THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IS THE MAIN LAW

«In a country like Russia where peoples of so many different nationalities live together, we need a very sound policy to deal with anything concerning an increased self-awareness in relation to national identity. I cannot imagine for Russia any future other than that of a democratic federal state, and as we make progress in that direction we shall have to deal more and more with problems of that kind. It is a big mistake to deny their existence. Those who have no experience in this area may underestimate their complexity. In Tatarstan, after many painful years, we know firsthand what it really takes to preserve concord between different nationalities».

Mintimer SHAIMIEV

THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IS THE MAIN LAW

While taking pictures of Mintimer Shaimiev our photographer, Yuri Feklistov, was telling him how a local TV station had interviewed him.

— I was in the street and there comes this young woman, a reporter, her microphone drawn out, and says: «Can I ask you a question?» «No problem!» I said. So she shoots: «Do you think Tatars should be more self-aware of their national identity?» That took me by surprise, but I answered: «No I don't.» Now she was stunned and mumbled: «What do you mean? Why? — Because they seem to know quite well who they are».

The President laughed at the good humor of the Muscovite. But otherwise he takes that problem discussed in the street very seriously. He is especially concerned by whatever may make the tensions rise and trigger another hot debate in the media and elsewhere.

Few Muscovites for instance, and Russians from other provinces in general, are aware that a census is to be conducted in Tatarstan. Inside the republic however the subject is debated with passion for several months now by journalists, public figures, people from the street and experts who even held a special conference dedicated to this subject. We asked the President what made it so special and controversial.

— We certainly need a census to better know about our population and our society. We agree in general with the draft of the standard form and the questions therein, including the one about nationality. But on previous occasions, optional answers included Tatar as a separate item, with further sub-items such as Tatar of Kazan, Tatar of Astrakhan, Tatar of Siberia and so on. The new draft as promoted by Valeri Tishkov, director of the Institute of Ethnography, offers all these as separate individual items. Should this be accepted, the ethnic unity of all Tatar groups would be shattered and split. Who wants this to happen? Unfortunately the whole thing smacks of politics. I definitely could not let it pass and had to get involved. My position is clear and simple: since the last census of 1989, no new nationality has emerged and none needs be created artificially. Why look for trouble? I know it is all about politics, so we oppose strongly any such innovation.

— What is exactly this political bias? Maybe there are no serious reasons to be so passionate about it?

— I don't think so. The census is not the end of the story. By the time when Russia got its new President, economic and political reforms had been lagging for too long. A more resolute action was badly needed, and people were growing tired of waiting for a sound and well defined strategy; our society had to be mobilized and given a clear goal. I know it because I had to deal with it in Tatarstan. I have been in power here for quite a while and I cannot imagine us not providing at least some basic order. If we don't, what are we here for? I am what I am so I happened to be one of the very first to support President Putin's policies, I still do. But sometimes, his urge to put some order in the country is abused by certain federal agencies and services. Disturbingly, they are especially eager whenever powers have to be split between provincial authorities and central government. They always do it in favor of the latter, with too much zeal, not realizing that they might thus hurt the interests of the nation and of its peoples. Maybe they lack experience, or wisdom and statesmanship.

In the census case, it is all about the risk of compromising a fair equilibrium between nationalities. In this hypersensitive area no heavy-handed or dilettante moves should be allowed. If what you do might tip the balance or spread discord, better do nothing at all. And sure enough the census matter gets a political bias if, in some parts of the country, some people start thinking: «Hey, there must be more of us than we thought», and if, as a result, attempts are made to make one ethnic group look bigger than another. Suppose the census will show that there is any particular number of Tatars of Kazan, and that they are different from all the other Tatars. Is this what we really want?

— Tatars will remain what they are, no doubt about it, and Kazan will still be their center of gravity, wherever they are in the world.

— Correct. End of August, Kazan will host for a third time now a gathering of Tatars from around the planet. One must understand that the lands of modern Tatarstan are the motherland of all Tatars, whose image is passed on from generation to generation. We learn about our past from our fathers and grandfathers, sometimes nothing more than a few memories about the origins of our family, but always enough to keep the flame of love for the Motherland burning. This is especially true about people who, against their will, had to leave and settle down — or were even born — outside of the country. Now that we have freedom of travel, it is of great benefit for all of them since they can come from other countries or other provinces of Russia and re-visit the places where their roots are.

A few years ago, as we were just about to hold the first World Congress of Tatars, I was wondering how strong were the feelings of my compatriots for the Motherland. When I have met them, I got a clear message. You should have seen those people and feel their passion. No matter what their background they all shared the same love for this country. So many of them wanted to go and see the places where their families had lived. Even when nothing related to them was left they still hoped to find something to remember, or to hear locals recollect some events that would confirm their origins. And if this weren't to happen, they were still happy to simply walk where their forefathers had lived.

