performed, as a rule, by the example of specific subjects or a group of territories, actualizes a holistic vision and understanding of local models of ethnonational politics, their evolution in the post-Soviet period of Russian history. Without pretending to complete coverage within the article, we will try to identify the features of the formation and implementation of the ethnonational policy of the Arctic subjects of the Russian Federation in the post-Soviet period.

The theoretical basis of the study is a synthesis of the achievements of primordial and constructivist approaches. The detailed author's substantiation of the methodological approach and the essence of the concepts of “ethnos” and “nation” in the work of А.М. Maximov and F.Kh. Sokolova [25, p. 136]. In our opinion, the combination of two research paradigms in the analysis of ethnicity is due to its multidimensionality. In this sense, interdisciplinarity does not turn existing approaches into eclectics but tends to their mutual enrichment.

The source of the research is the charters of the national-territorial formations of the Arctic Russia, strategies and concepts of ethnic policy, which define the local priorities of ethnopolitics, legal norms, organizational, managerial and financial mechanisms for their implementation. The degree of the local effectiveness of settling interethnic relations was revealed as a comparison of plans and reports on the implementation of ethnic policy strategies. We used data from sociological studies carried out by independent organizations to identify the level of international tensions.

According to the Decree of the RF President of May 2, 2014 No. 296, the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation consists of the area of the four Arctic territories of Russia (the Murmansk Oblast, the Nenets, the Chukotka and the Yamal-Nenets autonomous districts), partly Arctic areas of the Arkhangelsk Oblast, the Krasnoyarsk Territory, the Komi Republic and the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), and number of islands located in the Arctic Ocean3. In 2017, by the amendments made to the decree, the list of land areas was supplemented by three municipalities of the Republic of Karelia4. In the context of the importance of an integrated approach to the study of the problem, it seems illegal to draw demarcation lines within the Arctic territories of the Russian Federation, which are integral subsystems where the policies and practices of the municipal and territorial levels are closely interrelated and interdependent. In this regard, the area of the study will be expanded to 9 Arctic territories of the Russian Federation.

Ethnic politics of the Arctic territories of Russia in the 1990s

As of January 1, 2018, the total population of the Arctic territories of the Russian Federation was 7,800 thousand people⁵; it is 23% less than in 1989⁶. Among the leading ethnic-social tendencies should be noted: negative migration balance, the intensity of migration exchange, due to the widespread use of shift work methods, positive demographic dynamics — mainly among the Yakuts and the indigenous peoples of the Arctic. As a result of the indicated processes, the ethnonational structure of the population significantly changed during the period under study. In particular, the total number of Russians decreased by 23.2%, their share among the population as a whole in the Russian Arctic decreased from 77.5% to 75.8%, which is 5.1% lower than the average Russian values. In the Chukotka Autonomous Region and the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), they already make up less than 50% of the population: 49.6% and 36.9%, respectively. In Nenets and Yamal-Nenets, the Komi Republic, the proportion of Russians barely exceeds 60%. Among the emerging trends is a significant increase in the proportion of indigenous peoples in the territories of their traditional residence. In the Nenets and Yamal-Nenets autonomous districts, the share of the Nenets increased by 5.9% and by 1.3%, respectively, and amounted to 17.8% and 5.7% of the population of the territory. In their historic homeland, the proportion of the Chukchi increased from 7.6% to 25.3%. In Yakutia, the percentage of Yakuts, Evens, and Evens among the population increased by 16.6% and reached 52.5% [26, pp. 160 – 161].

It should be noted that both demographic and non-demographic factors provided the growth dynamics of the indigenous peoples of the Arctic. Among them: a higher birth rate with a specific decrease in the mortality rate, the acceleration of the processes of ethnic identity, socioeconomic considerations, when against the background of state-adopted regulations on the guarantees of the rights of indigenous minorities, it became advantageous to belong to these ethnic groups.

