WHERE DOES MULTICULTURALISM BEGIN?

If we paraphrase slightly the famous song of Soviet times we may ask a very topical question: "Where does multiculturalism begin?" [Reference to Soviet song 'Where does the Motherland begin?' - Ed.] With good and loyal neighbours or with pictures in "your primer"? Or perhaps pictures in the newspaper or on the television? At first glance it is all fairly simple. At the basis of multiculturalism lies the idea of people of different ethnic groups living together on the basis of a common respect for the right of separate individuality, of a law, but not one that is to the detriment of cultural, religious, linguistic or ethnic identity. The instruments of achieving a truly multicultural society are fine and precise - tolerance, respect for the law and one another's freedoms.

But for all this to be carried out the members of this or that society must, first of all, be capable of it, and, secondly, be of equal standing - financially and potentially. In other words, multiculturalism in its pure form is, actually, only possible in a paradise - if, of course, you are lucky enough to get there. The most powerful countries of Europe - Germany and Great Britain - needed about ten years before the rave responses to multiculturalism changed to pessimistic admissions. And literally the other day British Prime Minister David Cameron wrote in the Financial Times about the need to restrict the flow of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe and the richer countries of the European Union, even taking a swipe at one of the EU's "sacred cows" - the freedom of movement of manpower. Moreover, Cameron proposed blocking foreigners' access to national social programmes. As in the past, the British prime minister was supported by official Berlin and Paris.

Russia is tormented by "multicultural" problems more than anyone, and there it is at times manifested in fairly radical forms and comments, which, unfortunately, are quite often taken up by the media. For example, in the "Poedinok" ["Duel"] programme on the federal Rossiya-1 channel, LPDR leader Vladimir Zhirinovskiy once again left his mark, this time calling for a restriction in the birth rate in the North Caucasus and the movement of people from this region to Russia, "surrounding the Caucasus with barbed wire". And while we may understand why a huge banner advertising the LPDR is on display as you enter the now famous Moscow district of Biryulevo Zapadnoye, it is not quite clear why the notorious Vladimir Volfovich is being invited to all these broadcasts devoted to such sensitive issues as migration and nationalism.

In other words, of course, contrarily the answer to this question is perfectly obvious, but this obviousness is so frightening that one doesn't really want to believe it. After all, Cameron and Zhirinovskiy were essentially saying much the same thing - it was only the tone and choice of words that were different. And the effect will also be the same. In other words, their majesty the media will immediately appear on the scene, because it is not just a question of being willing to spread radical comments but how to highlight the key points, what headlines will stand out and which photographs to choose. The numerous news headlines informing us that "an Uzbek, a Tajik, a Georgian or an Azerbaijani" committed a crime virtually put matches into the hands of those who mull over chauvinist ideas dripping with kerosene…

According to the Chairman of the Russian Union of Journalists (RUJ) Vsevolod Bogdanov, "dirty spin doctors, who sow enmity between people, are the most tragic for the future and we must learn how to confront them". Bogdanov said this at a meeting with young journalists of Europe and Asia who arrived in Moscow to take part in the VIII media-forum "A Dialogue of Cultures". The question of nationalism and xenophobia was the most acute and concerned everyone without exception, but Bogdanov did not come up with a formula to counter these manifestations.

Meanwhile, Russian State Duma deputy and journalist Boris Reznik supported his colleague. He said that, unfortunately, there are xenophobes and misfits in Russian society who are trying to foist all their troubles onto others. He said that the Russian parliament is debating a draft bill on banning mention in the media of the nationality and religious belief of any person involved in a crime - the accused, the convicted person, the victim, and so on.

This is, of course, a fine initiative…but only if you ignore the fact that Russian MPs have been kicking it around since 2007. The latest surge of interest was observed exactly a year ago at the suggestion of the speaker of the Moscow City Duma Vladimir Platonov. The draft bill was generally not to the State Duma's liking and the debate was safely wrapped up. The Public Chamber also gave a negative reaction to the document. As for head of state Vladimir Putin, he decided not to intervene but promised that if the bill reached him in its final form he would support it. MPs (and the considerable number of people in the media who supported them) gave this as their reason for turning it down: "Journalists can say what they like, with the help of the language of Aesop, but accuracy and authenticity of information will suffer."

But what is the lesser evil: that authenticity of information or innocent people are the ones to suffer?

 The situation looks rather different from the other side of the Russian border.

"In terms of news bulletins and programmes such as 'Let Them Talk', it is clear that the ethnic question is being used soundly and professionally by the authorities. When covering the well-known case of the KamAZ driver, Grachya Arutyunyan, who was found guilty, emphasis was straightaway put on his ethnic background, and basically the debate focused on this. There are a whole number of other examples. People from Central Asia, mainly Tajiks and Uzbeks, are very often made out to be criminals which, naturally, upsets the populations of these countries. Besides, this stirs antagonism and makes the already difficult life of labour migrants even worse," Svetlana Dzardanova, coordinator of research and training of the OSCE Academy in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, believes.

"Every day, as I look through the "Yandex-News-Uzbekistan" tape, it seems that Uzbeks are the root of all evil of the Russian state," Galiya Ibragimova, a journalist from Uzbekistan, says. "Increased focus on the ethnic affiliation of a criminal is clearly a means of the struggle against migration from the former brother-countries. But apart from this struggle such 'lessons of hate' lead to an enflaming of inter-ethnic conflict, enmity and disaffection between people. Russia, which is trying to build a Eurasian Union out of the former USSR, will scarcely be able to lay even one brick in the foundations of this grand construction of political integration if such Uzbek-, Kyrgyz-, Tajik-, Armeni- or Azerbaijaniophobia in society and the media as a reflection of this society (or the other way round?) continues," Ibragimova believes.

Chingiz Lepsibayev, head of the International Programmes Committee of the JPA [Juridical Persons Association] "Civil Alliance of Kazakhstan", completely agrees with this opinion: "In a situation where Russia is declaring its intention about integration, a political alliance and a common inter-ethnic past - any actions linked with nationalism or xenophobia evoke amazement to say the least."

Indeed, although no-one is expecting a multicultural paradise, no-one has called off the task of living together either - in Russia, Europe or the New World there is no escaping from migrants, globalization, the development of information technology, the desire to create economic alliances and make borders more transparent. In this process the media, of course, could adopt the position of a bystander, a mere conveyor of facts and news. It could also be said that journalism is simply a part of business which sells that commodity which is snapped up the quickest. Then all questions and claims are taken away. But there is also another view which says that real journalism is a part of a civic society and is precisely that force which is capable of providing and encouraging a dialogue between different social and ethnic forces.

As the Russian journalist Aleksey Venediktov noted, "there are professional and non-professional media, there is editorial policy and the individual choice of every journalist". "The situation with Biryulevo was a completely social one. But then we encountered 'street' politicians who exploit such stories. And we journalists must understand this and fight to be trusted," Venediktov believes.

So what should we do: try to put matters right through the law or leave it to moral and professional choice? That's not what is important. What is important is to understand that laboriously carving an image of bad "others", on whom one can from time to time shift all misfortunes, is harmful first and foremost for those who create such stereotypes, and also for those who consume them. The Orientalist professor Edward Said wrote about this in his treatise-pamphlet "Orientalism" three decades ago. Arguments still rage about this work and the "others" in the form of different ethnic groups continue to reap animosity and become the victims of chauvinist misfits and ministers who arrange shows out of the capture of a suspect migrant and "street" politicians…