If a nation does not know its history, if the country loses its history, then its citizens have nowhere to go.
Mirzhakyp Dulatuly

Political life and national relations.

Political life and national relations. - e-history.kz
Throughout all Soviet history the myth that in the conditions of the Soviet federalism emergence of isolated tendencies is impossible dominated.

Deformations and mistakes in social and economic policy of CPSU couldn't but affect the national relations. The Brezhnev's management represented their ideal and trouble-free. Exaggeration of achievements in the solution of an ethnic question followed from the concept of the developed socialism. During this period in system of the national relations of a problem accrued quicker, than decided.

The USSR formed in 1922 conceived as the federal state, actually turned into the unitary. Federal republics in it had the limited rights and developed as an autonomy, without having the real sovereignty. The right of the nations to self-determination was actually forgotten. Throughout all Soviet history the myth that in the conditions of the Soviet federalism emergence of obosoblenchesky tendencies is impossible that the socialist nations can have no requirement for an exit from federation dominated. And therefore party and government bodies considered the right of the nations to self-determination once and for all carried out. As argument in favor of this statement that circumstance served that, despite the right of a free exit from the USSR, any people didn't use of. The reality when similar will was simple impossible in force deformed political democracy was thus ignored.

During the considered period internationalism was closed in a dogmatic, ideological framework. It was supposed that only by improvement of international education it is possible to solve all national problems. Education in this direction was conducted in a separation from real life, limited to promotion of ideas of internationalization. In this sense international education substituted or at all replaced national policy.

Despite successes in cultural development the problem of spiritual revival remained in the shadow. National culture in a form, education and education actually were translated. In 70 — the 80th years were more proclaimed the Soviet customs, than national. In the national republics, including in Kazakhstan, in political life the Eurocentrism prevailed, there was a process of absolutization of a role of the Russian culture in development of the people and nationalities of the USSR that led to ignoring of the rights of the socialist republics on national statehood, the state sovereignty and territorial integrity. The whole layer of a nomadic civilization and east culture, being an integral part of our history was given to oblivion, there was a process of loss of historical memory when all persistently forced to forget that was before October revolution of 1917. On the contrary, the history of the Soviet period was excessively idealized. Official bodies and promotion inspired everything that the real history Kazakh and other people of the Union began since 1917.

The forced internationalization, aspiration to accelerate formation of the Soviet people as uniform community bureaucratic and repressive methods, without national interests, led to that in national policy fundamental miscalculations and serious mistakes were allowed. Meanwhile original internationalism is impossible without understanding of national interests "of" and other nations. The nationalism arises first of all as reaction to infringement of national interests.

The incorrect understanding of internationalism led to that in Kazakhstan reduced language policy only to support of language of international communication, and national language held back. Widely propagandized bilingualism in the republic was insufficiently mutual. In the republic about 60% of the Kazakh population, whereas Kazakh — less than 1% of Russians knew Russian. The Kazakh language carried out only 10 of 50 social functions necessary for its full-blooded existence. It didn't serve office-work, the state, diplomatic, army life, the higher school, being limited to the household sphere. 95% of books were published in Russian, 70% of telecasts went on the air in Russian. Besides, it is necessary to add that names of the cities, settlements, collective farms, state farms, lakes, the rivers and mountains worked for strengthening of positions of Russian. The imperial language policy in the former USSR meant sharp reduction of opportunities of social mobility for the persons who aren't knowing Russian.

Deformations in national policy, toughening of political climate, intolerance of the power to free-thinking caused a protest, especially among the intellectuals. It was shown differently. In circles of students, the creative and scientific intellectuals the policy of russification of the republic was condemned, concern in a condition of the Kazakh language, absence of the sovereign rights at the republic expressed.

So, in 1963 in Moscow on the basis of Zhas Tulpar ensemble (Young tulpar) there was one of the first informal associations of the Kazakh youth which is training in the Moscow higher education institutions. At the beginning it united about 800 students in the ranks, late society considerably replenished. Organizers and active members "Zhas tulpar" were M. Auezov, B. Tayzhanov, A.Kadyrzhanov, S. Akatayev, K.Tleukhanov, M. Tatimov, M. Baltabayev, S. Baykenov, M. Sembin, M. Aytkhozhin, etc. Similar associations then arose in Leningrad, Kiev, Alma-Ata, Odessa, Riga, Pavlodar, Karaganda, Akmolinsk, Semipalatinsk, Chimkent, etc. In Karaganda it was called "Zhas the Cossack", in Semipalatinsk — "Tayshubar". Thus, "Zhas tulpar" turned into informal student's movement. The youth organized lectures, concerts, expeditions to auls and villages of the Dzhambul, Karaganda, Omsk, Ural, Kyzyl-Orda, Chimkent, Almaty, Akmolinsky areas, made radical offers in higher instances on elimination of available shortcomings.