During the study period, there was a tendency of migration outflow of immigrants from the European part of the post-Soviet space (Ukrainians, Belarusians, Moldovans) and former autonomous republics (Tatars, Bashkirs, Chuvash, etc.). Their numbers decreased by 3.5 and 1.5 times, respectively. At the same time, the representation of immigrants from several former Central Asian and Transcaucasian republics (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan) increased by 1.5–4 times. Dynamically developing regions are especially attractive for them: the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous District, the Krasnoyarsk Territory, the Sakha Republic (Yakutiya), although their growth is observed in almost all Arctic territories [26, p. 161]. As in the whole country, the national policy of the Arctic area evolved. Conventionally, it can be divided into three periods. The first stage comes in the 1990s when in conditions of radical social transformations in the Arctic territories the processes of ethnic mobilization and ethnopolitical self-determination prevailed. Federal laws of October 6, 1999 "On the general principles of the organization of legislative (representative) and executive bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation" and of May 7, 2002 "On amending the Federal Law" On general principles of the organization of legislative (representative) and executive bodies of state power of the subjects of the Russian Federation ” established the principle of unity of state power. The emphasis shifted towards ethnocultural self-determination and development7. In 2012, the adoption of the “Strategy of the state national policy of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2025” launched a new period.8 Its characteristic feature is the beginning of the integration of ethnopolitics of the Arctic into the logic of the Russian civic nation based on ethnocultural diversity.

Against the background of the collapse of the USSR and the “parade of sovereignties” in the 1990s, in the Arctic territories, the ethnic self-organization and ethnopolitical selfdetermination intensified. Ethnocentric ideologies that were often cultivated by the regional authorities themselves to gain more political independence or to receive additional federal subsidies became widespread.

Inter-ethnic tensions were often fueled by indigenous peoples from foreign countries, who called on their relatives for ethnic consolidation and the joint struggle for their rights. At first glance, the seemingly innocent and natural processes of ethnic consolidation and expansion of international cooperation of nations in conditions of weak interregional coordination and consolidation of efforts of Arctic territories for the joint regulation of interethnic relations, the cultivation of ideas of interethnic differences in the country, concealed the threat of disintegration processes in country and region.

A potential increase in tension in relations between small indigenous peoples and other ethnic and social groups, which, against the background of privileges and preferences for ethnic minorities, have been disadvantaged in their rights, was a potential conflict factor. Evidence of this is the effective dissemination of the Pomor theme in the 1990s, attempts to achieve the status of indigenous minorities for them. The statement of Shabayev Yu.P. that the short-sighted federal policy, namely the ban on the occupation of the maritime industry for the Pomors, the sharp restriction on fishing quotas, unlike the ethnic groups that received the status of “indigenous small peoples,” aggravated their economic situation and exacerbated inter-ethnic tensions. [13, p. 4344]. The socio-economic crisis, aggravated in the predominantly subsidized Arctic regions against the background of the transition to a market economy, harbored the potential for an increase in interethnic tensions. It is true that I.V. Karabash, that “interethnic tensions imply competition and ethnic conflicts for various resources and domination of ethnic elites in a particular socio-cultural environment” [27, p. 154].

In the 1990s — early 2000s, in the Arctic, the subject matter of competence and the powers of the regions were determined, a vision was formed on the political, economic, and cultural development of the peoples living there. The identified aspects are reflected in the fundamental laws (charters and constitutions) of the northern circumpolar areas, which generally indicate the desire of the local elites to contribute to the development of ethnic groups within the country's integrity.

Somewhat dissonant in this regard, the Fundamental Law of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), 2002, indicated that the Republic transfers a part of the rights belonging to it voluntarily and due to federal and other treaties, for a certain period, to the authorities of the Russian Federation. The Republic retains the right to self-determination in the free will of the people. According to the document, the Republic retained the right to raise the issue of suspending or revoking federal laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation in the event that they violate a federal or other agreement, or are adopted in violation of powers and objects the conduct of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). In line with the primordial interpretations of the nation as an ethnos that dominated the country and reached the highest stage of development, such formulations allowed the republic’s ethnopolitical leaders to declare their right to secede from the Russian Federation subsequently. At the same time, The Republic keeps the right to secession from the Russian Federation, and it also planned to suppress any attempt to assassinate its territorial integrity strictly. Article 4.2. of the Fundamental Law secures the prosecution for the violent overthrow of the constitutional system and the violation of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia)9.

In this context, the idea expressed by L.A. Musayelyan is quite applicable to the analysis of the ethnopolitical situation. He wrote that by the end of perestroika the political and economic elite of the national republics of the USSR actively exploited the Marxist principle of the right of nations to political self-determination, but after the collapse of the country, they “categorically denied this right to other peoples who once were in the will of the authorities” [10, p. 36]. Experts of the Center for the Study of National Conflict noted that in Yakutia in the 1990s ethnic conflicts took place, the formation of local ethnocracies and the squeezing of the Russian population was observed, and many decisions were made through the prism of interethnic relations10.

