First working section

Etibar Najafov - professor. Baky Slavic University

Comparative Analusis of Models of Multiculturalism in Different States

Multiculturalism is a policy which recognizes cultural pluralism and promotes to it. It is connected with respect of rights of all population of a country not depending on their ethnic, racial, and religious differences. In a multicultural society all the citizens of the country have equal rights in developing their culture, language, traditions, ethnic and religious values, in opening national schools, in issuing newspapers, journals, and so on. The policy of multiculturalism leads to integration without assimilation. Therefore, it is widely supported not only by political elite but also by representatives of non-titular nations.

Theoretical basis of multiculturalism is liberalism, particularly such values of liberalism as freedom, equality, and brotherhood. Therefore, a multicultural society is a liberal society able to overcome not only social injustice, but also injustice based on racism. However, there is one essential difference between multiculturalism and liberalism. Unlike liberalism multiculturalism deals with rights of group of people, i.e. rights of ethnic and cultural groups, rather than rights of individuals.

Multiculturalism as a policy is also very close to tolerance by its essence. Particularly it is one of the most important features of a tolerant society, which proposes parallel existence of different cultures. As a feature of tolerant society multiculturalism promotes mutual enrichment of cultures, it leads to penetration of one culture into another, to further formation of culture uniting people.

Multiculturalism is one of the varieties of reaction to cultural diversity, existing in a society. Besides it, we can note other varieties of reaction to cultural diversity such as isolationism, assimilation, and apartheid.

  1. Isolationism is aimed to prevent formation of cultural diversity by not allowing alien people (especially culturally alien ones) to enter a country and reside there. As a case we can refer to “Law on Immigration” adopted in Australia in 1901.
  2. Assimilation is an alternative policy to isolationism. This policy proposes absorption of cultures of minorities and newly arrived by dominant cultures;
  3. Apartheid is a policy directed to segregate definite groups of peoples with the aim to impede their assimilation.    All these varieties of reaction to cultural diversity are being conducted by repressive methods. Therefore, peoples mostly resist to these methods.

Unlike the above-mentioned methods, multiculturalism is such a variety of reaction to cultural diversity that is supported not only by a dominant ethnic group of people but also by newly-arrived ones and even minorities. The given specific feature of multiculturalism makes it a positive phenomenon which ultimately promotes development of society.

The process of formation and development of multicultural society was determined by peculiarities of historical development, concrete societal factors. It should be noted that democracy played a crucial role in the process of formation and development of multicultural society. Particularly, democracy had been necessary for the given process as well as sufficient conditions. It is not occasional that multicultural society came into existence first of all in the democratic states of Western Europe and North America. High level of tolerance, pluralism, and democracy in these states created favorable conditions for spreading ideas of multiculturalism there.

Taking into consideration the above-mentioned fact that formation and development of multicultural society was determined by peculiarities of historical development of a concrete society we should note that due to differences of the historical development of states there were different models of multiculturalism. Among its most specific models I’d like to note American, Swedish, Australian, and Canadian models.

a.  American model of multiculturalism.

Up to the middle of the 1960-s the USA was imagined as a “melting pot”, which combined Anglo Saxons (ethno cultural base of the American nation) with immigrants.  In the given “pot” the Anglo Saxons were in the dominant position. After that the situation substantially changed. The “melting pot” program was substituted by the ideology of multiculturalism. As the main reason of the change, I can note, was the adoption of 2 important laws- “Law on Civil Rights” in 1964 and “Immigration Law” in 1965. The first law weakened the Anglo Saxons factor and provided equality of nations. The second law accelerated immigration in the country.

Today in multicultural policy of the USA we clearly see the acceptance of the values of the American society by immigrants on the one side, and the lack of ethno cultural homogeneity of the American society as well as formation of supplementary mechanisms preventing ethnic and racial extremism, on the other side.

b.  Swedish model of multiculturalism

The Swedish model is based on the active role of the state in conducting the policy directed to preserve cultural diversity. Such an active position of the state in Sweden has been related to the ruling of the Social- Democratic Party, which has a strong social policy. In 1976 the Swedish government allowed foreigners to vote. “Law on Immigration” (1997) identified Sweden as a multicultural society.

The policies are directed to urge immigrants to study the Swedish and native language. Thus, the Swedish government considers cultural diversity in the country as a reality which should be preserved.

c.   Australian model of multiculturalism

The formation of multicultural society in Australia was preceded by the policy of isolationism pursued by the government. “Law on Immigration”, adopted in Australia in 1901, and served as a legislative basis for conducting the policy of isolationism by the ruling elite. The situation began to change with the adoption of the following legislative documents: “Law on Citizenship” (1948) with amendments, “Law on Migration” (1958) with amendments, “Law on Foreigners” (1984) with amendments and “Law on Visa regulation” (1997) with amendments.

It should be noted that the introduction of the term “multiculturalism” into political lexicon is connected with the name of Al Grasby, minister of Immigration of Australia (1970). He did very much to overcome the hostility between the Anglo Saxon population and new Australians. In 1979 the government founded Australian Institute on Problems of Cultural Diversity, in 1987 – the government established the Committee on Problems of Multiculturalism. These measures of the Australian government played a very important role in successful evolving of the immigration policy of Australia from pro-racist to multicultural policy.

d.  Canadian model of multiculturalism

The formation of multicultural society in Canada has begun since the 1960-s. The Canadian government believes racial, ethnic, confessional diversities of the population to be the basic national feature of the Canadian society. It means that multiculturalism is one of the most significant national peculiarities of Canadians. Multiculturalism is protected by the 27-th clause of the Canadian Charter of Freedom and Rights.

