One of the most important principles of the organization of modern statehood, which arose as a result of the collapse of traditional social ties and a sharp increase in population mobility in the process of development of commodity-capitalist relations. The nation state as a political and legal reality arises from the need to clarify the traditional status of state subjects, to whom, unlike foreigners, more stringent criteria of political loyalty are now applied, as well as civil rights and obligations defined by law. One of the most important functions of the national state was the regulation of population migration. The principle of the nation-state is determined primarily by the system international relations and is not just the realization of the desire of national movements to create their own statehood. This is the meaning of international recognition of new states or, on the contrary, non-recognition of separatism and rebellious territories; This also explains the harsh policies of rich countries towards poor migrants.
The real subject of a nation state can be two kinds of nations: ethnic and civil origin. The first type of nation is created by ethnicity, which provides such objective criteria of nationality as common origin, common language, common religion, common historical memory, common cultural identity. Accordingly, a nation state with a single ethnic basis seeks to identify its political boundaries with ethnocultural ones. National states of this kind are typical, for example, of Central and Eastern Europe (Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, etc.). The nation of civil origin has as its starting point a non-ethnic (and in this sense cosmopolitan) ideology (mythology). This role can be played by: the idea of popular sovereignty, “human rights”, the communist worldview, etc. In any case, a nation of civil origin focuses on the non-natural aspects of the national community, although it also presupposes the presence of such natural unifying moments as a common (state) language, common cultural and historical traditions, etc. Classic states formed on the basis of nations of civil origin were France and the United States. In the 20th century, such a type of nation of civil origin as “socialist nations” arose, many of which were composed of several ethnic communities (USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, etc.). Although the population of many nation-states of civil origin is multi-ethnic, this in itself does not mean that it is less cohesive than the population of nation-states of mono-ethnic origin. However, as historical experience shows (especially the collapse of “socialist nations”), the politics of large ethnic groups creates a potential or actual threat to the existence of civil nations.
As a result of the processes of modernization and globalization, the above distinction between nation-states is becoming more and more relative. On the one hand, none of the modern ethnonational states is completely monoethnic, and the existing or emerging ethnic minorities are in no hurry to assimilate into the dominant (titular) ethnicity (nation). On the other hand, no nation-state of civil origin has ever been a complete melting pot for the ethnic characteristics of its citizens. The latter, expressing full loyalty to the national state and developing a cultural identity consistent with it, at the same time can preserve important signs of their ethnic origin (language, traditions) - like, for example, “Russian Armenians” in the Russian Federation or “American Chinese” in the USA . Taking into account the growing convergence of different types of nation states, a number of common features can be identified:
National language as a means of official communication;
System of officially adopted national and state symbols (coat of arms, flag, etc.);
State monopoly on the legitimate use of violence and taxation;
Rational-bureaucratic administration and legislation common to all;
A stable currency with national symbols;
Access to the labor market and social guarantees for “citizens” and corresponding restrictions for “non-citizens”;
If possible, a unified education system;
Development and promotion of national patriotic ideas and symbols.
priority of national interests in foreign policy.
A nation state is a state formed by an ethnos (nation) on the basis of an ethnic territory and embodying the political independence and independence of the people. The theoretical and ideological basis of such a state was the principle of nationality, under the flag of which the economically and politically strengthened bourgeoisie fought against outdated feudalism. The desire to create a national state is largely explained by the fact that preserving the socio-economic (or ultimately ethnic) integrity of a nation is possible only if it is within the framework of one state. The formation of a national state most of all satisfies these requirements of social development and is therefore a priority of any national movement.
Nation states usually developed in conditions where the formation of nations and the formation of the state occurred simultaneously, and therefore political boundaries most often coincided with ethnic ones. Thus states arose Western Europe, Latin America. This was typical and normal for the capitalist period of development. Since in the countries of Western Europe, where the formation of nations began for the first time in history, this process coincided with the emergence and centralization of states that emerged in territories with a predominantly ethnically homogeneous population, the term “nation” itself acquired here political meaning- belonging of people to one, “national” state. The principle of “one nation - one state” began to be promoted in Europe during the French Revolution. In Europe for a long time there was a point of view that the nation state is the optimal model for organizing society. National states have developed here in the form of a monarchy, parliamentary and presidential republics.
