'Institut Za Migracije I Narodnosti (Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies)'
Abstract
The article provides a critical commentary to current use of the concept "minority" in Russia, particularly in academic and political discourse. The direct borrowing of the concept as it exists in international law or western social sciences is prevented by a number of limitations inherent to its meaning, the main limitation being that Russia could not be properly characterised as a democracy. The usage of the term "minority" in the context of the so-called "transitional societies" could be misleading, as the position of a particular group in a power hierarchy as well as its influence on political decision-making process here is not a function of a group\u27s numerical strength, but depends on such resources as the group\u27s wealth, access to education, and position in administrative institutions, security and army, effective monopoly of important sectors of social life and economy, group\u27s solidarity etc. Moreover, the conceptual field of in which the concept is situated is markedly different from its western analogues, where in such political concepts as "a titular nation", "an indigenous ethnos", "a state-founding people" remain virtually unknown and normally does not belong to semantic field of "minority". As the concept "minority" in Russia is firmly tied to ethnic reality interpretations, the current paradigms of ethnicity research are outlined. Finally, a description of contemporary attempts of minority rights monitoring within the framework of an early warning research is sketched.Članak kritički komentira pojam "manjina" što se rabi u ruskoj društvenoj znanosti i politici. Postoje mnoge poteškoće u vezi s izravnim preuzimanjem tog pojma iz jezika međunarodnog prava ili zapadne društvene znanosti. Među najvažnijima možemo navesti to što je pojam "manjina" najprikladniji u demokratskim državnim ustrojstvima. U tzv. "prijelaznim društvima" u kojima položaj skupine u sustavu odnosa vlasti ne ovisi toliko o njezinoj brojnosti, koliko o drugim resursima − bogatstvu, razini obrazovanja i grupne solidarnosti, dostupu do struktura moći i tijelima upravljanja, monopolu nad najvažnijim socijalnim i gospodarskim sferama itd. − uporaba pojma "manjina" manje je umjesna. Osim toga, koncepcijsko polje u koje rasprave u ruskoj znanosti i politici stavljaju "manjinu", oštro se razlikuje od zapadnih analogija. Ovdje se "manjina" suprotstavlja ne toliko "većini", koliko političkoj stvarnosti nepoznatoj na Zapadu kao što su "titularna nacija", "korijenska /indigena/ etnija", "državotvorni narod" i dr. Budući da je pojam "manjina" u Rusiji tijesno povezan s predodžbama o "etniji", znatno mjesto u članku nudi analizu paradigama istraživanja etničke stvarnosti. U zaključku opisani modeli za rano otklanjanje sukoba, sastavni su dio promatranja kako se prava manjina poštuju