Unlike the USA and Australia, in Canada there was never a crude assimilation by an ethnic group having a dominant position. Canada is indisputably to be a multilingual country. All members of ethnic communities have rights to use their native languages including the right to teach it. As a result of this situation ethnic minorities of Canada preserve also their cultural and mental peculiarities.

Thus, as a result of a comparative analysis of different models of multiculturalism I’d like to make some generalizations:

  1. Multiculturalism is a positive societal phenomenon. It creates favorable conditions for the development of society. Particularly, it prevents the development  of ethnic collisions, strengthens the trust between peoples;
  2. Multiculturalism came into existence as alternative policy to repressive varieties of reactions of society toward cultural diversity;
  3. Democracy has been one of the most important prerequisites for the formation of multicultural society;
  4. Peculiarities of historical development of state caused formation of various models of multiculturalism;
  5. Despite some differences between various models of multiculturalism in all of these analyzed models the state has been playing a crucial role in creating and supporting multicultural environment.


Olga Astaphyeva - Academy of National Economy and state service attached to the President of Russian Federation           

Dynamics of  Ideas of Multiculturalism in the Strategies of Cultural Policy.

Pleased to welcome all the members of the Humanitarian Forum, discussing such pressing problems not only for Russia and CIS, but for the whole world, as they relate to the problems of coexistence under the difficult conditions of social and cultural changes. Those changes that alter the understanding of space and time, the meaning of life, which very often causes us to reconsider its proximity to their home culture and to seek for contact with other cultures.

The idea of intercultural dialogue is becoming central for modern unstable and changing world.

Dear colleague board freed me from having to return to the semantic concepts of basic terms and categories, that we work with today, it is the category of multiculturalism, which is difficult, but being opposed in the forms of different models in the world today, that can be adapted to only one country but can be quite applicable to other conditions, because it takes any model centuries to be trained and searches of these grounds for the use of a particular model are the most complicated tasks, representing an agreement on common strategies of the world the concept on coexistence of the world with a specific concept of their own ethno-cultural and national-cultural development.

The problem of coexistence is a problem which is in search of a strategy of cultural policy in this world. But, in my opinion, the concept of cultural policy today is much broader, because all the problems, we are discussing now, are associated with a particular manifestation of their own cultural identity and merit of culture. They very often come across with the problem of communication of the social order conflict. The issue of multiculturalism is an interdisciplinary problem, the problem of sociocultural statistics in today’s world, when social inequality coordination attempts to step out of this social inequality. They still come up against the cultural inequality that generates conflicts. Perhaps, it precisely leads to the fact that adapting models in some countries as you mentioned, are not complied in other countries. And criticism of political assessment of appearing, most of all, makes us see multiculturalism in a different way.

What does in a different way mean?

First of all, it’s necessary to understand that we are analyzing multiculturalism as the only possible strategy, or as one of many strategies, characterized by a trend towards democratization of environment of free interaction and of establishing cultural pluralism.

Certainly there arises a problem connected with the stability of the concept of people’s culture.  If a cultural environment was prepared as a poly–cultural, polyreligious or a holy professional environment, long ago, then all the other processes of entering other cultures into this environment become quite local, how to say, to possible. This is a process of natural expansion of cultural diversity. This is a complication of wholes. And, I think, this is a characteristics of complication of multiculturalism models and very important today. In this sense, I think we need to review the concepts of adaptation. Adaptation becomes not a mere process of culture in the area of other cultural values, but also a process of certain transculturations, it is when not only similar cultures are accepted, but also the other ones, which could absolutely never been regarded as cultured as to be open for dialogues. That’s why; the problem of adaptation is a problem of searching tools of modern universities that would help people become adapted in difficult situations.

Respected Yefim Yefimovich said yesterday that one of these tools of course, was the education system. In my opinion, except education system, the situation of building a Civil Society that we speak about very often, also offers building certain new expert platforms. Like these expert platforms social organizations and unities set out.

Review of national and cultural autonomies in Russia, new interpretation of possibilities of uniting cultural and informational values in the territories of all countries in the modern world allow a person to own a small angle and not being isolated from their environment to get to now, all the values of their own culture. This is just the kind of model unity of differences, when each culture saving its own merit and cultural values absolutely interacts with other cultures out of the conflict environment. To succeed in it is very difficult today, as we have already noted that social problems affect the status of each person and problems of existence in the world.

What does discussion platform mean? One of them is an analytical material, which presents every country open for a lot many to other nations in all the situations. The fact is that in such kind of methods and methodology, materials almost don’t exist. There is no unified conceptual methodological basis of analysis of interaction of cultures on different grounds.

Linguistic diversity is one of the ways to solve this problem – the problem of adaptation through modern informational and cultural networks which are being created. By the way, one of the most interesting forms of people’s adaptation to the modern world, which is to keep in touch with their family, and to preserve this relationship, which allows them not to be separated from their new reality. This new situation, which just changes the understanding of migrations, when labor migration really becomes a temporary one, rather than the deposits one that new migration in their new territory.

I would like to say, that concept of multiculturalism in today’s Russia, has also undergone a serious scrutiny. Creation of such locus of friendship here and locus of intercultural dialogue will be interesting. Take our Orenburg region, which is the border area and which, today, in terms of population consists of 180 to 200 representatives of ethnic and cultural traditions of different cultures. In this area a wonderful experience of the national village is created. It is the space of total area with information museums and centers; it is possible to meet with other cultures and within the same territory to carry out common activities. It is spread so only in Russia, just avoiding isolation, and trying to communicate are interesting ways and means of complicating the model of multiculturalism with the aim of establishment of forms of dialogue. Analyzing the Russian experience, I want to say that still every year 200 thousand people come to Russia. They have different cultures, but the same traditions as Russia has. And it may serve as the basis for the strategy of etnocultural policy has been positive. And all these situations of aggravation with whom we have a place and this open platform, will of course find their positive solution.  


