scholarly journals Tatar Language Teaching in the Republic of Mordovia: Potential, Problems, Perspectives.

Author(s):  
Alexander V. Martynenko

The article analyses the development of the Tatar national school, including Tatar language teaching, in Soviet and Post-Soviet Mordovia. In the introductory part of the article it is explained that in the Middle Ages and the subsequent Imperial period of national history, the formation of Tatars (including on the territory of modern Mordovia) was mainly confessional, Muslim. This education was concentrated in schools of two levels - mektebah and madrasah, and was based on the Hanafi Math'hab (law school) of Sunni Islam. Further, it is concluded that in the first decades of the Soviet period the new, secular, system of national education of the Tatars developed, replacing the traditional religious (Muslim) school. The article provides an overview of formation of the Tatar national school in the Mordovian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic and its preservation in the Republic of Mordovia. The Soviet school system of education provided a fairly rapid increase in the literacy of the Tatars of Mordovia already in the late 1920s  – 1930s, within the framework of the national school as well. As for the modern period, the special role of teaching Tatar is emphasized not only by the state authorities of the Republic of Mordovia, but also by the Regional National Cultural Autonomy of the Tatars “Yaktashlar” and by representatives of the state and public structures of Tatarstan. The article concludes that the system of Tatar national schools in Mordovia that developed during the Soviet period has adapted to new sociocultural and ethno-political Post-Soviet realities, and Tatar language teaching has not only been preserved there in the 1990s - 2010s, but continues to function effectively and to develop.

Author(s):  
S.Sh. Kaziyev ◽  
E.N. Burdina

The article is devoted to nation-building in Kazakhstan in the first years of Soviet power. It is noted that significant attention in this process was given to the languages of the titular nations as official languages. The authors made an attempt to present the formation of legal guarantees for the functioning of the Kazakh and Russian languages of the Kazakh Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic and their use in the state apparatus of the republic. The study is based on legislative acts and documents of 1917-1924 with the involvement of archival materials. The authors examined practical steps of korenization (nativization) with respect to party and Soviet administrative structures and transition to paperwork in two state languages in the KASSR. The article reflects the main problems of the implementation of language legislation and percentage korenization as a policy aimed at the formation of national management personnel and solving the problems of serving the population of Kazakhstan in their native language. The problems of introducing office work in the language of the titular nation of material, personnel, mental and other nature are investigated. The authors drew attention to the failure of the attempts of the Soviet state to quickly create an administrative apparatus in the KASSR from national personnel and introduce paperwork in the Kazakh language, as well as to the fact that the Soviet leadership understood this. The study shows the reasons for a significant revision of the korenization policy in the USSR and Soviet Kazakhstan, as well as the introduction of office work in the national language since 1926. Among the positive achievements of the Soviet regime, the creation of strong legal guarantees for the functioning of the Kazakh and Russian languages as the state languages of Kazakhstan of the studied period, as well as the partial korenization of the administrative apparatus of Kazakhstan as a result of targeted and progressive steps of the Soviet state to create national personnel, were noted.