After the First World War, on the initiative of US President Woodrow Wilson, the principle of “one nation - one state” was applied in Central and Eastern Europe. The borders of new countries are cut along national lines. This helped remove many previous contradictions, but gave rise to new ones. The fundamental difficulty of successfully applying such an approach is that even if one attempts to objectively define the dividing lines between nations, it is impossible to do so consistently. There are almost no ethnically homogeneous areas that would not mix in a significant part of their border or deep territories with other national borders, which, being enclosed within the borders of another national state, would not turn into national minorities. Yes, section Ottoman Empire and the collapse of the Habsburg Empire in Europe were marked by the creation of small states, the process of fragmentation into which was called “Balkanization”, and with a negative meaning.
The states of Europe and other continents within the borders that we know were formed over several centuries. Most of them became mononational. In this regard, the term “nation” itself acquired a political meaning - the belonging of people to one “national” state. In this case, the term “nation” is used in a statist sense and refers to states that arose according to the principle of “one nation - one state.” Consequently, the concept of “nation - state” is valid only for mononational states.
The national state creates the necessary conditions for the economic, social, cultural progress of the people, for the preservation of the national language, traditions, customs, etc. Therefore, the creation of its own statehood is the desired goal of every ethnic group. However, all ethnic groups cannot realize this goal. This requires at least two conditions: compactness of residence and large numbers.
In this regard, the question of whether statehood is an obligatory, necessary feature of a nation has been discussed more than once in the scientific literature. Most researchers think not. In practice, when classifying a particular ethnic community as a nation, special importance is often attached to the presence of its own state. This is largely explained by the fact that preserving the socio-economic (and ultimately ethnic) integrity of a nation is possible only if it is within the framework of one state. However, “one’s own” state is far from being a mandatory feature of a nation. History knows many examples of the presence of several nations within one state. The Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian empires included various nations that did not have their own statehood. It is also known that the Polish nation was deprived of its statehood for a long time, but did not cease to be a nation.
IN modern conditions The concept of "national state" is used in two meanings.
Firstly, to designate states with an absolute majority of ethnically homogeneous population. Such national states include Japan, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Greece, Poland, Hungary, France, most Arab and Latin American countries, where representatives of the titular nation make up 90 percent or more of the population of these states.
Secondly, The concept of a national state is also used in relation to those states where, in addition to the titular nation, significant groups of other ethnic entities live. However, historically, a state was formed in this territory, bearing the name of the largest ethnic group settled in this territory. Among such states are Romania, Sweden, Finland, Syria, Iraq, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, etc. Due to the growth of interstate migration and the multiethnicity of the population, the number of such nation states will gradually increase.
It should be noted that in Russian Federation state-forming nation - Russians - and makes up 82% of the population, it does not belong to the category of national states, but is multinational state. It's connected With the fact that on the territory of Russia, in addition to Russians, dozens of indigenous peoples live, many of whom formed nations here and have their own national statehood, being part of the Russian Federation. Therefore, Russia is the ethnic territory of many non-Russian peoples, who together with the Russians constitute a multinational people.
After October revolution most of the peoples living in the territory Russian Empire, created various forms of national-state formations and nation states. Moreover, the forms of national statehood chosen by ethnic groups did not remain unchanged: they were improved and developed. Most peoples have moved from the original lower form to a higher form of national statehood. For example, the Kyrgyz ethnic group in a short period went from an autonomous region to a union republic within the USSR.
According to the Constitution of 1977, there were 53 national states and national-state formations in the USSR: 15 union republics, 20 autonomous republics, 8 autonomous regions and 10 autonomous okrugs. In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993, the Russian Federation includes 21 republics (national states), some of them are binational, for example, Kabardino-Balkaria, and even multinational (Dagestan); one autonomous region and 10 autonomous okrugs. Virtually all republics and national-state formations are multi-ethnic. Therefore, the republics within the Russian Federation are bearers of statehood not only of the “titular” nation, but also of the entire multi-ethnic people of a given republic, citizens of all nationalities living on their territory.