Ivan Palchev – former ambassador of the Republic of Bulgaria in the Republic of Azerbaijan (2004-2008).

                         Multiculturalism in Action; Bulgarian ethnic model.

Ladies and Gentlemen, not all of you know that in Bulgaria there are more than one million Muslims. It is eight hundred thousand Bulgarian Turks and two hundred Bulgarians who converted to Islam during the reign of the Ottoman Empire. In the early 90s   when most of the initiators of Europe cross-examining the  Slavs  and when asked them where the ethnic conflict started on Balkan, and got  response “in Bulgaria”, because the degree of ethnic tension at that time reached its  intensity,  because  in the  mid-eighties,  the  government of that time changed  the  names of  our Muslims  from   Arabian-Turkish  to Slavic ones. They  were  forbidden  to  speak  their  native  language. But  even  now  most of  them  speak  their  native  language. Though  it  sounds  strange, for example, if  two  Muslims  spoke  Turkish  in the  street policemen  stopped  and  fined  them.  For  Muslims  it  had  been  made  difficult   to perform their rituals in mosques. In  a word,   the situation was  tense  and  reached  its  peak  in  1989 when  mass  strikes  and   escapes   from   prison began. In  order  to  control  the  situation  the communist  regime  expelled  four  hundred  thousand Turkish  citizens from our republic. But  it removed  the tension for only a while   because  once  struck  up  a  change  in  Eastern  bloc and  the situation  began  to hit  up  again. Then the president of Bulgaria was Dr. Zh. Zhelev. He  was  for  the  solution  of the   critically   developing  conflict  because our   constitution  protects  all the personal  rights   of our   citizens.  But we went further and allowed  Muslims  to  create  their own  party that  would  be  defending  their collective  rights,  the rights  to  live and  freedom  that were  committed  in  the early  90s. During  these  twenty  years  there  has always been   permanent  representation  of our  assembly,   but it  is  interesting  that  the  representation  of  our  assembly began  with  twenty-four  deputies but  there  are  thirty-six of them  now. Twelve out of these thirty-six deputies are Bulgarians because now even ethnic Bulgarians vote for this party. In the elections there were one hundred sixty thousand of them. From  the first steps of  this  new  party  all  the other parties  shouted not to  allow  terrorism,  not to  violate  the  constitution,  but  everyone  knew  that  all it was necessary  for  taking the situation  under control. Of course, there was a risk but it was justified. Before convening of the parliament, all the issues were resolved. And all  the problems  with  the names  of our  Muslims, problems  with our  Turkish  origin citizens in   troops were  immediately  solved,  their right to pray in  the mosques  was  legalized,  it was  allowed  to learn the language  at  school  and   it  eliminated the  tension. In  five  years  the party  had already started  to deal  with  the issues which were  important  for society as a whole. It was already dealing with not only their own ethnic problems, but it also became one of the parties of Bulgarian political spectrum. And I hope just this was called the Bulgarian ethnic problem. I  hope  that this  example  of  our  inter-ethnic relations  can  serve  as  a   role   model  for many other  societies  who  have  the risk  of tensions  on an ethnic  basis. Thank  you!


Fesenko Vladimir – the Center of Applied Political Investigations of “Penta” (the Ukraine)

The Ukrainian Experience of Constructing Interethnic Interaction in the Context of Building an Independent State.

 Thank you very much! First of all, I would like to thank the organizers of the forum for the nice initiative to discuss the whole specter of humanitarian problems, which are very actual for the contemporary socially global independence. So, of course, we are thankful to you the opportunity to participate in the very forum. If we speak about the Ukrainian experience in the field of culturalism and about policy in the sphere of international relations, first of all, I’ll give a brief characteristic of the specification on the Ukrainian culturalism. The case is that the Ukraine externally looks like an ethnically homogeneous state. According to the statistics of 2001, 78 per cent of the people are ethnic Ukrainians, but the Ukrainian ethnic community itself is not homogeneous. One half of the ethnic Ukrainians in our country speak their mother tongue, but the part of the Ukrainian community are Russian speaking  and were formed by strong influence of Russian, Soviet cultural and political borders. There is a big, I’d say, mega minority – they are ethnic Russians. They comprise nearly 17 per cent of the country population. At the moment of creation of the independent Ukrainian state it was even more than about 22 per cent, but the Russian – speaking population of the country, are the people who call the Russian language as their mother tongue is, 30 per cent of the population. But in fact, there are two spoken languages in the country. Nearly one half of the country population use Russian. And the rest are national minorities, except ethnic Russians, they make 5 per cent of the country population. But some of these minorities are compactly settled in different regions of the country.

