Another quantity that is of importance for the peaceful coexistence of ethnic groups, such as the minority elites absorb the changes, interpret and react. The questions can be asked in this regard would be:A.The minority elites to set short-term profits and try to avoid potential losses, or dominated by the long-term rational calculations and their decisions?
B.Set in the minority elites for their own goals and try to avoid casualties, or dominated by the strong collective identity and ethnic solidarity, their calculations of potential profits and losses?
These are questions to answer in the case of the Russian minority is relatively simple. I have no Russian politician known in Tatarstan, which are on short-term profits. The trend is more likely to achieve long-term peaceful coexistence. Certainly there are players on both sides who think in limited, short-circuits, but these are exceptions rather than the rule and see the mass of the population still no hearing.
Nikolai Genov developed a Strerndiagramm, which describes the potential for cooperation or conflict on the ethnic basis.
Overall, there affecting two opposite poles, the inter-ethnic relations. For a structural integration, or separation of ethnic groups in economic, or political form. And on the other hand the normative value particularism, or the value-normative universalization. Structural integration of ethnic groups in the labor markets and in political life, coupled with value-normative universalization of the company, would build in a multiethnic society is a potential for cooperation. The structural separation or disintegration of ethnic groups in the labor markets and political life, however, is associated in connection with wertnormativem particularism, builds in a society, a potential for conflicts.
Given the findings I draw two conclusions. There are differences both in the inter-ethnic and intra-ethnic level of tolerance. While on the ground level within the Tatar society a consensus on the acceptance of Russian culture, language and peaceful coexistence, there are some government-level efforts to achieve a value-normative particularism of the Tartars. Where these efforts are descended, whether under go due to the necessity of Tatar language and culture due to globalization processes do not leave, or whether it remains derived from a radical rejection of tolerance and inter-ethnic parity in economic, political and cultural questions unanswered at this point, because it yes, a vast amount of possible motivations are. The fact is that there is no declaration of independence in 1992 came the outbreak of inter-ethnic unrest, or even a war. Radical movements remained with only a few thousand adherents are relatively meaningless.
When you look at only the Tatar elite separately, then they would be located in area B of this star chart. By contrast, the Government tries to control a few years ago the law was withdrawn, according to which any person who holds a public office has two official languages to speak.
Overall, the inter-ethnic situation in Tatarstan holds the balance, there are both positive and negative developments. As a negative factor at first glance, the authoritarian style of government could be called Schaimijews. The most important decisions are made in the developed by Volker Perthes elites pie in the innermost circle of the core elite. Democracy is on the track. But on closer look, I note at least to my mind that this very authoritarian style of leadership, perhaps, the republic in their early years has saved from inter-ethnic unrest. A greater danger is certainly part of the Republic of alienation by the religious influence from abroad. The imported by returning scholars is at the extreme Wahhabism as a counterweight to the tolerant Sufi and Tatar Islam.
.