The relation of authorities to this movement as a whole was negative, and its activity was under KGB supervision. Heads "Zhas tulpar" were exposed to persecutions, threats, as always them called nationalists. By the end of 1966 activity "Zhas tulpar" began to decline though it and proceeded until the end of the 60th years. In due time "Zhas tulpar" has considerable impact on minds and hearts of the Kazakh youth. Under its influence ensembles "Gulder", "Dos-Mukasan", "Aygul" were organized. Leaders "Zhas tulpar" — the Kazakhstan men of the sixties in the subsequent became known people in the republic, having a certain influence in its political life, made and do a lot of things for revival of national consciousness of the Kazakh people.

The activity termination "Zhas tulpar" and other similar organizations testified to system toughening in the 70th years. Despite it problems of national revival of the Kazakh people which were especially staticized and which realization became possible only in the late eighties, made the way in life. In 1974 — 1977 of X. Kozhakhmetov made creation attempt among the Kazakh youth of the Zhas Cossack organization. The program and oath of future members of this organization was written to them.

The rod direction of practical activities of the party and state structures in the 70th — the beginning of the 80th still there was a fight against nationalism, manifestations of regionalism and praise of a patriarchal system. Any dissent was stopped. Representatives of the intellectuals, whose views reflected in literary works and art, didn't fit into ideology and dogmas of system, were exposed to prosecution. Such fate, for example, comprehended the talented book of poet O. Suleymsnov "Az and I". O. Suleymenov's opponents, acting on pages of magazines "Young Guard", "Moscow", "Star", etc., called into question an ideological orientation and the book purpose. In a number of performances it directly was defined as nationalist, pantyurksistsky, anti-Russian. The poet accused of revaluation and exaggeration of a role of Turkic peoples in the history.

The authorities in every possible way stopped manifestation of free-thinking and among scientists. So, in 1976 the edition of the book "World Knowledge Traditional Kazakh Art" prepared by a group of authors of Institute of philosophy was forbidden. Ideologically harmful the book of anthropologist O. Ismagulov "Ethnic genogeografiya of Kazakhstan" was recognized. The author accused of errors of methodological character, of unilateral treatment of rodoplemenny factors in connection with the present. Later all these charges were dismissed.

Manifestation of accruing contradictions in the national relations were events of summer of 1979 in Tselinograd. They showed that favourite practice of the center to regulate the national relations a command method, ignoring interests of indigenous people, sputtered out. Attempt of creation of the German autonomy in 1979 in Kazakhstan and performances with a protest of the Kazakh population and remain today one of "white spots" a political history of the republic.

The decision on creation of the German autonomous region in Kazakhstan was made at meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of CPSU by spring of 1979 without coordination with the government and the Supreme Council of the republic. Despite the anti-constitutionality it didn't cause any noticeable counteraction from the management Kazakh the Soviet Socialist Republic, including Central Committee of Communist Party of Kazakhstan. It was supposed to include a number of regions of Akmolinsky, Pavlodar, Karaganda and Kokchetav areas in area, the center chose the city of Ermentau.

Information on creation of the autonomous region was quickly spread on the republic and caused fair indignation of the Kazakh population. In the morning on June 16 groups of the Kazakh youth, generally from it is pure students of higher education institutions and technical schools of the regional center gathered on a central square of the city. The youth bore banners in the Kazakh and Russian languages "Kazakhstan is indivisible! ", "There is no German autonomy! ", etc. Meeting accepted the address condemning the decision of the Kremlin about creation of the German autonomy.

The party management of area and the city, working in traditions of totalitarian system reduced the fact of demonstration and population indignation of the unreasoned decision of the Politburo to insufficient level of ideological work. Groups of propagandists were sent to student's hostels for "explanatory work". Having declared to that the decision on creation of an autonomy doesn't exist, the area management not without participation of the management of the republic in essence separated from the avtonomistsky project of the Politburo of the Central Committee of CPSU.