Due to the fact that the Arctic is the territory of predominant residence of small indigenous peoples (their proportion among the Arctic population of Russia exceeds 4%, and in a number of territories reaches 10-25%), in the charter documents special attention was paid to protecting their rights and interests [28, p. 58]. In turn, in the charter of the Arkhangelsk Oblast, an application was made for obtaining the status of indigenous minority for Pomors. It was noted that on the territory of the area “the traditions of the Russian Pomors are kept and supported.”11

In the 1990s, the conceptual vision of the ethnic policy was documented only in several Arctic territories of Russia: The Republics of Komi and Sakha (Yakutia), the Krasnoyarsk Territory.

The Arctic territories with republican status prioritized their federal policy priorities in the field of ethnic politics. The Komi Republic approved its concept of ethnic policy two months ahead of Moscow12, and the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) — in 199513. Both documents are identical in terms of recognizing the need to achieve civil peace and interethnic harmony on the territories of their republics. They recognized the rights of individuals to free ethnic self-determination and the satisfaction of interests and requests related to ethnic identity. However, in the Concept of the national policy of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) 1995, long before the introduction of the “Russian nation” concept to designate the multiethnic people of the Russian Federation (see the Strategy of the National Policy of the Russian Federation 2012), the term “Yakutyans” appeared. It was used by local leaders to call the multiethnic community of the Republic, actualizing thereby the problem of the civic consolidation of the peoples of the Republic and the formation of local identity. The recognition of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), respect for the history, traditions, culture, language and national dignity of the peoples of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) are among the fundamental principles of ethnic policy.

The concept of the ethnic policy of the Krasnoyarsk Territory was adopted by the Legislative Assembly on January 21, 1999. The main provisions of the document generally correspond to the provisions of the Concept of the state national policy of the Russian Federation, 1996. At the same time, as the centrifugal tendencies in the country intensified, the document made a special emphasis on the need to preserve the “territorial integrity and the centuries-old multi-ethnic unity of Russia and the area”. It is noteworthy that in the context of a surge of ethnicity and accusations against the Russians, who allegedly imposed their culture on other peoples, the Concept of the Krasnoyarsk Territory addresses the problem of reviving and preserving the culture of the Russian ethnos, which “had no opportunity for development due to the substitution of Russian culture for supranational "Universal" culture, the lack of comprehensive programs for its development.”14

In the territories with republican status, the institutional basis of local ethnopolitics begins to take shape. In 1991, the Committee on National Politics and Interethnic Relations was established under the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Karelia, in 1993 — the State Committee on Nationalities in the structure of the Komi government, in 1994 the Department of Peoples Affairs and Federal Relations of the Sakha (Yakutia) [23, p. 104].

In the early 1990s, the ethnopolitics of the country and the Arctic territories was significantly influenced by the ethnic mobilization and self-organization. Thus, the 1991 congresses of representatives of the Karelian and Komi peoples initiated the settlement of the relationship between regional bodies and established ethnic associations for improving national legislation15. The federal law “On the Languages of the Peoples of the Russian Federation” responded to ethnic demands of the population and granted territories with republican status the right to establish their state languages16. In 1992, state languages were secured in the Komi Republic and the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia)17.

In general, in the 1990s — early 2000s, in the Arctic territories, the policy of interethnic relations had not yet acquired conceptual harmony. A rare exception was the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), which was the first in the country to develop and approve a methodologically adjusted ethnic policy strategy. In most territories, the regulation of interethnic relations was carried out inertly, rather in the context of responding to the ethnic demands of society and the problems that arose. The process of institutional and legal registration of ethnic policy was in its infancy. The critical issues on the agenda were the designation of the ethnic status and the expansion of the ethnopolitical independence of the territories. The federal laws of the second half of the 1990s, e.g., “On National-Cultural Autonomy” of 17 June 1996 No. 74-FZ and “On the Guarantees of the Rights of Indigenous Minorities of the Russian Federation” of April 30, 1999 No. 82-FZ and others, were significant for settling inter-ethnic relations and supporting civic initiatives for preservation and revival of ethnic cultures. But they did not get the proper response18.