For example, the Crimean autonomy is dominated by ethnic Russians. It is the only region in the country, where the Ukrainians are not the majority of the population. There is a Crimean-Tatar community living there actively and in a well – organized way with their particular problems. In Zakarpati there is a Hungarian national minority compactly concentrated, in Chernovid region, called Romanians and Moldavians. And I would like to mention even one more specification of the Ukrainian society –this is the professional pluralism. We have three competitive churches among us- provoslav churches, which have their own regional areal of impacts. There is a catholic church, which has quite enough effect on the Southern Ukraine. And as usual there is a protestant religious community. In the Crimea and Donbas the Muslim community is actively enough. If we speak about international relations in the Ukraine, first of all, I would like to mention the fact that we have characteristic ethno cultural, ethnic, language, professional differences between separate regions of the country. It makes not a simple case, especially in politics, which affects the social and political life of the country. The second important problem is characteristic for not only the Ukraine, but also for many other independent countries, at the same time, in the territory of the former- Soviet Union. This is a contradiction between the required national integration and supply of cultural language rights of the national minorities. How to connect the national building and guaranteed rights of minorities? This is a problem, which often arises in the political debates. The specific problem of the Ukraine from the early 90s – is a separatistic moods among the Russian – speaking population in the country. Moreover, among the Crimean-Tatar community, has been very popular and is still remaining, so the national territorial autonomy. Hot to connect the efforts of the Russian community to the national territorial autonomy in the Crimea. It is also a difficult problem. I am not already speaking about the social and economic problems, deported people of the Crimean Tatars. And of course, at last, the most serious problem of the 20 – year independence duration. It is social and political contradictions for a suitable status of the Russian language in the Ukraine. Which were the most important, and are the key tasks of the state policy in the sphere of international relations in the Ukraine? The task number one, is surely, taking into consideration the heterogeneousness of the Ukrainian society – this is a formation of the unique Ukrainian political nation. The second important task is to provide equality of Ukrainian citizens’ rights of different nations and at the same time to confirm international agreements in the Ukrainian society. From the very beginning, one of the most important tasks of the ethnonational policy was to provide the conditions for functioning of the Ukrainian language as the state language in all the spheres of social life under simultaneous building for saving improvement conditions for education and realization of the cultural requirements and, of course, taking into consideration the problem of Crimean Tatars returning back. And the important task was social adaptation, integration of the crimean society, persons, deported due to the national principle. Of course, the important task is the prevention of ethnic and racial contradictions. It is important to mention, that during the first years of independence, right basic of harmonic international society had to be provided.  In 1991, the law on citizenship on the basis of so- called “zero real” was admitted. All the people who lived in the territory of the Ukraine, got citizenship. We didn’t have any problems. Before getting independence in1989 the law on language which again guaranteed the language rights of national minorities was admitted. In 1992 the law on the national minorities in the Ukraine was admitted. In the mid- 90s, the Ukraine ratified the European map of the Germanic languages, but besides it from the very beginning a unitary character of the Ukrainian state was fixed in the constitution of 1996. One state language, one citizenship excluding the autonomous status of the republic of Crimea. But what softened the situation? I would pay more attention to it. The leading role here played soft social and cultural political environment. First of all, the cognation of the Ukrainian and Russian languages played the most important role. The majority of the country population speaks both languages. There is no contradiction of the interlanguage communication. Secondly, from the very beginning, the political elite was provided to be open for the representatives of national minorities. The Russian speaking part of the population of the country took an active part in the formation of the new political elite of the country and no differences were observed regarding ethnic features. The positive role also played the democratic character of the political system of the Ukraine, which gets rid off unnecessary pressure in the political sphere, and doesn’t allow it to amass and explode. Soft and firm ukrainization of the state, of education system services and information services were held in the country. The policy of European integration of the Ukraine plays in favor of consolidation and development of the rights of national minorities. The important role is played by national cultural societies, representing the interests of different national minorities and also state support of some state minorities and separate cultural and educational projects of national and cultural societies. You know, nowadays in Europe, and in many parts of it, and in post Soviet countries, some radical movement of rights is observed. The vast majority of Ukrainians refuse radical movements of lefts as well as rights. It must be mentioned that, the soft and flexible ethnonational policy of the Ukraine gave its results. The Ukraine is one of the fewest post soviet countries which is characterized by the  absence of massive and severe international conflicts. We never had any serious seperative problems and there was no war in our territory. If in the early 90s about half of the country population feared international conflicts, as they had witnessed the conflicts in Moldavia as well as in the Caucasus, now only 12 per cent of the population is afraid of international conflicts. We don’t have national discrimination, only 3 percent of the population mention facts connected with national discrimination. I would like to mention once more (but it may be a very positive tendency), though there is multi cultural pluralism – that is the occurrence and reproduction of the main ethno cultural differences. The only problem of unity of the country is still remaining very actual for the Ukraine. Unfortunately, a good number of politicians are trying to use the problemacy of the national identity, as well as the international differences of the activities of the political parties. That is why; challenges for harmony of international relations are still remaining in the Ukraine. But I would mention one more implicit problem which doesn’t come into view yet, but it is a potential problem. This is the tendency of strengthening of national distance of ethnic isolationism of separate national communities in the Ukraine. And I think, the positivness of the Ukrainian experience, is the national policy which is concluded in the softness and flexibility of the decisions of sometimes very opposite tasks in the sphere of national relations that gives an opportunity to harmonize international relations in the country. Thank you!              


