Ethnic composition of contemporary economies is not homogeneous. Population of the majority of countries consists of representatives of different ethnic groups. In the 70s, sociological data evidenced that in the world, there were 9% of countries with 100% homogeneous ethnic composition, in 25 countries (19%), ethnic majority constituted 90% of population and in 39 states - equaled less than 50%. In Europe, there are over 100 ethnic groups with more than 100,000,000 persons. Very often, the number of ethnic groups exceeds 100. In the early XXth century, over 150 million people do not live in a country of birth. Hence, regulation of ethno-national issues, development of optimal models of interethnic relations and prevention of interethnic conflicts are topical for the majority of states. Governments have been making painstaking efforts to formulate legal basis for ethno-national development. Analysis of these endeavors allows making the following conclusions: 1) The United States and Canada were the first countries that initiated the above activities because of interethnic conflicts of the mid-60s; 2) European governments have been settling acute ethno-political problems over the last 20 years. Among other multicultural states, experience of solving ethnic issues of the United States of America, Canada, Hungary and countries of former Yugoslavia is estimated as positive enough and as such that can be applied to Ukraine. This experience should be viewed from two aspects: 1) formulation of theoretical and conceptual principles of developing multicultural society - pillars of legislative basis for settlement of ethnic issues attending social processes in multicultural states; 2) specific practice of meeting certain challenges under specific historical circumstances. In the first case, experience of the USA and Canada is important. (Though, the above does not mean that they have no achievements relating to the second aspect.) In the second case, Ukraine can adapt experience of Hungary and the countries of former Yugoslavia. Hence, theoretical and methodological principles of multiculturalism concepts, which served as a basis for legislation on ethno-national development and respective actions, were clearly formulated by American and Canadian scientists in the mid 60s-80s. A Cultural Pluralism Concept became one of the most popular contemporary conceptions used to interpret ethno-national situation in multicultural states. According to this concept, the state recognizes existence of different ethnic groups within its territory. These groups differ from the ethnic majority and have their own traditions and culture related to their ethnic origin. In this respect, the accent is made on the state’s tolerance towards members of different ethnic groups living within its territory. Being guided by such a position, multicultural states shall encourage conditions for the maintenance and development of ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of national communities and their integration into the dominant culture. Efficiency of the Cultural Pluralism Concept is determined by the following two criteria: 1) structural support to pluralism (its legal and public recognition; policy, education and the media that recognize ethnic diversity and respectively treat minorities existent in society); 2) ideological systems advocating pluralism and ethno-racial equality. Numerous actions that encouraged settlement of the issues of ethno-national development and prevented interethnic conflicts were taken in the frameworks of the above Concept. These included adoption of the 1972 law on ethnic heritage of American population; foundation, at universities, of scientific centers for history and culture of different ethnic groups; establishment of TV and radio programs in minority languages; appointment of members of racial and ethnic minorities to positions in high-level organs; and granting of some privileges to persons belonging to racial minorities (employment and admission to higher educational establishments). As a matter of fact, a considerable part of the above actions served as a basis for a Program of Positive Actions. The three important programs - the Program of Positive Actions, the Program of Ethnic Heritage Studies and the Program of Bilingual Education - were pillars of American public policy of ethno-national development. Experience of the USA in implementing some provisions of the Ethnic Pluralism Concept produced positive results. It is safe to state that conceptions representing theoretical or practical reaction to a specific ethno-national situation emerged in the frameworks of the Ethnic Pluralism Concept. Among them is a Concept of Multiculturalism that can be viewed as an independent conception. This Concept was formulated in Canada in the 20s and reflected efforts of Canadian sociologists to consider multi-ethnic composition of Canadian population from a new angle and explain reasons for maintenance and development, by members of different ethnic groups, of their ethnic and cultural identity. Canadian official policy of multiculturalism was based on the ideas of "Canadian mosaic" and "unity in diversity" - the key elements of multiculturalism. The policy was adopted in 1971. Basic principles of policy of multiculturalism include: 1) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures; 2) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to such participation; 3) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage; 4) assist immigrants in learning official languages of Canada in order to enable them to fully participate in social life. Numerous actions that contributed to meet ethno-political challenges were taken in the frameworks of policy of multiculturalism in the USA and Canada. Canada’s government formed a special body responsible for implementation of policy of multiculturalism - the Ministry of Multiculturalism. Though, this body was repeatedly reorganized. Policy of federal government consisted of a series of programs providing for equal opportunities for ethnic communities, elimination of barriers to understanding, assistance in maintenance of cultural and linguistic identity and integration of immigrants into Canada’s society. Such programs were funded from the state budget and included: establishment of multicultural centers; promotion of actions of youth associations targeted toward cultural exchange; studies of ethnic culture and ethnic linguistics; writing of books and papers (20) on history and culture of different ethnic groups of Canada estimating their contribution to the country’s development and analyzing their problems; study of English and French by immigrant children; systemic studies of Canadian multicultural society; promotion of activities of museums, the national film studio, the national library and archives relating to collection and dissemination of materials on ethnic cultures. The countries of former Yugoslavia are among European states characterized by recent intensive search for ways of solving topical ethno-political issues. Ethno-political challenges of the above countries had a stronger impact than those of other multicultural states. Among them, the following are the most serious: 1) form mechanisms ensuring the