The ethnic and cultural practice of the local policy

As V.Yu. Zorin rightly notes, the settlement of federative relations at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries, the separation of powers of the center and territories, the gradual strengthening of the power vertical laid the foundations for weakening the politicization of ethnic groups and contributed to the formation of the ethnocultural doctrine of ethnopolitics [29, pp. 144–145]. An analysis of the ethnic practice of Arctic territories confirms this statement. In the Arctic, in the first decade of the 20th century, the basic provisions of the 1996 Conception of the State National Policy of the Russian Federation and federal laws aimed at settling inter-ethnic relations on the basis of the principles of unity and integrity of Russia begin to be implemented, taking into account and coordinating with the ethnocultural needs of the peoples.

In the regions under study, the legal framework of ethnopolitics is being formalized and expanding; regional targeted programs are being implemented, aimed at various objects of ethnic policy19. The analysis of documentary sources indicates that the main activities of local bodies in this area were: creating conditions for the national and cultural self-determination of peoples, preserving and reviving the culture and languages of the territory; ensuring the rights of indigenous peoples.

Ethnocultural public associations are developing. Only in 2000–2011, in the Arctic, more than 150 cultural-national autonomies (NGOs) and fraternities were created20. Thus, according to the law “On Cultural-National Autonomies of the Komi Republic” of 2005, ethnocultural associations received the right to address issues of preserving identity, language development, education, and national culture based on voluntary self-organization. To ensure a dialogue between the authorities and ethnic communities, the Advisory Council for National-Cultural Autonomy, which included representatives of the leading Republican NGOs, was created under the Ministry of National Policy (until 2007, the State Committee on Nationalities)21. The Council received the right to submit proposals to state authorities on issues of national and cultural development and to participate in the development of republican target programs for the development of national languages and culture. A similar council, but only for the representatives of Karelians, Veps, and Finns were created under the Head of the Republic of Karelia22. To ensure the coordination and interaction of regional and local ethnocultural and public associations between themselves and the authorities, Councils of Nationalities are being created (Arkhangelsk, 2007), Civil Assembly (Krasnoyarsk Territory, 2011).

A powerful impetus in the Arctic in these years was received by the policy of supporting native languages (especially the state languages of the republics) and the development of the national school. In the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) in 2001, the Concept of School-Language Education was approved. In 2005–2007 the State target program of language construction was being implemented [30, p. 454]. In the Komi Republic, several targeted republican programs for the development and preservation of the state languages of the Komi Republic were developed and implemented. In Karelia, there is the republican program “Finno-Ugric School of the Republic of Karelia” (2000–2002) and “Ethnocultural Education in the Republic of Karelia for 2003–2005”, aimed at improving the opportunities for studying the native languages and culture of Karelians, Veps and Finns at all levels of education and the formation of the system of education and upbringing of children and young people in the ethnocultural traditions23.

However, in the absence of a clear legal regulation of the state language statuses in the Russian Federation and the languages of the republics, delimiting the scope of the federal and national-regional components of curricula and content of the latter, the culture and language were often studied to the detriment of the federal part of the curriculum. The consequence of this was the autonomization of the local (national-regional) component, the establishment of its priority compared to the federal one, the lowering proficiency in Russian. So, according to the All-Russian census 2010, the lowest percentage of proficiency in Russian was among Yakuts (89.6%).24 Often ethnocultural educational institutions turned into an instrument of ethnic mobilization. Interest in the study of native languages and culture is often artificially fueled by ethnic intelligentsia without real needs of the population. The analysis of statistical data indicates that the surge in interest in the study of native languages, observed in the 1990s, began to fade in the first decade of the 20th century. So, by 2000, the total number of Komi studying their native language increased 6.6 times, Yakuts — 1.7 times. [31, pp. 117–118]. By 2011, the positive dynamics remained only in Yakutia (twice more). The different dynamics were outlined in the Komi Republic (a reduction of 1.2 times), which led to the discussion about the compulsory study of the state language of the republics by all children without exception.

In the 2000s, indigenous peoples of the Arctic become an independent object of national policy. The local legislation of this period is represented by regulatory documents aimed at ensuring the rights and guarantees of minority peoples following federal regulations25.

In particular, the places of their traditional residence and economic activity were legally formalized. The problem of protecting indigenous lands is becoming more urgent. Measures to support traditional lifestyle and improve the social status of small peoples are identified. Legal guarantees were provided in the field of protecting the languages of indigenous peoples, preserving and reviving their culture. In the territories, action plans are being developed. They are aimed at the implementation of the “Concept for the Sustainable Development of Indigenous Minorities of the North, Siberia and the Far East.”26 The Institute of ombudsmen for the rights of indigenous peoples begins to take shape (Krasnoyarsk Territory)27.