Leonid Slutski – the Committee for Foreign International  of the Russian Federation

Problems of Multiculturalism and Political Practice of Modern Russia

Thank you. I am very glad indeed, Dear Efim Iosifovich. Yesterday my friend Ilham Heydar oglu Aliyev, the President of Azerbaijan, at the opening ceremony of the forum said that today’s forum is rather a celebration of multiculturalism, and I would say that a little bit differently: today’s forum is the celebration of inter-cultural, and interconfessional dialogue; which is taking place in the territory of an intercultural and interconfessional country, which has definitely made great advances. As for the expression of “multiculturalism”, used so commonly today, I would be rather careful. One of the main items, often discussed at such round-tables, is the compatibility of such criteria as democracy and multiculturalism. One opinion has become very popular lately: “the more homogenous the society is, the easier it is to create democratic institutes, and vice versa, the more complicated in culture the society is, the more there is difference between nationalities, the more difficult it is to create democratic institutes”. The concept of multiculturalism is traditionally opposed to the concept of “melting pot”, when all the nationalities are assimilated into one. This has already been mentioned here today by the first speaker – the representative of Baky State University. The thing I would like to mention in addition about the USA, which is thought to be the biggest “melting pot”, is that in the USA one can come across with means of social interaction, which are more characteristic for international European politics; for instance, affirmation, the system, introduced in the 60-s, which was planned for only one generation, provided definite prerogatives for minorities when entering educational institutions or accepting for a job. The reason of initiating this system has the confirmation that unequality in the society prevented Afro-Americans from the same rate of development, and a little “acceleration” will bring them to the same level with the white people.

But it turned out to be not so simple in practice – the program failed. But today, after more than 40 years, affirmation was not only retained, but established as a permanent action program. Meanwhile, the promised equality was never reached, but vice-versa, the white population, is in more unfavourable situation now. I think this program is, to some extend, humiliating for those, whom it is supposed to help, because actually it affirms that they are underdeveloped for achieving their life goals themselves. The affirmation could have attained only anything, of an opposite effect. Accustomed to permanent aid, minorities have indeed forgotten now how to use their own force and head, and this phenomenon is always progressing. This refers not only the USA. It is enough to look at Europe, where immigrants, living separately, are urbanizing in full pelt. There is no motivation to work, no motivation to measure up with generally accepted norms of behavior and morality. The knowledge they gained in their historical homeland is quite enough for them to exist normally. And it is fairly reasoned that Germany, France, and Great Britain afterwards, first announced about the failure of multiculturalism policy, and then proceeded from words to action and tightened admission, especially it refers the immigrants from North African countries. Thousands of refugees from Tunisia tried to get into France through Italy, but French authorities, in spite of all the documents, stopped the trains on the borders of the country, and moreover the demands, made on the passengers were only economic. It was necessary to affirm their having enough means to take care of themselves within the territory of the “Fifth Republic”. Those immigrants, who didn’t have the means, were decanted from the train. The Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded with a formal protest to France in view of “suspension of International Railway Service”. However, the Italian diplomats were not heard even by the European Union. EU Commissioner for Home Affairs Cecilia Malmström acclaimed that Paris acted within the law on behalf of enhancing population security. Consequently, the problem is so serious, that it is taken to be so even in the European Union. At this stage, Dear Gentlemen, I’m placing emphasis on several approaches to the multiculturalism policy. The first scenario is “integration without assimilation”, i.e. refusal from building a mono-cultural country due to lack of prospects or a failure of this kind of efforts, followed by the rise of recessionist sentiments; multiculturalism is used here as a constitutionally legal execution of the refusal and, faith at the same time, which is possibly the combination of the widest “cultural pluralism”, of the unique national and state integrity. This is the Canadian model. You know perfectly well, how this model was implemented in Canada. The second scenario is the scenario of “reverse discrimination” (“discrimination of discriminators”): achievement of interracial, interethnic, interreligious equality by means of eliminating historical and social injustice and discrimination, exerting particularly in divergence between demographic structure of the society and its social strategy; stake in this scenario is usually placed on “affirmative action” (franchising and promotion which make compensation for the discrimination) (the USA model). Then comes the scenario of “functional tolerance” which happens in cases when the government invites and accepts foreign manpower on a time basis, which depends on economic situation; however, migrant workers do not get civil rights in full value, but they can work and live preserving their “identity”  (The German model). The last scenario, whereby I think the multicultural basis can be laid out, is the “exchange” scenario, aimed at improvement of the exterior image of the country and immigrants intake for eliminating manpower deficiency; in this way the government encourages the immigrants’ inhabitation preserving their ethno-cultural differences upon condition of their loyalty and adopting the core values and principles of democratic society. (the Australian Model). Canada, the USA, Germany, Australia – 4 different models. All these models were worked out in the 60s-70s. This was the time, when liberal-minded Europe needed something to counter with the pretty much religious Islamic World, Islamic expansion of Europe. The idea of common tolerance and assimilation appeared to be ideal at that time. It attracts a great many of foreign employees, and, at the same time, it doesn’t deprive other people of their rights and freedoms. Eventually it turned out to be not so simple. Apparently the most effective in my opinion is the last of the four scenarios. Australia processes its position on legal and illegal immigrants rather rigidly and consistently. “Do you want to work? – Be able to work in a team. Welcome! No? – Go away to your homeland. We do not have a lack of manpower.” This is not possible in the case of Europe and America for several reasons: Europe faces a choice – either to maintain the rate of attracting new manpower (demand – hundreds of thousands of people each year), or to lose, that, coupled with the depopulation, leads to political and economic degradation. If they began solving this problem a little earlier, when the number of Muslims didn’t reach a tenth of the indigenous population, this problem could be possibly solved in this way. However, today, when tens of millions have already ingrained in France and Germany and were granted citizenship, these political cavalry assaults cannot solve the problem. The situation is even more difficult in the United States. Here happened to be an image of a giant national guilt before Afro-American population, therefore the policy of affirmation allows the white population to feel to some extent safe. And they would not give up this practice for no reason. It is convenient to all politicians to use it for demagogic purposes. Thus, the more there are different religions and nationalities with their unique, unwilling to adapt, cultures, the more difficult it is to traditional democratic institutes work. They have no problems in countries with young population. In case there are tough actions from the government, it would not be accused of racism and xenophobia. Let’s recall the recent riots in the United Kingdom. How has the British police not been called by federal media; and this despite the fact that they did nothing much, they were just upholding the law. But most of the immigrants have their own view on the law, often different from the one, set in the Constitution. We can recall Patriarch Kirill’s words, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, who spoke on the fiftieth anniversary of the Russian Peace Fund (I have the honour to lead the Russian Peace Fund), and compared modern multiculturalism with a cocktail. “Various components are poured into a glass, – the Patriarch said – to make a cocktail, however, you have trouble shaking it, there are components, but no cocktail. Perhaps, you should not have poured them? It is impossible to make an Anglo-Saxon from an Arab or a Turk, even it takes much trouble.” I would add for myself that the cause of the collapse of the European multiculturalism model is the antimonies of the laws and norms of the Old World. It was not punishable that new residents didn’t fit into the traditional way of life; in some cases they were even encouraged. This situation has the other side of the story – increased popularity of right-wing parties and sentiments. In case when the acting government is unable to cope with the influx of immigrants, the forces, who promise their assistance to people, appear in the political arena. Elections are in full blast in the Old World, and the situation is heating up each year. All these began in France, where extreme right wing, headed by Marine Le Pen, showed surprisingly good results. The next was Finland, now comes Germany. On the territorial elections in Wurttemberg the rights cleared the 5 percent barrier (I am concluding). This, I think, could be the greatest danger, worse than the failed multiculturalism, and the logical consequence of the theory, which showed how dangerous the modern European nationalist idea is. The failures of the policies of France, Germany and England reinforce the extreme right-wing parties. I think it is time for the leaders of these countries to reflect and solve the problem immediately; otherwise it may be too late. I hope the leaders of the Old World countries won’t be armed with this somehow outdated political model, which multiculturalism is in its current form, in today’s understanding. Thank you!