On June 19 in Tselinograd one more demonstration took place. It was headed by veterans of war and work, аксаклы, arrived of areas. By estimates of different eyewitnesses in it participated from 2 to 4 thousand people. Demonstrators transferred to heads of area the address directed against formation of an autonomy. After Tselinograd small meetings and demonstrations took place in Atbasara, Ermentau, Kokchetav. The repressive campaign which has followed after these performances, was limited and wasn't accompanied (unique for a stagnation era a case) by judicial proceedings even on administrative affairs. But the leaders of the republic and KGB used the best efforts in order that information on demonstrations didn't gain a wide circulation. Neither in the press, nor on assets of the party and plenums it was impossible to find even a short mention of an event.

Intensity, for years saved in the national relations, inability and unwillingness of system to change national policy at the begun reforming of society in the mid-eighties led to open collision of young weak democracy with command system in December, 1986. At the heart of December events in Almaty the complex of historical, social and economic and political factors lies. Historical roots go to a colonial policy of tsarism which was continued by Bolsheviks during implementation of industrialization, collectivization, development of a virgin soil and laylands. As a result there was steady demographic "washing out" of the nation, an uncontrolled robbery the all-union ministries and departments of national wealth, ignoring of economic interests of the Kazakh people. The state sovereignty of Kazakhstan was ignored, the national statehood remained the simple declaration.

Performance of the Kazakh youth in December, 1986, national in a form, wasn't nationalist. It wasn't directed against other people, including against Russian. Demonstration was peace and had political character, didn't contain appeals to overthrow of a political system.

However from party and bureaucratic structures of the republic and the center this performance was estimated as revolt of a small group of nationalist adjusted extremist part of youth. Having begun with charge it in "the Kazakh nationalism", the system logically came to violation of national equality.

The truth about character of December events, about their scales and consequences was concealed. The resolution of the Central Committee of CPSU "About work of the Kazakh republican party organization on international and patriotic education of workers" from which waited for the deep analysis and a comprehensive, objective assessment of events, caused not simply disappointment, and was apprehended as an undeserved insult of the whole people.

Such assessment was urged to justify use of force and various repressive measures in relation to participants of events. In large-scale campaign of repressions the main emphasis was laid on search of organizers and the secret organization. The investigation on criminal cases was carried in a short time, superficially. Open trials were carried out, Komsomol, party, trade-union meetings at which it was persistently recommended to expel participants of events from institutes everywhere took place, to discharge from office. During these actions 99 people were condemned, from higher educational institutions expelled 264 persons, from Komsomol — 758 people, punishments 1164 members of All-Union Leninist Young Communist League, from CPSU respectively 52 and 210 people were inflicted various measures. From bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs 1200 people, from Ministries of Health and transport — 309 was dismissed, 12 rectors of higher education institutions are dismissed. Only in the first half of 1988. passed certification of 78,2% of party, 98% of the Soviet, 94% of trade-union and 66% of Komsomol workers.

Party bodies put pressure upon law enforcement agencies towards removal of convictions, and the prosecutor's office didn't react to created lawlessness. Official data on consequences of events are inconsistent.

At suppression of disorders of force of protection of an order made numerous and brazen violations of legality — beating of detainees, export in their winter half-dressed to the country, the room without the sanction of the prosecutor in pre-trial detention centers and temporary detention centers for some days. At dispersal bludgeons, small engineer shovels, office собаки24 were used. In a word, in actions of authorities without special work it is possible to find all arsenal of means and the methods of machine of repression used in the past for protection of the totalitarian power.

Thus, totalitarianism and a management system, how many a suspense of national problems were the main reason crisis, stagnant явленийв society not so much. Suspense within the USSR of an ethnic question, absence in the republics of original national statehood gave to a kutverzhdeniye of command and one-party communistic system, omnipotence of totalitarianism. According to it the central government, CPSU built national policy. So important sphere of life of society decided actually naobshchestvenny beginnings: in essence it was assigned to party bodies and a plot was substituted for international education which was limited only to promotion of ideas of internationalism.

Equality, subjects of the Union was substituted for paternalistic policy of Russia concerning other republics. Low level of development of Russia as a whole and absence of democratic traditions have negative impact on other republics.