(Accessed: 03 February 2019).[In Russian]; “O gosudarstvennoj podderzhke tradicionnyh vidov hozyajstvovaniya i promyslov koren-nyh malochislennyh narodov Severa na territorii Neneckogo avtonomnogo okruga”. Zakon NAO ot 28.01.2008 № 1-OZ [“On the communities of the indigenous peoples of the North in the Nenets Autonomous District”. Law of the NAO of 01.10.2008 No. 58-03]. URL: (Accessed: 03 January 2019).[In Russian]; “Ob obshchinah korennyh malo-chislennyh narodov Severa v Neneckom avtonomnom okruge”. Zakon NAO ot 01.10.2008 № 58-03. [“On reindeer herding in the Nenets Autonomous District”. Law of the NAO of 15.03.2002 No. 341-03] URL: (Accessed: 03 January 2019). [In Russian]; “Ob olenevodstve v Neneckom avtonom-nom okruge’. Zakon NAO ot 15.03.2002 № 341-03

[“On the territory of compact residence of the indigenous peoples of the North in the Nenets Autonomous District”. Law of the NAO of 21.05.2007 No. 65-03]. URL: (Accessed: 28 February 2019). [In Russian]; “O gosudarstvennom regulirovanii razvitiya morskogo zverobojnogo promysla v CHukot-skom avtonomnom okruge” Zakon CHukotskogo avtonomnogo okruga ot 09.02.1999 № 09-OZ. [“On state regulation of the development of marine hunting in the Chukotka Autonomous Region” The law of the Chukotka Autonomous Region dated February 02, 1999 No. 09-OZ.] URL: (Accessed: 28 February 2019). [In Russian]; “O gosudarstvennom regulirovanii i gosudarstvennoj podderzhke razvitiya severnogo olenevodstva v Chukotskom avtonomnom okruge”. Zakon Chukot-skogo avtonomnogo okruga ot 08.06.2007 № 57-OZ.

[“On state regulation and state support for the development of northern reindeer husbandry in the Chukotka Autonomous Region”. Law of the Chukotka Autonomous Region of June 08, 2007 No. 57-OZ]. URL: (Accessed: 28 February 2019). [In Russian]; O zashchite iskonnoj sredy obitaniya i tradicionnogo obraza zhizni korennyh malochislennyh narodov Severa v YAmalo-Neneckom avtonomnom okruge” Zakon YANAO ot 06.10.2006 N 49-ZAO [“On the protection of the original habitat and traditional way of life of the indigenous peoples of the North in the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous District" Law of the YNAO dated October 6, 2006 No. 49-ZAO]. URL: (Accessed: 28 February 2019). [In Russian]; “O gosuda r-stvennoj podderzhke obshchin koren-nyh malochislennyh narodov Severa i organizacij, osushchestvlyayushchih vidy tradicionnoj hozyajstvennoj deya-tel'nosti na territorii YAmalo-Neneckogo avtonomnogo okruga” Zakon YANAO ot 28.12.2005 N 114-ZAO. [“On state support of communities of indigenous peoples of the North and organizations engaged in the types of traditional economic activities on the territory of the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous District” Law of the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous District No. 114-ZAO dated December 28, 2005]. URL: (Accessed: 28 February 2019). [In Russian].; “O Koncepcii ustojchivogo razvitiya korennyh malochislennyh narodov Severa YAmalo-Neneckogo avtonomnogo okruga” Postanovlenie Zakonodatel'nogo So-braniya YANAO ot 09.12.2009 N 1996. [“On the Concept of Sustainable Development of Indigenous Minorities of the North of the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous District” Decree of the Legislative Assembly of the YNAO December 9, 2009 No. 1996]. URL: (Accessed: 28 February 2019). [In Russian].

• ²⁶    “O koncepcii ustojchivogo razvitiya korennyh malochislennyh narodov Severa, Sibiri i Dal'nego Vostoka” Rasporyazhenie Pravitel'stva RF №132-r ot 04.02.2009. [“On the concept of sustainable development of indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East” Order of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 132-p dated February 4, 2009].URL: http://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/94908/ (Accessed: 28 February 2019). [In Russian].