Boris Morozov – Tel-Aviv University (Israel)

Multiculturalism and Problems of the Modern Middle East

 There is a difficult task before me to talk within 8 minutes about multiculturalism in such a country, where there are people speaking 81 languages from 120 countries are living; where religion is not officially recognized separate by the government, where there is no formal constitution, and which is always in state of war with its neighbors for the latest 60 years or so. So, you should believe that we have very many problems. But, nevertheless, we have experience of multiculturalism, sometimes it is combined, sometimes forced, but we have been living in such a society for already a long time, for about one hundred years. Our “boiler” has not been the same as in the United States. It has its own specification and I will not dwell on the issue now.  Such specification was caused by the fact that the people arrived then in Palestine had a very strong objective and motivation. And since they were ridden by a single purpose: to live in a new motherland and to create a new community there, as well as to implement socialistic ideas – so, they started to form a new man, a new Jewish  empire. Doesn’t all this really remind you the post-Soviet time? The slogan of the Jews to speak in Hebrew resulted so that such Jewish Multilinguism of peoples coming from very different countries has been managed step-by-step, and peoples have really started to speak mainly Hebrew. Certainly, very large extremes were made in the period of planetary boiler and pseudo planetary boiler. And such a curious problem as today’s relationships in Israel, being catastrophic, became absolutely principled for even Palestinian Jews themselves after the war. They asked: “Why didn’t you come earlier or why didn’t you fight?” The matter resulted in arising very serious contradictions between East European Jews who arrived from Europe, and the Palestinian Jews who called themselves hot outside and soft inside. In the 70-s, after the war in 1967 to be exact, when multiculturalism concepts started to develop all over the world, they gradually reached Israel, too. And the first swallow of multiculturalism was rather a small English-based community arrived from the USA and Great Britain. So, was unexpectedly found out that these people wanted to save their language not refusing studying Hebrew and settling in a new place willingly. And these people were supported because English was already considered to be a language of international communication that time. They made up a compact dwelling   district by building a city of their own named Granauf where they live now, but there are other   compact dwelling   districts in Jerusalem. Perhaps it was the first case of refusal from the governmental policy of assimilation, I would say: it was the transfer to new models – to the model of integration without any assimilation. But it turned out that practically this experiment was carried out in expatriates from the post-Soviet space or exactly from the former USSR in the period started in 1988. Ex-speakers told then that every year nearly 200000 men come to Russia, to the country where already 147 mln. people live. During 10 years 1100000 expatriates have arrived in Israel from the CIS countries that are about 18% of population of the country in whole. I think, that no country can boast the experience of admission or, as it is said in Israel, absorption of such a large percent ratio of foreign population. Moreover, this community, arrived from other countries was very original and drastically differed from all the previous emigrations. First of all, these people arrived here, but having  saved very good relationships with their former motherland because the Soviet Union had already collapsed at that moment, and nobody prevented their departure, and they were leaving having saved friendly relationships with their colleagues and relatives. They were not considered to betray their country in the 70-s, so, when they came to another place they didn’t lose relationships with the left  motherland. It seriously stabilized the formation of Russian-speaking information space in Israel. Just believe, it is practically not grand for such a little country where we are. Today, 1100000 population is provided with 2 Israeli TV channels in Russian, over 30 newspapers are published in Russian, and there are 6 radio stations in Russian. The Russian speaking population, whom I will further call as Russians to be short, different with a very low level of religiosity, although this issue is extremely difficult and should be discussed separately, it is an absolutely sigulant community, they are people among whom due to the laws of return, allowing the third generation of Jews to come back there were about 30% out of all these people arrived. These are people who had some baggage; I would say, Soviet baggage, they felt as citizens of a great country and absolutely didn’t want to be the second-grade citizens in their new motherland. They faced some difficulties with local population, but all the conflicts have been settled within 10 years. And today, it is very interesting that Israel has become quite different and the Russian community has become completely different, too. It is interesting that today all the Russian classical literature in Israel      has been translated into Hebrew, and all the Hebrew-speaking classical literature is being translated into Russian. You can find literary works by Abus Vos, and Shalem in your bookshops.  Multiculturalism has worked. We have become different, and Israelis have begun to treat the Russian-speaking population as a part of Israel. Today, when Russian sportsmen present Israel in international competitions, it does not surprise anybody.


