Tweet
HOME SOCIAL AND NETWORKING ORGANIZATIONS FOR IMMIGRANTS ARE CRITICAL FOR ADAPTATION
Kommersant
Sep. 15, 2006
The census carried out in Russia in 2002 underscored pessimistic
demographic prognoses for the country. For the first time in its
history, Russia is in a situation where demographic development,
replenishing the labor force, and even simply "filling up the space"
are possible only by attracting more immigrants. Demand gives birth
to supply, and a stream of labor migrants flooded into Russia from
the former republics of the USSR and from the Far East. Old diasporas
have begun to evolve alongside new communities of immigrants, breeding
dissatisfaction among native Russians. Polls show that only 16% of
Russians support the "opening" of the country to immigrants. According
to data from the Federal Migration Service (FOM), despite a decrease
in the number of Russians who are hostile to "foreign-borns" (from
32% in 2002 to 21% in 2006), the majority consider it imperative to
restrict migration.
Despite the decrease in the number of people who would wish immigrants
ill, the amount of general tension in relations between Russians and
immigrants is growing.
Against the backdrop of a growth in immigrant-phobia in Russia,
any attempt to institutionalize a community of immigrants provokes a
nervous reaction from society. In the Russian social consciousness,
immigrants appear as some sort of "monster of lobbying," the frontline
detachment of invaders bent on grabbing power and accumulating
financial resources.
Modern diasporas in Russia as a whole are not so threatening. Today
successful and powerful diasporas have been created by Azerbaijanis,
Armenians, Jews, Ukrainians, and many other ethnic groups. Among
other things, they successfully lobby for their business interests and
organize the continuation of their culture. Others - representatives
of some Caucasian and Central Asian peoples, along with the Chinese -
have created communities that have only limited economic goals. In
the absence of a real diaspora experience, in the wave of crime and
corruption that characterized the 1990s some communities grouped
themselves around people with dark pasts and not entirely clear
presents, out of which grew criminal structures that put the final
stamp on how the institutes of the diasporas would be received by
the authorities and by ordinary Russians.
Not Ready to Dissolve
The problem is deepened by the fact that a significant portion of
immigrants in no way strive for integration. The reasons for this
are many.
Integration is opposed by traditional mindsets; by the insularity
of the immigrant communities, which can give rise to a microcosm of
a single ethnic culture; and by a lack of real economic stimulants
(immigrants calmly "ensconce themselves" even without integration). It
is telling that, according to data from the sociological research
institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 83% of Azerbaijanis
living in Moscow (one of the most numerous and well-organized
diasporas) would like to stay in Moscow, but only 45% of that number
(that is, just over a third of the Moscow Azerbaijani community) would
be willing to live in accordance with Russian norms and traditions.
Among other diasporas, excluding only the Ukrainian and the
Belorussian communities, the situation is most likely the same or
even slightly more complicated. The experience of Western Europe also
testifies to the fact that the extraordinary influence that immigrant
communities have on their members often limits immigrants' chances
of integration. This becomes especially clear in situations where
the authorities directly challenge the opinions of national activists.
For example, some 80% of French Muslim immigrants claim to want to
adopt the French way of life, but the ban on the wearing of the hijab
in schools raised tension within the community.
As such, the most important thing now is the problem of mutual
adaptation: on the one hand to prepare the host society to receive the
immigrants, along with their national and cultural attributes, and on
the other hand to prepare the immigrants themselves to integrate in
the host society, to take on its core values, tenets, and "rules of the
game." In this situation, precisely the organizations of the immigrant
community itself can be acceptable mechanisms for resolving problems.
Currently, dialogue with the diasporas is being conducted on the level
of "political consultation" and cultural programs. The national and
regional leadership of Russia is supporting various cultural programs
and facilitating regular meetings between government officials and
representatives of the diasporas. Russian President Vladimir Putin
has taken part in meetings with the Russian Armenian Council, the
All-Russian Azerbaijani Congress, and others.
Without a doubt, building bridges and forging contacts with
representatives of the diasporas is essential on all levels, from
federal to local. But it is not enough.
Community Adaptation
Everyone understands the direct intervention by the authorities in
the activities of the immigrant communities is necessary only when
the community structures have formed around people with criminal
histories, extremists, etc. Governmental organs in the position
of external overseers in such situations only aggravate the social
and political situation in any given region. In this connection, of
course, effective intervention in practice is possible only under the
conditions of a normally functioning judicial system and a substantial
decrease in the level of corruption.
With regard to law-abiding national communities (and they are the
majority), what is needed is a movement towards full adaptation and
integration for newcomers.
This means teaching immigrants and their children the Russian language
and acquainting them with Russian culture and the particularities of
the legal system, among other things. All efforts will be effective
only in conjunction with active reciprocation from the diasporas as
a whole, not only from their representatives.
Russia should not repeat the mistakes made by the countries of West
Europe, where the objects of integration policies were exclusively
individuals rather than national communities. In the end, national
communities that claimed control over the process of integration arose
anyway, severely restricting knowledge and understanding of what kind
of people lived in these communities. Prejudices and xenophobia can
be overcome only on the basis of a closer reciprocal relationships
between developed communities and government representatives and
civil society. The task is to mobilize the financial and organization
potential of the diasporas in the creation of their own positive image.
Under current conditions, what is required from immigrant communities
is transparency, opened, and an ability to rise to new challenges. The
conversation now should be not only about the traditional strength of
the diasporas in terms of preserving and supporting national languages
and cultures and developing their business interests, but also about
activity in the direction of the adaptation of the members of the
immigrant communities to life in Russian society.