What does one really need to feel complete? Once you've got your food and shelter guaranteed, your priorities change. To see people achieve this happy state of mind is of immense value. At the closing ceremony of the first congress, at the Musa Jalil Opera House, all those present rose to sing «Our Language», with lyrics by Tukai, and many had tears in their eyes: those who came from far away and us, living in Tatarstan, because we had the same intense feelings. It is amazing that these people, after so many years and sometimes a lifetime spent in foreign countries, still speak their original language, which some of them know even better than many of those who live here.

Relationships of this kind contribute to our fulfillment and we must cherish them. People whose families had to emigrate at the time of the revolution can now meet and communicate again in Tatarstan, or in Russia; this makes our country more attractive, and our guests feel deeply grateful. To build up from there, after the first gathering, an executive committee of the World Congress of Tatars was set up to develop our contacts with Tatars in other provinces of Russia and around the world. We support this committee and an allocation from the republican budget helps to finance its activities. A radio and TV station is already operational, and books and CD's with national music and songs are being offered to Tatars living abroad. This effort also helped to learn and to teach more about the history of our people; even in Tatarstan sometimes we are not aware of many things existing in Russia that are related to our past. We discover new documents and manuscripts, and our historians work hard to help people learn about them. There is still so much to be done in this respect, and to my mind this contributes to a better understanding of our national identity. We must improve it all the time so that people know their history and their traditions.

— On the other hand, the more people become aware of their national identity, the more the risk of growing nationalistic trends.

— Indeed, during the perestroika years a sharp change occurred in national republics as their peoples rediscovered themselves, giving way sometimes to nationalistic feelings. If we are to prevent them from spreading, in a country like Russia where so many peoples of different nationalities live together, we need a very sound policy to deal with anything concerning an increased self-awareness in relation to national identity. I cannot imagine for Russia any future other than that of a democratic federal state, and as we make progress in this direction we shall have to deal more and more with problems of that kind. It is a big mistake to deny their existence. Those who have no experience in this area may underestimate their complexity. In Tatarstan, after many painful years, we know firsthand what it really takes to preserve concord between different nationalities.

I am aware that not everybody in Moscow appreciates my position in certain matters. Until recently, they were nervous because Tatarstan was the last national republic to have a Constitution not yet in line with the Constitution of Russia. Today, after amendments have been made, they are still unhappy because some clauses remain different from Russian laws. But don't blame Shaimiev for these differences, he is not the one who preaches exclusivity and claims sovereignty for Tatarstan at his whim; this is a translation of the will of the people of Tatarstan.

There are things that can only be settled through a political and legislative process. We did start to create a society different from the past and to build a democratic state; we said to our people that from now on it was the rule of glasnost and that they were free to find out about their true history. We cannot backtrack on this now. Tatarstan never compromised the integrity of the Russian Federation, not even when the situation was at its worst. Then why would it do it today, as some suspicious minds seem to think. Nobody in Tatarstan wishes to undermine the unity of Russia; people support our policies and understand that Russia and Tatarstan cannot live apart. But, there are things that can only be sorted over time.

I think that those who accuse Kazan of separatism are well aware of this too. It is just so easy for them to use these allegations whenever they want to put pressure on us, in matters where our position differs from the way Moscow sees and plans things. As if they held the undisputed, ultimate truth about the choices to make if Russia is to become a solid and sound state. Nobody has this privileged knowledge yet. The only option we know all too well is also the simplest. Some politicos, if I may call them so, favor it and want us to go back to a one government-one nation system, where everybody is to stand to attention and take orders from the top. We have been through this before, we know how it was: if you had strength on your side, you told others what they can or cannot do. Do we want this back again? That could be easily done, in no matter of time. It was not that long ago that the whole nation was tuned to the same orders. Unfortunate and sad as it may be, our people are probably used to that system more than they are ready for a true democracy. Although it is also true that a considerable part of our society has learnt a lot and assimilated the new values, and to my mind this is a guarantee that democratic processes will not be reversed.

Building a federal system is a formidable endeavor, but we have to tackle it. The alternative would be a non-democratic Russia. If this is true, then give me one good reason why Tatarstan should not express its views concerning the format of the federal system envisaged for Russia. We look at history, at our past and present experiences and we learn from them. We do not claim to have found the ultimate truth, but we believe that we should search together for the right solutions. It would be immoral to have certain conceptions of a federal multinational state, no matter how right or wrong they are, and to withhold them from others. Therefore I think that what we are doing is for the benefit of all and that our concerns are not limited to our republic alone but to Russia as a whole since this is the state where we belong, of which we are and will remain an integral part.