Irina Kunina – senior teacher of the Chair of “Diplomacy and Foreign Policy” Baku Slavic University

 Multiculturalism in the Caucasus: the Azerbaijani model

Well-known political events of the late 20th century should have  led to the formation of new models of multiculturalism in the post-soviet space , including the republics of the  Southern Caucasus. But a number of military, political and economical events led to the deformation of the existing balance of interethnic relations in Georgia. Mass deportation of the  Azerbaijanians and ethnic minorities from Armenia have led to a state when this republic has  become an actually monoethnic state. The Azerbaijan Republic, in its turn, managed to overcome the tendency of  disintegration and to be still a country which unites different cultures and religions.

What is multiculturalism? First of all it is a strategy of a democratic state aimed at  achieving  a particular “quality” of culture interaction in one country. This quality is generally recognized as peaceful coexistence based on the tolerant attitude to different cultures. It is a fact that Azerbaijan is very tolerant towards different views, customs and traditions. Tolerance to peculiarities of different peoples, nations and religions is mentality of Azeri people.

Azerbaijan Republic is a polyethnical country. Its population is represented by state-forming Azeri people and autochthonic national minorities such as Udins, Ingiloys, Krizes, Hilalugs, Budugs, Tats, Talishs, Lezghins, who do not have any other native lands but historical Azerbaijan and therefore  together with Azeris they can be considered to be members of a single polyethnical Azerbaijanian nation. Besides them, Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Kurds, Jews, Greeks, Assyrians, Germans, Tatars also live in Azerbaijan. These folks has their own historical native land and because of that can be considered to be allochthonic ethnic minorities living in Azerbaijan. Over twenty different cultural communities function in Baku. They are Russian, Ukrainian, Kurd, Lak, Lezghin, Slavic, Tat, Tatar, Georgia, Ingiloy, Talish, Avar, Meskhetian Turks, European Jews, Mountain Jews, German, Greek and others. The number of such kind of communities in the whole country is much larger. They exist in almost all regions where ethnic minorities live compactly.

Azerbaijan Republic is a polyethnical country. Representatives of many ethnoses which have unique peculiarities live here, preserving their own tangible and intangible  culture, language and self-identification, historical memory and mentality, ethnical consciousness and ethnic psychology.Just here one can see settlements of Mountain Jews-Krasnaya Sloboda (Red Village) and pleasant molokans –Ivanovka Udin village Nidj, village Khinalig ,which is famous for its language ,peculiar customs and traditions ,and as well as terns of other settlements of representatives of various nations ,which have become part of Azerrbaijan society.  

Etnical minorities have equal rights with the local population in the field of culture and using cultural heritage of the country.

The Native language is taught in primary forms of comprehensive secondary schools situated in the areas where ethnical minorities live compactly. There are curriculums and textbooks, collections of folksongs and poems, fiction literature in these languages, newspapers and magazines  are published in these languages, state national theaters and amateur art collectives.

Cultural symbiosis existing in Azerbaijan and diversity of traditions are ingraved in the framework of activities for preservation monuments of tangible and culture museums of Astara, Gakh, Guba, Zakatala and  other districts organize expositions which reflect heritage and traditions of ethnical minorities living in this territories. Libraries, the funds of which include books by representatives of ethnical minorities alsso work effectively in this field.They hold presentations of these books.

Historical memory of Azeri people keeps itself stages of  passage through three religions – Zoroastrism, Christianity and Islam. It is also a very significant factor for establishing balanced intercultural communications both in the country and on the international arena. A specific model of tolerance and interconfessional dialogue was formed in Azerbaijan. This model is an example for other polyethnical regions in the world. In the framework of the contemporary model of state and religious relations, all the confessions got equal status and are equal from the legislative point of view.Along with ensuring rights of  Muslims  which are the overwhelming majority of the population in the country, the government also takes care of all traditional religions spread in the Republic.

Here I would like to specify examples of Azerbaijan policy aimed at satisfaction satisfy the cultural and religious needs of the citizens:

  • Opening of Holy merrbearers – peacekeeping cathedral in Baku, which was built at the beginning of the 20th century with active support of Azerbaijani Maecenas Haji Zeinalabdin Tagiyev,and after Soviet period  but it was restored in the early XXI century by the efforts of another Azerbaijani Maecenas;
  • Opening of the newly built Catholic Church, to the construction of which pontiff Iohanne Pavel gave his blessing during his visit to Azerbaijan. This church will keep to the traditions of the former one, which was demolished by reason of well-known tendencies of 1930s;
  • In Baku the synagogue, which managed to avoid the demolition even in the Soviet times, has been reconstructed and enlarged.