Author(s):  
Adrian Brisku

Arguably, an account of modern Georgia is one about the country’s emergence as a political nation (independent republic and nation-state) in the region of the Caucasus—geographically straddled in between the Eurasian landmass—and the challenges of redefining, developing, and preserving itself. It is also about how it was forged under and often against its powerful neighbors, most notably the tsarist Soviet and Russian state, and about its equally uneven interactions with other neighboring nations and nationalities within its political borders. And while one cannot put a precise date on the cultural and political processes as to when this modern Georgia emerged, the late 19th century is that period when people within the two tsarist governorates of Tbilisi and Kutaisi interacted more intensively among themselves, but also within the imperial cultural and political centers of St. Petersburg and Moscow as well as beyond the imperial confines, in Central and Western European capitals. This in turn—following impactful events: the 1861 tsarist Emancipation of Serfs, the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878, the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, the First World War, the February and October Revolutions of 1917, the brief making of the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (1918)—led to a diffusion of and reaction to political, economic, and cultural ideas from European and imperial metropoles that on May 26, 1918, culminated with the establishment, for the first time, of Georgia as a nation-state: the Georgian Democratic Republic. A social democratic nation-state in its political content, the political life of this first republic was cut short on February 25, 1921, by the Red Army of a re-emerging Russian (Soviet) state. In the ensuing seventy years in the Soviet Union—initially, from 1922 to 1936, as a constitutive republic of the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic and then as a separate Soviet Socialist Republic until the implosion of the union in 1991—the republic and its society experienced the effects of the making and unmaking of the Soviet Marxist-Leninist modernization project. Especially impactful for the republic and its society was the period of the 1930s and 1940s under the hyper-centralized rule of the Georgian-born Soviet Communist Party leader Joseph V. Stalin: a period marked by implementation of a centrally planned economic model and political purges as well as a consolidation of the nation’s ethnocultural and territorial makeup. Also important was the late Soviet period, particularly that under the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, whereby thanks to the economic and political reforms undertaken in the later 1980s, calls for the recovering of the republic’s political independence were intensified and ultimately realized. This happened on April 9, 1991—with the first Georgian president, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, declaring the independence of the Republic of Georgia before the Soviet Union’s dissolution on December 26, 1991—and its international recognition would come easily and fast. But what would prove difficult and slow, from the outset, was building a European-style nation-state—meaning a liberal democratic order based on the rule of law and a market society—as was the case in the brief presidency of Gamsakhurdia (1991–1992). The latter’s term was marred by an ethnopolitical war in the South Ossetian region and brought to an end by a civil war fought in the capital city of Tbilisi and the Megrelian region. It continued to be difficult during the long and interrupted presidency of the former Georgian Communist Party boss, Eduard Shevardnadze (1995–2003)—the 1995 Constitution established a semi-presidential system of government—in which an ethnopolitical war with Abkhazia started and ended (1992–1993), state institutions stabilized, and a pro-Euro-Atlantic as opposed to a pro-Russian foreign policy was articulated, but state corruption also thrived. A European-style republic appeared closer during the full-term “hyper-presidency” of the Western-educated president Mikheil Saakashvili (2004–2013), marked by concrete steps toward Euro-Atlantic integration (NATO membership and EU partnership/toward membership) and a distancing from Russia as well as top-down neoliberal domestic reforms. But the republic was scarred by a war with Russia in August 2008 and a growing authoritarianism at home. It remains so despite a shift, since 2013, from a presidential to a parliamentary republic with the last directly elected president being the first woman president, Salome Zurabishvili (2018–). Since 2012, the Georgian Dream Party—established by billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili (prime minister, 2012–2013)—governs the republic by pursuing Western-oriented domestic reforms, EU and NATO integration, and a nonconfrontational position against Russia. The latter continues to undermine the country’s territorial integrity, having recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia’s independence in 2008 and maintaining its military bases there.


2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-365
Author(s):  
Mayhill C. Fowler

AbstractIn the Soviet Union theatre was an arena for cultural transformation. This article focuses on theatre director Les Kurbas’ 1929 production of playwright Mykola Kulish’sMyna Mazailo, a dark comedy about Ukrainianization, to show the construction of “Soviet Ukrainian” culture. While the Ukrainian and the Soviet are often considered in opposition, this article takes the culture of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic seriously as a category. Well before Stalin’s infamous adage “national in form and socialist in content,” artists like Kulish and Kurbas were engaged in making art that was not “Ukrainian” in a generic Soviet mold, or “Soviet” art in a generic “Ukrainian” mold, but rather art of an entirely new category: Soviet Ukrainian. Far from a mere mouthpiece for state propaganda, early Soviet theatre offered a space for creating new values, social hierarchies, and worldviews. More broadly, this article argues that Soviet nationality policy was not only imposed from above, but also worked out on the stages of the republic by artists, officials, and audiences alike. Tracing productions ofMyna Mazailointo the post-Soviet period, moreover, reveals a lingering ambiguity over the content of culture in contemporary Ukraine. The state may no longer sponsor cultural construction, but theater remains a space of cultural contestation.