Some states, such as in Article 1 of the Constitution of Romania. Ideally, such a state assumes that all its citizens (or subjects) have a common language, culture and values, and that they are all part of a single society, with its problems.
Ideology
Civic nationalism argues that the legitimacy of a state is determined by the active participation of its citizens in the political decision-making process, that is, the extent to which the state represents the "will of the nation." The main instrument for determining the will of the nation is the plebiscite, which can take the form of elections, referendum, poll, open public debate, etc.
At the same time, a person’s belonging to the nation is determined on the basis of voluntary personal choice and is identified with citizenship. People are united by their equal political status as citizens, equal legal status before the law, personal desire to participate in political life nation, commitment to common political values and a common civic culture.
IN late XIX century, Renan drew attention to the role of civic nationalism in Everyday life: “The existence of a nation is an everyday plebiscite, just as the existence of an individual is an eternal affirmation of life.” Indeed, as Gellner showed, in modern nations, throughout their lives, citizens actively confirm their national identity and thereby the legitimate status of the state.
As for the “original” representatives of the nation from a cultural and ethnic point of view, according to civil nationalism they may not exist. It is more important that the nation consists of people who want to live next to each other on a single territory.
Civic nationalism is more pronounced in those young nations that arose in an already existing state with a fairly culturally homogeneous population. This is exactly how things were in pre-revolutionary France, which is why early nationalism actively supported the ideas of individual freedom, humanism, human rights, and equality. He was characterized by a rational belief in universal humanity and liberal progress. However, he played an important role at a later time. Thus, in the middle of the 20th century, the national liberation struggle of third world countries against colonialism often relied on civic nationalism as a path to the integration of society, contrasting it with the “divide and rule” principle characteristic of imperialism. The exponents of similar ideas were Gandhi, Nehru, Mandela, Mugabe.
The political and philosophical justification for the concept of nation states was given in the works of J. Bodin (“The Book of Six States”), who formulated the concept of “sovereignty,” N. Machiavelli (“The Prince”), who developed the category of “state interest,” and G. Grotius (“On law of war and peace"), which laid the foundations of the corps international law; as well as in the works of T. Hobbes and B. Spinoza.
Among the main goals of the nation state are:
Such goals can be reflected in the constitution, educational program, concept economic development and others official documents.
Criticism
see also
Notes
- Zorkin V. Apology of the Westphalian system // Rossiyskaya Gazeta No. 4150 of August 22
- Westphalian era Chapter from: Zyuganov G. A. . Geography of Victory: Fundamentals of Russian Geopolitics. M., 1997.
- Penrose J. Nations, states and homelands: territory and territoriality in nationalist thought // Nations and Nationalism. 2002. Vol. 8, No. 3. P. 277.
TO consider this issue, we should apparently proceed from the fact that the state as a political institution is called upon to maintain the internal and external stability of the community on the basis of which it arose and developed. In this regard, it is important to clarify the concept of a nation state, since different interpretations This concept can also determine the different directions of state ethnopolitics.
In the textbook “Ethnology”, authored by G.T. Tavadov, a fairly common, albeit deeply erroneous, definition of a national state is given: “A national state is a state formed by an ethnos (nation) on the basis of an ethnic territory and embodying the political independence and independence of the people.” In this case, the author essentially equates the “ethnos” (ethnic community) with the nation, and therefore it turns out that there are “national” states and there are those that cannot be considered national. Meanwhile, all modern states are national, because they are built on the basis sovereign right nations to self-determination, and it is civil, not ethnic communities, who have this right. And a nation-state is a territorial community, all members of which, regardless of their ethnicity, recognize their community, are in solidarity with it and obey the institutionalized norms of this community.
In addition to the postulate that there is a national state, for the purposes of ethnopolitical analysis it is necessary to determine another important position: what is the ethnic component in state building, i.e. what is mono-ethnic state and that there is a multi-ethnic state.