Speaking about interethnic relations in our republic, followings should be noted: Basic positions of the national policy are set forth in the Constitution of Azerbaijan, which ensures equality of all its citizens irrespective of their ethnic, religious and racial belongings. The concept of national policy of the Azerbaijan Republic is based on such international documents as “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” passed by the UNO, “Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” adopted by the Council of Europe, “International Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of UNO”, “International Covenant of UNO on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”, “Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe”, “Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the OSCE”, “Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities” passed by the Council of Europe, “CIS Convention Guaranteeing the Rights of Persons Belonging to National Minorities”. The state document dedicated to the national policy of the Azerbaijan Republic – decree of the Azerbaijan President “On the Protection of the Rights and Freedoms and on State Support for the Promotion of the Languages and Cultures of National Minorities, Smaller Peoples and Ethnic Groups Living in the Republic of Azerbaijan” was adopted as well. In other words, protection of national minorities is one of the main orientations of policy pursued by the leadership of Azerbaijan. Thus, a special organization, headed by the state counselor on national policy, has been established in the presidential apparatus. There is a similar structure in Milli Majlis.

Having equal rights and opportunities provided by the Constitution and laws, representatives of various nations work efficiently in different spheres of the society and make a worthy contribution to the development of the country. Thus, national minorities are presented in the government and other state bodies of the Azerbaijan Republic. In the national parliament of the republic – Milli Majlis, there are representatives of various ethnic minorities of the country, including Russians, Lezghins, Kurds, Tats, Talis and others. During the parliamentary election of 2010, observation mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights found out that there are no problems in the question of participation in the elections of the ethnic groups living in Azerbaijan.

Thus, all possible conditions have been created, and are supported in the republic for the existence of ethnic variety.  However, it should be noted once more that the cultural variety is perceived in our country not as a mere combining of various identities, but as a beneficial environment for the development of national solidarity uniting all them. In other words, it is considered as wealth and property of Azerbaijan, which is the common home for all its citizens irrespective of ethnic, religious or any other belonging.

The text of verbatim report was provided by Baky Slavic University.

Информация для участников

İştİrakçIlar üçün məlumat

Information for participants

Всю подробную информацию о предстоящем Бакинском международном гуманитарном Форуме, который состоится 2-3 октября 2014 года, вы можете найти в данном разделе:

You can find all detailed information about forthcoming Baku International Humanitarian Forum, which will be held on October 2-3, 2014, in the section below:

2-3 oktyabr 2014-cü ildə keçiriləcək Bakı Beynəlxalq Humanitar Forumu haqqında ətraflı məlumatı Siz bu bölmədə əldə edə bilərsiniz:

Регистрация на форуме



Для участия в работе Бакинского международного гуманитарного Форума необходимо обязательно пройти процедуру онлайн регистрации в указанном ниже разделе.

Внимание! Не забудьте указать в регистрационной форме номер персонального пригласительного письма.

Информация о получении виз
Участники, приглашённые на Форум, в случае необходимости оформления визы для посещения Азербайджана, могут получить её, обратившись в Посольства и Консульства Азербайджанской Республики.

Боллее подробную информацию о визовом режиме вы можете получить на сайте Министерства Иностранных Дел Азербайджанской Республики

For participation in the work of the Baku International Humanitarian Forum you are required to go through online registration procedure in the below section.

Note! Do not forget to indicate in the registration form the number of your personal invitation letter.

Visa information
Participants invited to the Baku International Humanitarian Forum, in case they need a visa to visit Azerbaijan, can apply for visa at the Embassies and Consulates of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

For more information visit the official web site of the Ministry of Foreign Affairsof the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Bakı Beynəlxalq Humanitar Forumunun işində iştrak etmək üçün qeydiyyat prosedurasından keçməlisniz.

Vizanın alınmasına dair məlumat
Bakı Beynəlxalq Humanitar Forumuna dəvət olunmuş iştirakçılar Azərbaycana səfər etmək üçün viza rəsmiləşdirməsindən ehtiyac duyurlarsa, Azərbaycan Respublikasının Səfirlikləri və Konsulluqlarına müraciət edib əldə edə bilərlər.

Əlavə məlumatı Azərbaycan Respublikasının Xarici İşlər Nazirliyinin rəsmi internet səhifəsindən əldə etmək olar.

Туры по регионам Азербайджана

Tours to the regions of Azerbaijan

Azərbaycan regİonlarI üzrə turlar

Для участников Бакинского международного гуманитарного Форума c 4 по 5 октября 2014 года будут организованы туры по следующим регионам Азербайджана:

Tours to the following regions of Azerbaijan will be organized for the participants of the Baku International Humanitarian Forum 4-5, october 2014:

2014-cü il oktyabrın 4-5 -də Bakı Beynəlxalq Humanitar Forumunun iştirakçıları üçün Azərbaycanının aşağıda qeyd olunan regionları üzrə səfərlər təşkil olunacaqdır:




Азербайджанская Республика, г. Баку
Организационный Комитет
Бакинского Международного Гуманитарного Форума

тел .: +(99412) 492 89 50; 492 95 58
факс:+(99412) 437 19 23
э-почта: [email protected]

Republic of Azerbaijan, Baku
Organizing Committee of the Baku International Humanitarian Forum

tel.: +(99412) 492 89 50; 492 95 58
fax: +(99412) 437 19 23
e-mail: [email protected]

Azərbaycan Respublikası, Bakı ş.
Bakı Beynəlxalq Humanitar Forumunun Təşkilat Komitəsi

tel. : +(99412) 492 89 50; 492 95 58
faks:+(99412) 437 19 23
e-ünvan: [email protected]

Прогноз погоды

Hava proqnozu

Weather forecast