• ²⁷    “Ob upolnomochennom po pravam cheloveka v Krasnoyarskom krae” Zakon Krasnoyarskogo kraya.[“On the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Krasnoyarsk Territory” Law of the Krasnoyarsk Territory].URL: http://docs.cntd.ru/document/985011867 (Accessed: 28 February 2019). [In Russian].

The official status of the languages of indigenous minorities begins to be clear. 28 Conditions are created for the development of their languages and national schools. So, in 2010, more than 50% of children of indigenous peoples of the Arctic studied their native language at school 29. A system of successively interconnected teaching of native languages in pre-school institutions, primary and secondary schools are being formed.

It was during these years that the development of media and literature in the languages of the indigenous peoples began. The network of cultural and educational institutions is expanding (centers and houses of folklore and traditional crafts, or ethnographic museums). Days of national cultures and ethnic, cultural events are widely practiced.

Summing up, it should be noted that in the first decade of the 21st century, Russian Arctic territories form and develop the legal basis of local policy. The foundations are laid for ensuring interaction and a balance of interests of all subjects of the ethnopolitics (federal center, regional governing bodies, ethnic public associations). Target republican and local programs begin to be practiced among the specific mechanisms for the implementation of the settlement of inter-ethnic relations.

However, in the context of a financial shortage, many intentions (e.g., overcoming the socio-economic differentiation of regions, improving the social status of small indigenous peoples, etc.) turned out to be more like declarations. A powerful impetus was given to the revival and development of ethnic cultures and the ethnocultural mobilization. At the same time, a broad demonstration of cultural differences created the ground for ethnic egoism and barriers in interethnic interaction.

The ethnocultural development of peoples was often carried out to the detriment of the ideas of achieving inter-ethnic harmony and strengthening the unity of the Russian statehood on the principles of civic solidarity. A rare exception is the Republic of Karelia, where, against the background of inter-ethnic conflicts, in 2006, the regional target program “Harmonization of national and religious relations, the formation of civil consent in the Republic of Karelia for 2007– 2011” was approved and started). As rightly noted by Yu.P. Shabaev, “the population of individual regions and Russian society in general were not considered by politicians and various entrepreneurs (incl. ethnic entrepreneurs) as integral civilian communities, but presented only as a certain sum of ethnic groups with different historical fates and specific cultural values” [23, p. 93]. To overcome the emerging negative tendencies, taking urgent measures to strengthen the unity of the country, the Presidential Decree on Ensuring Inter-Ethnic Accord dated May 7, 2012, was sent, following which the Presidential Administration together with the government was tasked to develop a new concept of the country's national policy30.

The way to strengthen solidarity and civil identity foundations

A new stage of state national policy aimed at strengthening the unity and spiritual community of the peoples of Russia, the principles of nation-building on the principles of citizenship while simultaneously supporting ethnic and cultural diversity was laid in 2012 by approving the Strategy of the State National Policy of the Russian Federation for the period up to 202531.

The adoption of the Strategy gave impetus to local lawmaking, which was reflected in the Arctic ethnic policy strategies approved in recent years, plans for their implementation and local programs32.

At present, almost all Arctic territories have implemented state and local programs to strengthen the unity of the Russian nation and harmonize inter-ethnic relations, to support the ethnocultural development of the peoples living in the area. In the Arkhangelsk Oblast, the Krasnoyarsk Territory, the Nenets, and Yamal-Nenets ADs within the framework of the Federal Target Program “Strengthening the Unity of the Russian Nation and the Ethnocultural Development of the Peoples of Russia (2014–2020)”, programs or subprograms of the same name are implement-ed33. The Murmansk Oblast performs the subprogram “Strengthening ethnocultural diversity, civic self-awareness, and patriotism in the Murmansk Oblast” within the framework of the state program “Government and Civil Society”.34 The Republic of Karelia in the framework of the state program “Development of civil society institutions and development of local self-government, protection of human and civil rights and freedoms” for 2014–2020 implements the subprogram “Preservation of the unity of the peoples and ethnic communities of Karelia.”35

The Komi Republic adopted a regional program “Komi Republic — the territory of interethnic peace and accord (2014–2020).”36 In the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), the state program “Harmonization of interethnic relations in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) for 2012–2017” provides for measures to strengthen interethnic and interreligious relations, as well as support for indigenous minorities of the North37. At the same time, the state program “Implementation of Family, Demographic and Youth Policies in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) 2014–2017” is implementing the subprogram “Patriotic education of youth”, which aims at civic education and patriotic education of the younger generation, promoting the formation of legal, cultural and moral values among youth, strengthening the unity of the multinational people of the Russian Federation (Russian na-tion)38. In the Chukotka Autonomous District in 2014–2015, the state program “Strengthening the unity of the Russian nation, the ethnocultural development of the peoples of Russia and the state support of socially oriented non-profit organizations” was implemented, but its operation was suspended in January 201639. Currently, a set of measures aimed at strengthening interethnic relations and creating a single cultural space is carried out in the framework of the state program "De- velopment of education, culture and Youth policy of the Chukotka Autonomous District" in 2014-2018”40.