In world practice, a state in which 95% of the population or more are representatives of one ethnic tradition is considered to be monoethnic. But there are very few such states in the world (Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Albania, Armenia, Malta, Jamaica, Yemen, Hungary); in the vast majority of countries, the population contains several or even many ethnic groups. Heterogeneity ethnic composition population, combined with religious and racial differences, confronts state institutions with the task of integrating a multi-ethnic society, developing a national ideology and values that cement the foundations of the state.
Each state solves this problem in its own way. The United States has long been dominated by the idea of a “melting pot.” Researchers and politicians imagined American society as such a cauldron, in which heterogeneous ethnic and racial components formed an alloy called the American nation.
By and large, Soviet ideologists had a similar idea, according to whom, in the USSR, from numerous socialist nations, through “flourishing and rapprochement,” a “new historical community of people,” called “ Soviet people" This people was declared a typologically new community for the reason that it was characterized by internationalism and all this was called “multinationality.” In world science, law and politics, “multinational (or transnational) corporations are known, “multinational armed forces” are known, and “multinational” has always meant transstate entities or connections. In fact, when translated into common language, it was about multi-ethnicity. It is no coincidence that in Soviet and post-Soviet times the concepts of “national” and “multinational” were translated from Russian as “ethnic” or “multi-ethnic”. Thus, the concept “national” was given exclusively ethnic content. A quote from Tavadov’s textbook is a clear confirmation of this. In fact, the Soviet people were not a new, but an old historical community, known since the time of M.V. Lomonosov, N.M. Karamzin and A.S. Pushkin as “the Russian people” or “Russians”. In the 18th century even the Russian language was called the Russian language.
In contrast to the American and Soviet models, which define the complex integrity of the population according to the state (the American nation and the Soviet multinational people), there are models of the nation state in which the main role in the formation of a nation is given to the ethnic group. Thus, in modern Latvia, the assistant to the prime minister for national security officially declares that “the Russian community does not fit into the concept of the national Latvian state.” An attempt by the dominant ethnic group to declare itself as a state nation and consolidate this thesis in ideology and in its legal status leads to the formation of a so-called ethnocratic state. Ethnocratic ideology is characteristic of African states, and it is used especially widely during the formation of states.
An ethnocratic state should be understood as a state in which an ethnic group, dominant numerically or politically, enjoys power and privileges in relation to others, it identifies exclusively with the state, denying minorities the right to membership in the nation or to independent “nation building”. In this case, the dominant ethnic group positions itself with the help of state ideology and state institutions(directly or indirectly) as the only “true”, “real”, “real” nation and demands that representatives of other ethnic groups be culturally equal to it. This state model is sometimes called constitutional nationalism. It aims to cement the ethnic majority and reject or isolate unwanted ethnic or racial minorities (prominent examples of this are the apartheid regime in South Africa, as well as the constitutional foundations of the post-Soviet state).
The regime of constitutional nationalism can be relatively soft and extremely harsh. In the latter case, it completely denies the rights of certain groups of the population. Thus, in the Central African state of Burundi, the Tutsi ethnic group has occupied a dominant position for many centuries, which was made their privileged ally by German colonists before the First World War (Tutsis were overseers on banana and tea plantations), and then they were used for the same purposes by the Belgians, beginning in 1972 repressive actions against the Hutus with the aim of reducing the number of the latter, and, if possible, their complete physical destruction. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people were killed. Moreover, the conditions for the conflict began to mature long before it began, because the practice of separating communities began at school: Hutu and Tutsi children were separated: some sat in one corner of the classroom, others in the other. Before the outbreak of active confrontation, marriages between Hutus and Tutsis were not a rare occurrence. The first massacre was stopped as a result of protests from the world community; but the ethnocratic idea turned out to be stronger than the voice of the world community, and in 1988, clashes between Hutus and Tutsis resumed.
