|
|
"OLVIA-PRESS"
WHY SHOULD A YOUNG
DEMANDED FIANCE
NEED A DECREPIT
MENTALLY ILL FIANCEE?
The
idea of unification of Moldova and foundation of a unite state, the component
of which the Dniester Moldavian Republic is going to be, does not leave minds
of contemporary as well as previous representatives of authority of the
Republic of Moldova. But the stubbornness, with which the young Dniester
republic tries to keep its independence and sovereignty, has quite reasonable
grounds of different character: economic, political etc. Besides, one of the
main reasons of unwillingness to unite with the RM may surely be the
prospective of development of society of that state, that the Republic of
Moldova is for today. As a mtter of fact, that in Moldova at the key historical
moment the choice of development’s way of the state and scoiety was made in
favor of the regressive direction. The question is about founding a
state-nation, what Moldova currently is.
The
Russian professor, Ph.D. Anatoly Utkin also agrees with the idea that foundation
of states-nations is a deadlocked and dangerous branch of the social evolution.
In his article “The Geostructure of the Up-Coming Century” he remarks, that in
late 20th century – early 21st century, 5 main tendencies
are being observed, among which on the third place there is “weakening of
states-nations on the background of raise of the transnational associations”. And,
in opinion of Utkin, “each of the five factors is able to violate and weaken
stability in regional as well as in the world scale (…)”. Extreme manifest of
violation of stability will be breakdown of authority of the international
organizations, formation of centers of the international terrorism, religious
fundamentalism, nationalism, and racism, worsening of the economic situation on
the background of migration processes, ethnic intolerance”.
The
professor of sociology, the head of political sciences department of the
Humboldt University Klaus Offe also agrees with the idea that, ‘ethnization’ of
states’ policy is dangerous for the state itself where those processes take
place, and for the neighboring countries (in the given article ‘ethnization’ of
the policy is understood as stress upon ethnic aspects in the policy). In his
article “Ethnopolitics In The Eastern-European Transformation Process” he
writes that “Ethnic conflicts occurring in the post-Soviet space
non-ambiguously show, that besides of the emotional satisfaction, that the
ethnpolitics may give, it also causes a number of rather serious dangers. The
main one consists in the fact that the ‘ethnization’ for many times intensifies
the threat of a civil or interethnic war. Furthermore, the ‘ethnization’, which
usually stands blocks up the way towards interethnic co-operation, trade, and
division of labor, causes economic inefficiency in general as well as in
details. On the one hand, nationalism is considered as defensive reaction at
destructive acts of economic reforms or as device of consolation during obvious
failures of those reforms (I will add that it’s extremely profitable to use it
as a distracting maneuver for re-targeting of people’s displeasure from the
authority, deviating from resolution of social, economic, and other internal
problems towards national minorities, that regularly takes place in Moldova - I.L.).
On the other hand, the nationalism itself may slow down the holding of reforms”.
Why the situation in Moldova appeared to be so unfavorable? As a matter of fact,
the necessity in the ‘ethnization’ of the policy is manifested in cases when elite
keep (or when counter-elite win) the power. Events in Moldova happened that
very way in late 80s-early 90s of the 20th century. The counter-elite
were represented by the same Soviet dignitaries, many of whom were of rather
higher standing, but judging by the fact that they had taken part in
destabilizing the situation, they wanted more. In that given case the
nationalism was an possibility for them to pull down the USSR, as well as a
possibility to become lords on the ruins, distancing from the previous regime. Klaus
Offe writes, “Many cases are known when ethnic movements seriously contributed
to disorganization, and discrediting on the international level and to final
collapse of communist regimes (movements of Hungarians in Romania, of Turks in
Bulgaria, of Lithuanians and Armenians in the USSR)”. At the same time, “participation
in ethnic and national political initiatives helps the man to mark his distance
from the previous regime”. The stronger and more grounded are suspects in
participation, the stronger is pressure and seduction to resort to such a way
out, that probably explains the strength of nationalist feelings, expressed by
the former communist (and now turned into national- populist) leaders in Serbia,
the Ukraine, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Croatia, Moldavia, and Romania. There is one
more factor, due to which the nationalism got such a wide spreading in
territories of the former Soviet republics. The problem is that division of
people by their national identity does not give any opportunity to establish
international opposition, the potentialities of which are far more than those
of the national one. Klaus Offe gives the example of Bulgaria that may serve as
confirmation of that conclusion. “There are many evidences that organized structures and sources of the
Communist party of Bulgaria were used for organization of nationalist meetings
”. It was done in order to “prevent unification of appearing opposition
organizations into a unite anti-Communist coalition”.
On
the basis of above-mentioned facts we may conclude that the future of Moldova
can be hardly named as prospective. And cataclysms disturb and yet will be
disturb its society. At the same time the Dniester Moldavian Republic was
created on the basis international interrelations in the society. Here there
are no territorial units by national identity, as in the RM, here there were no
collisions because of ethnic controversies; the authority does everything to
prevent the ‘ethnization of policy. To some extent we say that, in Dniestria a
post-ethnic society has formed. Undoubtedly it is more progressive formation, in
comparison with Moldova. Then a logic question appears: why should Dniestria
unify with Moldova? In our republic one has already realized that it would mean
to make few steps back on the way of developing our society and state. In
statements of either the DMR President Igor Smirnov or the DMR Foreign Office
or another dignitaries of Dniestria there has been said for numerous times that
Moldova does not represent any interest for Dniestria regarding foundation of a
unite state. At the same time the DMR does not want to stay off-side from
foundation of transnational communities. It is quite natural that the DMR join
the Union of Belorussia and Russia, that is, in that very transnational
association, to which political scientists predict development and prosperity. Dniestria
does not deny the idea of founding a union with Moldova – in form of
association of states – the Republic of Moldova and the Dniester Moldavian
Republic, where each country would have the status of an independent state, arranging
its interrelationship on conventional basis. The head of the Dniestrian state Igor
Smirnov proclaimed that idea. All of that once again confirms that the society
of the Dniester Moldavian Republic has not stopped its development, but has a
wish and potentialities for further movement ahead. In such case all adepts of
the idea of founding a unite state of Moldova would have to think: why should a
young demanded fiancé need a decrepit mentally ill fiancée?
I.
Letiaga. Translated
by Ernest A. Vardanean