The complex of events declared in regional program documents and efficiency indicators, in general, correspond to the general federal principles. However, it should be noted that the Arctic territories, as well as the federal center, are characterized by a passion for demonstrating the ethnocultural diversity to the detriment of the formation of all-Russian values and attitudes. The subjects of the Russian Arctic are remarkably differentiated in terms of financial support for the programs being implemented, which, on the one hand, is due to their capabilities, and on the other, to the priorities chosen. Thus, the republics of Komi and Sakha (Yakutia) allocate more than 120 million rubles annually to the implementation of programs aimed at harmonizing inter-ethnic relations, the Murmansk Oblast is more than 40 million rubles, while the Arkhangelsk Oblast is only 1–2 million rubles41. Accordingly, the expected effects will be different. Regions with less financial opportunities are limited, as a rule, to a narrow circle of activities.

On the other hand, the volume of funding of various directions allows us to identify the preferences of areas in the field of interethnic relations. Thus, the Nenets Autonomous District allocated 1.4 million rubles for measures aimed at strengthening the unity of the Russian nation and the ethnocultural development of the peoples of Russia in 2015; whereas the program “Preservation and Development of Indigenous Minorities of the North in the Nenets Autonomous

District” — more than 40 million rubles42. In the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), more than 120 million rubles were allocated for the implementation of the program to harmonize interethnic relations in 2015, while measures aimed at strengthening the unity of the multinational people of the Russian Federation under the program 2014–2017 to the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic, — 5 times less: about 26 million rubles43.

Conclusion

In general, an analysis of the ethnic policy in the Arctic territories in the post-Soviet period shows that they are beginning to build their activities following the strategic vision of the federal center and due to the national composition of the territories and the ethnic-political situation in a particular subject. In 8 out of 9 Arctic territories are the areas of indigenous minorities. A wide range of measures is being implemented aimed at preserving and reviving traditional lifestyle, improving the quality of life and developing the traditional culture of ethnic minorities. In the areas attractive for labor migrants (the Republic of Komi and Sakha (Yakutia), the Krasnoyarsk Territory, the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous District), the system of social and cultural adaptation of international migrants is updated and shaped. In the Arkhangelsk Oblast, where more than 93% of the population — Russian-speaking and the migration flow is insignificant, the focus is on strengthening the unity of the Russian nation and the ethnocultural development of the peoples of Russia.

Over the study period, an extensive legal and regulatory framework has been created in the Arctic territory, regulating various aspects of national relations, designed to provide specific mechanisms for the implementation of citizens' constitutional rights to freely use and develop their native languages, preserve ethnocultural identity and traditional lifestyle of indigenous peo- ples. The institutional design of the national policy and relevant structures were created in all local management bodies (ministries of ethnic policy, departments of the peoples of the North, agencies for interethnic relations, agencies for the development of northern territories and support of small indigenous peoples, etc.). Currently, about 400 ethnic public associations operate in the Arctic, incl. local branches of the Association of Small Indigenous Peoples of Russia, and national-cultural autonomies. An extensive network of coordination and public councils has been created to ensure the interaction of regional authorities with civil society institutions under the heads of regions and executive authorities. It includes representatives of national-cultural autonomies, ethnic and social organizations.

The implementation of the state national policy is carried out with a program-target approach. Local programs have been adopted and implemented to harmonize interethnic relations, to strengthen the unity of the Russian nation and the ethnocultural development of the peoples of Russia. They also aimed at the sustainable socio-economic and cultural development of small indigenous peoples, to assist the voluntary resettlement of compatriots living abroad to the Russian Federation. On a competitive basis, socially-oriented non-profit organizations receive support for projects aimed at harmonizing inter-national relations.