But the largest ethnic Civil War the end of the 20th century, associated with the confrontation between the Hutus and Tutsis, took place in neighboring Rwanda in 1994. About one million people died then. This confrontation serves as a clear example of African political tribalism. By the time the Rwandan authorities provoked the massacre of the Tutsi, the latter’s position had already been significantly weakened.
At the end of the 1950s. During the decolonization process, the Hutus began to actively demand the transfer of power to the majority (the Hutus made up 85% of the country's population). In 1959, the first clashes between communities occurred. In 1962, presidential elections in Rwanda were held for the first time, as a result of which the Hutus took leading political positions in the country. Large-scale oppression of the Tutsi began, which provoked them to fight to regain their lost positions. This struggle resulted in a series of attacks on government institutions and following massacres Tootsi. On the territory of Uganda, refugees from Rwanda formed the Rwandan Patriotic Front, which fought for the reform of government in Rwanda and the division political power between the main ethnic communities. In 1990, the RPF launched a major offensive and approached the capital, Kigali. In turn, the central government declared all Tutsis living in Rwanda to be collaborators of the RPF, and Hutu who sympathized with the struggle for Tutsi rights - traitors. The attack on the capital with the help of France was repulsed, but a large-scale guerrilla war unfolded in the country. In the summer of 1993, representatives of the warring parties in Tanzania reached an agreement on ceasefire and the beginning of the process of democratic change in Rwanda However, the country's President Habyarimana was in no hurry to implement the agreements and STARTED to form a people's militia in the country whose number reached 30 thousand people. They were armed mainly with machetes, which they then used to kill Tutsis.
UN peacekeeping forces stationed in the country informed the organization's leadership about the impending ethnic cleansing, but Canadian General Romeo Dallaire was ordered not to intervene in the situation. On April 6, 1994, the plane carrying the presidents of Burundi and Rwanda was shot down by a missile (according to one version, it was launched by radical Hutus). The death of President Habyarimana signaled the beginning of the extermination of the Tutsis. At the same time, all the Hutu politicians and journalists who called for dialogue were the first to be killed. The Hutu armed forces, together with the army, systematically exterminated the Tutsis wherever they were found. In the first two weeks, 250 thousand people were killed. The country's radio stations played the role of coordinators of ethnic cleansing, calling for pogroms and providing information about Tutsi locations. It was reported on air that the Tutsi lands would be given to those Hutus who would destroy them.
UN peacekeepers did not interfere with what was happening during the entire period of the pogroms, and a significant part of them, on the instructions of their governments, left the country. One of the most dramatic episodes of this conflict is associated with the departure of the Belgian peacekeepers. In one of the schools in Kigali, which they guarded, two thousand Tutsis who had escaped during the pogroms were hiding. After the Belgians received orders to abandon the school building, the abandoned people were killed by the Rwandan military. In the outback, people were killed even in church buildings where they came to seek refuge. These events became the backdrop against which the events of Gilles Courtemanche’s novel “A Sunday Afternoon by the Pool in Kigali” and its screen version unfold. Then the confrontation between the Hutu and Tutsi spread to the territory of the Congo, where a huge number of refugees representing both ethnic groups moved.
An example of an “inverted ethnocracy” is Sri Lanka. Historically, it was inhabited by Sinhalese who practiced Buddhism. With the arrival of the British and the creation of vast tea plantations, significant groups of Hindu Tamils began to move to the island from the Hindustan Peninsula, who settled mainly in the north of the island and worked on tea plantations. Although the Sinhalese were numerically superior, the British favored the Tamils, who therefore occupied the most prestigious positions in the colonial administration and bureaucracy. After independence in 1947, the Tamils were gradually displaced from key positions in the state apparatus by the Sinhalese. Then the Sinhalese began to settle in territories that had previously been perceived exclusively as Tamil, other measures were taken to strengthen the position of the Sinhalese and finally the Sinhala language was declared the only state language country, and Buddhism as the constitutional religion. The Tamils felt disadvantaged and a protest movement intensified among them, which escalated into the 1980s. V guerrilla warfare under the slogan of creating an independent Tamil state in northern Sri Lanka. As a result of enormous efforts, government troops managed to break the main centers of Tamil resistance, but the conflict has not yet been completely overcome. The Tamils complain about pogroms and infringements of their rights, the Sinhalese see open separatism in the Tamil protest movement and nothing more.