Author(s):  
Yuriy Maksimenko

oday, as a result of the reform of decentralization and administrative-territorial organization, actually a new administrative-territorialunit is being established in Ukraine – a united community. But the basis and at the same time the reason for the joint of communitieswere first of all the most numerous local and at the same time the smallest administrative-territorial units in Ukraine – villagecouncils, inherited by Ukraine since Soviet times.Historically, the state and municipal system of modern Ukraine did not arise by itself, but was built on the “foundation” of theSoviet era, because Ukraine as an independent state is the successor of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR), which, in turn –the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic (USSR), founded 100 years ago – in 1919. The smallest local authority in Soviet times and afterthe declaration of independence in Ukraine was the village council, which for a hundred years of its existence evolved from a componentof the mechanism of state governance at places to the basic level of local self-government.The article presents the result of historical and legal study of the establishment and development of the structural organization oflocal administrative bodies in Ukraine during the Soviet era on the example of village councils, their legal status, structure, main powersand tasks done by these bodies and the status of their members and officials. Village councils became the basic bodies of local managementof Soviet Ukraine and its smallest administrative-territorial units. On the basis of the organization of the activities of Sovietvillage councils with certain evolutionary changes, local self-governing bodies – village councils of independent Ukraine – still functiontoday. Investigation of formation and development of these bodies in the Soviet period of the history of the state and law of Ukrainedeserves the attention of legal science, including in the current reform of decentralization and administrative-territorial organization.


Author(s):  
Elvina Mamutovna Denislyamova

The object of this research is the Crimean Tatar female residents of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic during the 1920-1941. The subject of this research is their engagement in the education system of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. The goal is to introduce new facts about the Crimean Tatar women involved in this sphere of social activity of the period under review, broaden the knowledge on the role they played therein, discuss the positions they held, and how their role changed over time. The author publishes and analyzes the previously unpublished materials discovered in the State Archive of the Republic of Crimea. The author reveals the new biographical records of the number of Crimean Tatar women engaged in the education system of the Crimean ASSR during the indicated historical period. If the records of 1920s depict a Crimean Tatar female pedagogue as an illiterate teacher of traditional crafts, then in the 1930s it is a women with professional education in geography, philology, natural sciences, or elementary school teachers. Some cases indicate that such woman could be the head of an orphanage or school; the author picks Zuledzha Adzheredinova is a bright example. Female pedagogues worked in the publishing industry. It is worth noting the high labor mobility of these women: frequent relocation from villages to cities or the other way around.


Author(s):  
Maleka N. Gasanova ◽  
Elena K. Mineeva

The article characterizes the statutory and regulatory enactments that determined the activities of the People’s Commissariat for Education of the Chuvash ASSR in the second half of the 1920s. The most important among them were the “General Regulations on the People’s Commissariats of the Chuvash Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic” (November, 1925) and the “Regulations on the People’s Commissariat for Education of the Chuvash ASSR” (May, 1929). The functions of the People’s Commissariat for Education are shown to include not only the problems of improving the state of affairs at all levels of education in the republic, but many issues related to the population’s social welfare, the development of science and culture as well. The main attention in the article is focused on showing the structure of the People’s Commissariat for Education as a special body of state power, whereas previously the scientific literature mainly covered the specific results of the activities performed by the People’s Commissariat for Education, when it was mentioned mainly in connection with adoption of a certain resolution on public education. The article considers the matters of separate structural subdivisions of the People’s Commissariat for Education of the Chuvash ASSR, including the organizational and planning part, the Academic Center, the supervisors. On the basis of documents from the funds of the State Historical Archive of the Chuvash Republic which are introduced into scientific circulation for the first time, general trends of changes in the organizational structure of the People’s Commissariat for Education in the second half of the 1920s are traced. It is concluded that there were significant problems with personnel replacement of full-time positions in the period under review, which was mainly explained by two reasons: low wages and a general shortage of qualified workers in the necessary areas of work. The personnel problem negatively affected implementation of tasks faced by the People’s Commissariat for Education.


2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-99
Author(s):  
Olesia Rozovyk

This article, based on archival documents, reveals resettlement processes in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1932–34, which were conditioned by the repressive policy of the Soviet power. The process of resettlement into those regions of the Soviet Ukraine where the population died from hunger most, and which was approved by the authorities, is described in detail. It is noted that about 90,000 people moved from the northern oblasts of the Ukrainian SSR to the southern part of the republic. About 127,000 people arrived in Soviet Ukraine from the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (BSSR) and the western oblasts of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). The material conditions of their residence and the reasons for the return of settlers to their previous places of inhabitance are described. I conclude that the resettlement policy of the authorities during 1932–34 changed the social and national composition of the eastern and southern oblasts of Ukraine.