An extensive ethnocultural infrastructure, a network of cultural centers has been created. Every year in the Arctic, many ethnocultural events are held international forums, conferences, round tables, seminars, master classes, festivals, contests, and thematic exhibitions, folk and art contests, etc. It contributed to the positive ethnic and regional identity, strengthening the unity of the peoples of the country.

All nine territories of the Russian Arctic are areas with low and very low inter-ethnic ten-sions44. However, in autumn 2013 — autumn 2014, there was a worsening of the situation in the Krasnoyarsk Territory, the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) and the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous District. They moved from the category of the areas with very low inter-ethnic tensions moved into the category of territories with low inter-ethnic tensions in six months. In our opinion, this is due to several factors: the outflow of the old-time residents adapted to the local conditions and at the same time an increase in the number of migrants. In the areas under study, there is an inflow of labor migrants from other territories of the country, who, as a rule, work on a rotational basis, stay in the area temporarily and do not need adaptation to local conditions.

A high social and property differentiation aggravates the situation. The difference in wages complicates the situation. Migrants, who often settle in industrialized areas, receive higher salaries compared to the indigenous population. Thus, with an average monthly nominal wage in the

Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) at 55,128 rubles, and in the Chukotka Autonomous Region at 77,874 rubles, the average salary of indigenous peoples working in traditional industries barely exceeds 23 thousand rubles45. Inter-ethnic tensions in the Sakha Republic (Yakutia) may worsen due to the deterioration of the ethnic well-being of the Russians, who find themselves in a situation of an ethnic minority in the Republic. According to the all-Russian census of 2010, the proportion of Russians among the population of Yakutia was 36.9%46. A similar trend is in the republican authorities, where, according to the former head of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Borisov E.A., the ratio of 60% to 40% in favor of the Yakuts is observed 47. In our opinion, in the Arctic territories, relations with title ethnic groups/indigenous peoples may be exacerbated, where the former, unlike the latter, are limited in quotas for traditional economic activities.

A focus of tension is created by the ethnic intelligentsia, which expresses dissatisfaction with the current national policy of the Russian Federation, aimed at strengthening the unity of the Russian people and nation-building on the principles of civil unity and solidarity. This installation of the federal center was subjected to sharp criticism by participants of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference "Culture and Politics of Interethnic and Interfaith Relations" held by the Yakut Scientific Center of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences in cooperation with the Government of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia) on October 29, 201548. The conference participants supported the adoption of the federal target program “Strengthening the Unity of the Russian Nation and the Ethnocultural Development of the Peoples of Russia (2014–2020)”. However, the term “Russian nation” and its use for the multiethnic population of the Russian Federation was considered unsuccessful. Among the arguments, it was noted that, in contrast to the Western Europe, where nation-states were created under the conditions of mono-ethnicity, Russia was formed as a union of independent peoples, originally living on the territory of the state. It was recognized that theoretically, a civic nation contradicts the existence of ethnic nations of Russia, which are the Tatars (Tatar nation), Chuvash (Chuvash nation), Bashkirs (Bashkir nation), Chechens (Chechen nation), Yakuts (Yakut nation), etc. Representatives of the local ethnic and political elites expressed concern about the change of priorities in the ethnic policy of Russia, associated with a gradual departure from the strategy of sponsoring ethnic and cultural diversity.

In our opinion, the intelligentsia of national-territorial associations, renouncing Soviet practice, cannot yet abandon the Marxist concept of nation-building and interpreting the nation as eth- nic-nation, which often contradicts the real interests and needs of citizens. According to the amendments of December 6, 2018, introduced into the Strategy of the National Policy of the Russian Federation, the term “Russian nation” received meaningful content: “The multinational people of the Russian Federation (Russian nation) are a community of free, equal citizens of the Russian Federation with different ethnic, religious, social and other affiliation, with a civil identity”49.

In general, with the intensification of interethnic interactions, the incorporation of ethnic minorities into stronger cultures is inevitable. These tendencies are manifested not only on the national scale but also at the local level. Thus, according to the All-Russian Census 2010, 65.3% of Evens, 81.2% of Evenks, 94% of Dolgans living in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), considered Yakut as their native language. For comparison: in the Krasnoyarsk Territory: 81.3% of the Dolgans and 41.3% of the Evenks continued to maintain their ethnic identity50. In this situation, it is hardly legitimate to forcibly revive ethnicity, when, e.g., it will be compulsory to study the state languages of the republics at schools.