Kommersant
Sep. 15, 2006
The census carried out in Russia in 2002 underscored pessimistic
demographic prognoses for the country. For the first time in its
history, Russia is in a situation where demographic development,
replenishing the labor force, and even simply "filling up the space"
are possible only by attracting more immigrants. Demand gives birth
to supply, and a stream of labor migrants flooded into Russia from
the former republics of the USSR and from the Far East. Old diasporas
have begun to evolve alongside new communities of immigrants, breeding
dissatisfaction among native Russians. Polls show that only 16% of
Russians support the "opening" of the country to immigrants. According
to data from the Federal Migration Service (FOM), despite a decrease
in the number of Russians who are hostile to "foreign-borns" (from
32% in 2002 to 21% in 2006), the majority consider it imperative to
restrict migration.
Despite the decrease in the number of people who would wish immigrants
ill, the amount of general tension in relations between Russians and
immigrants is growing.
Against the backdrop of a growth in immigrant-phobia in Russia,
any attempt to institutionalize a community of immigrants provokes a
nervous reaction from society. In the Russian social consciousness,
immigrants appear as some sort of "monster of lobbying," the frontline
detachment of invaders bent on grabbing power and accumulating
financial resources.
Modern diasporas in Russia as a whole are not so threatening. Today
successful and powerful diasporas have been created by Azerbaijanis,
Armenians, Jews, Ukrainians, and many other ethnic groups. Among
other things, they successfully lobby for their business interests and
organize the continuation of their culture. Others - representatives
of some Caucasian and Central Asian peoples, along with the Chinese -
have created communities that have only limited economic goals. In
the absence of a real diaspora experience, in the wave of crime and
corruption that characterized the 1990s some communities grouped
themselves around people with dark pasts and not entirely clear
presents, out of which grew criminal structures that put the final
stamp on how the institutes of the diasporas would be received by
the authorities and by ordinary Russians.
Not Ready to Dissolve
The problem is deepened by the fact that a significant portion of
immigrants in no way strive for integration. The reasons for this
are many.
Integration is opposed by traditional mindsets; by the insularity
of the immigrant communities, which can give rise to a microcosm of
a single ethnic culture; and by a lack of real economic stimulants
(immigrants calmly "ensconce themselves" even without integration). It
is telling that, according to data from the sociological research
institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 83% of Azerbaijanis
living in Moscow (one of the most numerous and well-organized
diasporas) would like to stay in Moscow, but only 45% of that number
(that is, just over a third of the Moscow Azerbaijani community) would
be willing to live in accordance with Russian norms and traditions.
Among other diasporas, excluding only the Ukrainian and the
Belorussian communities, the situation is most likely the same or
even slightly more complicated. The experience of Western Europe also
testifies to the fact that the extraordinary influence that immigrant
communities have on their members often limits immigrants' chances
of integration. This becomes especially clear in situations where
the authorities directly challenge the opinions of national activists.
For example, some 80% of French Muslim immigrants claim to want to
adopt the French way of life, but the ban on the wearing of the hijab
in schools raised tension within the community.
As such, the most important thing now is the problem of mutual
adaptation: on the one hand to prepare the host society to receive the
immigrants, along with their national and cultural attributes, and on
the other hand to prepare the immigrants themselves to integrate in
the host society, to take on its core values, tenets, and "rules of the
game." In this situation, precisely the organizations of the immigrant
community itself can be acceptable mechanisms for resolving problems.
Currently, dialogue with the diasporas is being conducted on the level
of "political consultation" and cultural programs. The national and
regional leadership of Russia is supporting various cultural programs
and facilitating regular meetings between government officials and
representatives of the diasporas. Russian President Vladimir Putin
has taken part in meetings with the Russian Armenian Council, the
All-Russian Azerbaijani Congress, and others.
Without a doubt, building bridges and forging contacts with
representatives of the diasporas is essential on all levels, from
federal to local. But it is not enough.
Community Adaptation
Everyone understands the direct intervention by the authorities in
the activities of the immigrant communities is necessary only when
the community structures have formed around people with criminal
histories, extremists, etc. Governmental organs in the position
of external overseers in such situations only aggravate the social
and political situation in any given region. In this connection, of
course, effective intervention in practice is possible only under the
conditions of a normally functioning judicial system and a substantial
decrease in the level of corruption.
With regard to law-abiding national communities (and they are the
majority), what is needed is a movement towards full adaptation and
integration for newcomers.
This means teaching immigrants and their children the Russian language
and acquainting them with Russian culture and the particularities of
the legal system, among other things. All efforts will be effective
only in conjunction with active reciprocation from the diasporas as
a whole, not only from their representatives.
Russia should not repeat the mistakes made by the countries of West
Europe, where the objects of integration policies were exclusively
individuals rather than national communities. In the end, national
communities that claimed control over the process of integration arose
anyway, severely restricting knowledge and understanding of what kind
of people lived in these communities. Prejudices and xenophobia can
be overcome only on the basis of a closer reciprocal relationships
between developed communities and government representatives and
civil society. The task is to mobilize the financial and organization
potential of the diasporas in the creation of their own positive image.
Under current conditions, what is required from immigrant communities
is transparency, opened, and an ability to rise to new challenges. The
conversation now should be not only about the traditional strength of
the diasporas in terms of preserving and supporting national languages
and cultures and developing their business interests, but also about
activity in the direction of the adaptation of the members of the
immigrant communities to life in Russian society.