IN last years the concept of the nation state is subject to double pressure: on the one hand, it is weakened under the pressure of transnational institutions, the system of international law and globalization processes; on the other hand, the state as a form social organization society experiences the pressure of ethnopolitical movements and is forced to confront the challenges of politicized ethnicity. Moreover, these challenges arise where the processes of intrastate integration, the development of democratic institutions and civil society, it would seem, have gone so far that they exclude the possibility of the emergence of ethnopolitical movements and the actualization of the ideas of ethnic nationalism.
However, in modern Europe, where efforts have been made to develop national minorities and where the principles of inviolability state borders After the Second World War, were repeatedly confirmed by state leaders and interstate agreements; at the end of the 20th century, the third wave of nationalism in the past century arose. It is often associated with the third geopolitical redistribution of the world, which was a consequence of the end of the Cold War, caused by the confrontation between two social systems. To some extent this is true, but ethnopolitical movements in Europe became actualized before the collapse and liquidation of the socialist Eastern Bloc. For example, Ulster “exploded” in 1969, when no one in the world could have imagined that Soviet Union will fall apart The October crisis of 1970 in Quebec, where prominent politicians were killed by Quebec separatists, shook Canada. In continental Europe, the most problematic character by the 1960s. acquired the ethnopolitical problems of Belgium. For more than a century, this country developed under the complete dominance in political and cultural life of one ethnic group - the Walloons. French was the only official language of the country. The French-speaking provinces were the most developed economically, and the basis of the financial bourgeoisie and the Brussels bureaucracy were Francophones. It is no coincidence that the Flemings supported Germany during the First World War, hoping for the latter's help in creating an independent state.
A television “prank” organized by Belgium's French-language state channel in December 2006, which announced that Flanders had announced its secession from the Kingdom of Belgium, was taken seriously by a huge number of the country's citizens, indicating the fragility of relations between the communities.
Among the crisis regions of Europe in the second half of the 20th century were not only Ulster and Belgium, but also the Basque Country and Catalonia in Spain, Val d'Aosta and South Tyrol, Lombardy in Italy, Corsica and Brittany in France. Today it is on the verge of collapse not even Belgium, but Great Britain, because Scottish nationalism is strengthening and supporters of an independent Scotland are close to becoming the politically dominant force in the Scottish Parliament, and the referendum on independence itself may take place in the coming years. Separatist movements are now popular in many European countries. All of them have an "ethnic" justification, their inspirers proceed from the opposition of their ethnic groups to the rest of the population. By virtue of its nature, ethnicity is concentrated mainly in the sphere of culture and does not imply the presence political program or concepts. But under certain conditions it can perform a political function.
A nation state is a state formed by an ethnos (nation) on the basis of an ethnic territory and embodying the political independence and independence of the people. The theoretical and ideological basis of such a state was the principle of nationality, under the flag of which the economically and politically strengthened bourgeoisie fought against outdated feudalism. The desire to create a national state is largely explained by the fact that preserving the socio-economic (or ultimately ethnic) integrity of a nation is possible only if it is within the framework of one state. The formation of a national state most of all satisfies these requirements of social development and is therefore a tendency of any national movement.
Nation states usually developed in conditions where the formation of nations and the formation of the state occurred simultaneously, and therefore political boundaries most often coincided with ethnic ones. Thus, the states of Western Europe and Latin America arose. This was typical and normal for the capitalist period of development. Since in the countries of Western Europe, where the formation of nations began for the first time in history, this process coincided with the emergence and centralization of states that emerged in territories with a predominantly ethnically homogeneous population, the term “nation” itself acquired a political meaning here - the belonging of people to one, “national ", to the state. The principle of "one nation - one state" began to be promoted in Europe during the French Revolution. In Europe, there has long been a view that the nation state is the optimal model for organizing society. Nation states
developed here in the form of a monarchy, parliamentary and presidential republics.