— In the overall frame of market-oriented reforms, Tatarstan has opted for solutions, which differ from the rest. Is it true that your government is still actively involved in the management of industrial companies and that it imposes administrative decisions biased by state interests?

— No we do not have any such policy. We have an ongoing industrial integration, and some forms of involvement by the government are inevitable. Being a major or main shareholder of many big companies, the government does indeed work with the rest of the shareholders to shape the right decisions and solutions, be it to overcome a crisis or to increase production. For many different reasons, some companies are better off than others; all of them have their own vision of their future. But as they are being integrated into the economy of the republic, conflicts of interests may happen. As an example, we had a difficult time trying to rebuild the Nijnekamski Group of tyremakers. Over the last few years, mostly due to objective circumstances, this company had been in a very bad shape. We convinced Tatneft, from the oil sector, to come to its rescue, and we transferred the government's shares of the group to Tatneft. It had not been easy to negotiate this solution with the other shareholders and the managers of the group, but eventually we agreed on an option acceptable to all parties. If we would not have done it, the personnel would have gone on without pay. Now, on the contrary, Nijnekamski Group is steadily improving.

I am happy that at some point the government did not lose controlling shares of the biggest companies. This benefits the majority of our people since it is in their interests that these shares vote over decisions with effect on the future of the industries. But they are certainly not used to impose any unwanted restrictions. Because the main sectors of Tatarstan's economy — oil, refinement, chemicals and energy — are big and complex industries, the process of their integration goes sometimes against some minor interests of shareholders; but in the long term, everybody will benefit from it.

From a more general point of view, Tatarstan's economic policy is to create an environment conducive to rapid growth. We support industries with good potential and small businesses. Again as an example, even though «Tatneft» is our big monopolist in the oil industry, we have authorized, a few years ago, the establishment of small oil companies. Today, there are 23 of them and they produce four million tons of oil. The small wells that the monopolist held but did not use are now busy places.

— Are «new Tatars» different in any way from «new Russians»?

— «New Russians» is a vague notion. There are different people that can follow in this category. Some have already achieved a civilized form of business. Having reached a certain degree of prosperity, they also care about spiritual values and put their money into things that support those values. In this respect there is no difference between «new Tatars» and «new Russians». Some others have also succeeded but are still under the spell of pure greed. To my mind, this will pass, as it always did wherever there was a major redistribution of assets. With time things will settle down and civilized business will become the general norm. This is already happening, as more and more businessmen invest not only to make more money but also to achieve noble causes unrelated to their businesses.

I don't have to go far for a good example. It is not easy to discuss my sons in public, but I have always been honest and open about it. Including when they are being attacked by the media. I have made it a rule to react to «revealing» articles in a certain way; I contact personally the Attorney General of Russia and tell him: There is an article that compromises my integrity and the integrity of my family; please initiate a proper investigation into the allegations. There have been so many stories about my younger son, a businessman, so many lies! But I trust my boy because I know him well. He is a wealthy man now, and rather than promoting his business he spends time thinking what else could he do for the benefit of the people and of the republic. I even say to him sometimes: «You will end up broke one day». But he is smart enough to strike the right balance. Not everybody has what it takes to conduct a civilized business. Those who do give it their all. On the face of it, especially if you don't have much money, you might think that they've got nothing but their profits on their minds. But this is not true anymore. I had a conversation recently with Komarov, ex-chief of the district administration of Almetievsk. He used to have a business of his own before joining the administration. After a while, he resigned and went back to his business. He said he felt more at ease there. He is a smart guy with good ideas. He takes over companies near collapse, puts them through a complete overhaul and starts new production. Why is he doing it, where does his verve come from? Is it only in anticipation of a hefty profit? No, one does not really need all that much to have a good life.

— Journalists from «Ogoniok» have traveleed extensively throughout Tatarstan and have seen many people like him, everywhere. One really feels here this eagerness to make it a better place. Can it be assumed that in a way, this is the effect of the regional policies implemented in the republic?

— Would it be right to claim prosperity if life is nice in the capital but not so elsewhere? Whoever thinks that way fools himself into complacency. And more than that, it would be immoral if things were looking good in one place in the republic while another would be in dire straits. The same applies to Russia in general, I think; it can only prosper if there is prosperity in its provinces everywhere. No matter where they live, all people have the same constitutional rights. There is obviously a gap between the quality of life achievable in a big city and what you can get in a small town or in the country. But if people want to live there it is up to us to provide them with enjoyable living conditions. This is our policy and thanks to it we do not have luxury in some places and misery in some other. That would have been immoral. We certainly have problems and shortcomings — there will always be some — but we are working on finding global solutions. I know these words are often abused, but this is exactly what we do. And, most important, we try to make it so that wherever people live, they always have opportunities to work or to have a business. So that they can live and not just survive.