Author(s):  
D. V. Repnikov

The article is devoted to such an important aspect of the activities of the plenipotentiaries of the State Defensive Committee during the Great Patriotic War, as conflicts of authority. Contradictions between the plenipotentiaries of the State Defensive Committee and the leaders of party, state, economic bodies at various levels, as well as between the plenipotentiaries themselves, that were expressed in the emergence of various disputes and often resulted in conflicts of authority, became commonplace in the functioning of the state power system of the USSR in the war period. Based on documents from federal (State Archive of the Russian Federation, Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History, Russian State Archive of Economics) and regional (Central State Archive of the Udmurt Republic, Center for Documentation of the Recent History of the Udmurt Republic) archives, the author considers a conflict of authority situation that developed during the Great Patriotic War in the Udmurt Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, which shows that historical reality is more complicated than the stereotypical manifestations of it.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-152
Author(s):  
Khagan Balayev ◽  

On April 28, 1920, the Peoples Republic of Azerbaijan was overthrown as a result of the intrusion of the military forces of Russia and the support of the local communists, the Soviet power was established in Azerbaijan. The Revolutionary Committee of Azerbaijan and the Council of Peoples Commissars continued the language policy of the Peoples Republic of Azerbaijan. On February 28, 1921, the Revolutionary Committee of Azerbaijan issued an instruction on the application of Russian and Turkish as languages for correspondences in the government offices. On June 27, 1924, the Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic executed the resolution of the second session of the Central Executive Committee of Transcaucasia and issued a decree “on the application of the official language, of the language of the majority and minority of the population in the government offices of the republic”. Article 1 of the said decree declared that the official language in the Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic was Turkish.


Kavkaz-forum ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Е.И. КОБАХИДЗЕ

В статье предлагается анализ Конституции Северо-Осетинской АССР 1978 г., отразившей этап развития ее государственности в советский период. Научное осмысление правовых аспектов истории Северной Осетии в статусе автономной республики, анализ ее места и роли в системе советской государственности во многом объясняет противоречия в реализации органами государственной власти республики функций политического самоуправления в эпоху «застоя» и «кризиса социализма». Анализ показывает, что декретированный ранней советской властью национальный суверенитет народов, населяющих советскую Россию, не нашел правового подтверждения в Конституции СССР 1977 г., на основе и в соответствии с которой были разработаны и приняты Конституции РСФСР и входящих в нее автономных республик, в том числе и СОАССР. Фиксация статуса автономной республики в качестве государственного образования без признания ее государственного суверенитета ограничивало пределы компетенции республиканских органов власти и управления и ставило их в фактическую зависимость от вышестоящих властно-управленческих структур даже в решении вопросов, отнесенных к ведению автономной республики. Все это вместе взятое превращало автономную республику в «квазигосударственное образование», высшие государственные органы которой действовали в режиме «местной власти». Противоречивые конституционные положения 1977-1978 гг., закрепленные в Основных законах СССР, РСФСР и СОАССР, стали одним из факторов деструкции советской власти и социалистической системы и последующего затем «парада суверенитетов» бывших автономных образований в пределах РСФСР. The article analyzes the 1978 Constitution of the North Ossetian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, which reflected the stage of development of its statehood relevant to the Soviet period. Scientific comprehension of the legal aspects of the history of North Ossetia in the status of an autonomous republic, an analysis of its place and role within the system of the Soviet statehood largely accounts for the contradictions in the implementation by the republican state institutions of the functions of political self-government in the era of "stagnation" and "crisis of socialism". Analysis shows that the national sovereignty of the peoples inhabiting Soviet Russia, that was decreed by the early Soviet government, did not find legal confirmation in the USSR Constitution of 1977, on the basis and in accordance with which the Constitution of the RSFSR and its autonomous republics, including NOASSR, were elaborated and adopted. Fixing the status of the autonomous republic as a state entity without recognizing its state sovereignty limited the competence of the republican authorities and made them in fact dependent on the higher power structures even in resolving issues attributed to the jurisdiction of the autonomous republic. All this taken together turned the autonomous republic into a "quasi-state entity", the highest state bodies of which operated in the regime of "local power". Contradictory constitutional provisions of 1977-1978, enshrined in the Fundamental Laws of the USSR, RSFSR and NOASSR, became one of the factors of the destruction of the Soviet power and the socialist system and the subsequent “parade of sovereignties” of the former autonomous entities within the RSFSR.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document