After World War I, at the initiative of US President Woodrow Wilson, the principle of "one nation, one state" was applied in Central and Eastern Europe. The borders of new countries are cut along national lines. This helped remove many previous contradictions, but gave rise to new ones. The fundamental difficulty of successfully applying such an approach is that even if one attempts to objectively define the dividing lines between nations, it is impossible to do so consistently. There are almost no ethnically homogeneous areas that would not mix on a significant part of their border or deep territories with other national borders, which, being enclosed within the borders of another national state, would not turn into national minorities. Thus, the division of the Ottoman Empire and the collapse of the Habsburg Empire in Europe were marked by the creation of small states, the process of fragmentation into which was called “Balkanization”, and with a negative meaning.
The states of Europe and other continents within the borders that we know were formed over several centuries. Most of them became mononational. In this regard, the term “nation” itself acquired a political meaning - the belonging of people to one “national” state. In this case, the term “nation” is used in a statist sense and refers to states that arose according to the principle of “one nation - one state.” Consequently, the concept of “nation - state” is valid only for mononational states.
The national state creates the necessary conditions for the economic, social, cultural progress of the people, for the preservation of the national language, traditions, customs, etc. Therefore, the creation of their own statehood is the desired goal of every ethnic group. However, all ethnic groups cannot realize this goal. This requires at least two conditions: compact living conditions and a small number of people.
In this regard, the question of whether statehood is an obligatory, necessary feature of a nation has been discussed more than once in the scientific literature. Most researchers think not. In practice, when classifying a particular ethnic community as a nation, special importance is often attached to the presence of its own state. This is largely explained by the fact that preserving the socio-economic (and ultimately ethnic) integrity of a nation is possible only if it is within the framework of one state. However, “one’s own” state is far from being a mandatory feature of a nation. History knows many examples of the presence of several nations within one state. The Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian empires included various nations that did not have their own statehood. It is also known that the Polish nation was deprived of its statehood for a long time, but did not cease to be a nation.
In modern conditions, the concept of “national state” is used in two meanings. Firstly, to designate states with an absolute majority of ethnically homogeneous population. Such national states include Japan, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Greece, Poland, Hungary, France, most Arab and Latin American countries, where representatives of the titular nation make up 90 percent or more of the population of these states. Secondly, the concept of a nation state is also used in relation to those states where, in addition to the titular nation, significant groups of other ethnic entities live. However, historically, a state was formed in this territory, bearing the name of the largest ethnic group settled in this territory. Among such states are Romania, Sweden, Finland, Syria, Iraq, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, etc. Due to the growth of interstate migration and the multiethnicity of the population, the number of such nation states will gradually increase.
It should be noted that, although in the Russian Federation the state-forming nation - Russians - makes up 82% of the population, it does not belong to the category of nation states, but is a multinational state. This is due to the fact that in addition to Russians, dozens of indigenous peoples live on the territory of Russia, many of whom have formed nations here and have their own national statehood, being part of the Russian Federation. Therefore, Russia is the ethnic territory of many non-Russian peoples, who together with the Russians constitute a multinational people.
After the October Revolution, most of the peoples living on the territory of the Russian Empire created various forms of national-state formations and nation states. Moreover, the forms of national statehood chosen by ethnic groups did not remain unchanged: they were improved and developed. Most peoples have moved from the original lower form to a higher form of national statehood. For example, the Kyrgyz ethnic group in a short period went from an autonomous region to a union republic within the USSR.
According to the Constitution of 1977, there were 53 national states and national-state formations in the USSR: 15 union republics, 20 autonomous republics, 8 autonomous regions and 10 autonomous okrugs. In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993, the Russian Federation includes 21 republics (national states), some of them are binational, for example, Kabardino-Balkaria, and even multinational (Dagestan); one autonomous region and 10 autonomous okrugs. Virtually all republics and national-state formations are multi-ethnic. Therefore, the republics within the Russian Federation are the statehood of not only the “titular” nation, but of the entire multi-ethnic people of a given republic, citizens of all nationalities who live on their territory.