exercise of rights of national minorities; 2) encourage participation of national minorities in decision-making on the national, regional and local levels; 3) eliminate antagonism in interethnic relations; 4) form a system of upbringing of interethnic tolerance; and 5) ensure return of war refugees. To understand the essence of the above and other challenges of ethno-national development of the countries of former Yugoslavia and efforts needed to meet them (in the context of adapting their experience to Ukrainian realities and formulating a concept of national ethnic policy of Ukraine), it is necessary to briefly consider ethno-national situation in each of these countries. Slovenia declared its independence on June 25, 1991. Its population equals nearly 2 million persons representing several ethnic groups, among which the Italians and Hungarians are autonomous, whereas the rest (the Albanians, Austrians, Montenegrins, Croats, Serbians and others) came to the country after 1945. These apparently influenced ethnic composition of the country: the share of the Slovenians amounts to over 87%, whereas that of other ethnic groups does not reach the level of 3%. With regard to rather effective settlement of social and ethnic problems, contemporary Slovenia is the most successful among other countries of former Yugoslavia. Macedonia (population - about 2 million persons) is successfully transiting from authoritarianism to democracy. Ethnic composition of this country looks as follows: the share of the Macedonians totals 67%, the Albanians - 23%, the Turks - 4%, the Roma, the Serbs and all other ethnic groups - by 2%. Macedonia is the only country within former Yugoslavia that did not participate in the war. However, it constantly experienced international pressure and attempts to destabilize its vulnerable ethnic balance. Bosnia and Herzegovina started building peaceful life only after November 1995 (the end of the four-year war). Displaced persons pose the major problem of interethnic relations of this country. Their number equals 2.5 million persons or 60% of the country’s population of 4.4 million persons. None of the ethnic groups forms the absolute majority in ethnic composition of Bosnia and Herzegovina: the Moslems - 44%, the Serbs - 31%, the Croats - 17% and the Yugoslavs - 5%. Other 25 ethnic minorities form just 3% of population. By the way, for the first time, the Moslems were classified in the national census as an ethnic group only in 1971, whereas the Yugoslavs - in 1961. Though, the category "Yugoslavs" should be viewed rather as political than ethnic term. After the parliamentary and presidential elections (January-February 2000), Croatia received an opportunity for democratization, which gives hopes for overcoming semi-authoritarian principles of public governance and ensuring the exercise of minority rights. Two ethnic groups form over 90% of Croatia’s population of 5 million persons: the Croats - 78% and the Serbs - 12.2%. The Republic of Yugoslavia consists of Serbia (population - 10 million persons) and Montenegro (population - about 650 thousand persons). Now and again, Montenegrin leaders state their desire to leave the Federation (especially, during the October 2000 events). In general, the Serbs constitute over 36% of population. The Albanian, Hungarian, Croatian and Moslem ethnic minorities are the most numerous. The situation in Kosovo is the most serious in this country. Its solution depends on both internal and external factors and should incorporate not only ethnic but also socio-national aspects. For instance, a pronounced intention to form an independent ethno-political structure determines the course of developments in the country and the nature of interethnic relations between its major ethnic groups (the Serbs and the Albanians). Mosaic ethnic composition of every country of former Yugoslavia objectively raises a question about forms of co-existence and relationship of different peoples. If we take into account new circumstances that emerged because of disintegration of the country and radically changed the status of all ethnic groups, a priority of solving ethnic issues in order to ensure their social developments becomes obvious. In this context, legal regulation of ethno-national problems gains special importance. Today, every country of former Yugoslavia has formulated a legal basis for such regulation, including identification of the status of national minorities. As a rule, structures of this basis are identical in all countries: the Constitution of every country incorporates provisions on fundamental rights of national minorities. Moreover, there are distinct legal acts specifying those rights and determining mechanisms for their exercise. Minority rights include: fundamental rights (the right to existence, the right to identity), compensatory rights (linguistic rights, the right to education, information in minority language, cultural development, free contacts, economic development, use of minority symbols) and rights relating to participation of national minorities in decision-making concerning their political and social status. Constitutions of the countries of former Yugoslavia serve as examples of incorporation of fundamental and compensatory rights into their legislation. Under Article 48 of the Constitution of Macedonia, persons belonging to national minorities have the right to freely express, foster and develop their identity and national attributes; establish institutions for culture and art, as well as scholarly and other associations for the expression, fostering and development of their identity; and receive education in their language in primary and secondary schools (study of the Macedonian language is mandatory). Article 7 reads, "Macedonian is the official language in the Republic of Macedonia. In the units of local self-government, where the majority of the inhabitants belong to a nationality, their language and alphabet are also in official use in addition to the Macedonian language and Cyrillic alphabet." As a matter of fact, such legal approaches to identification of basic rights of national minorities are typical for polyethnic states, including Ukraine. As for mechanisms for their exercise, they can differ, especially when the issue of participation of national minorities in decision-making is concerned. Since Ukraine’s lacks legal basis regulating participation of national minorities in the above process, it would be expedient to consider methods for the exercise of minority rights at the local level applied by Slovenia, Croatia and the Republic of Yugoslavia. In Slovenia, the "double" concept based on Slovenian constitutional values led to legislation providing for the inclusion of national minorities in the political process. First, like all Slovenian citizens, they have the right to take part in national and local elections and vote individually or by their representatives. Hence, the right of vote reflects their political opinions on the one hand and interest representation on the other. By the way, the same procedure is indicated in legal documents. The Constitution guarantees representation of national minorities in the parliament and local self-governance bodies and specifies election mechanisms. It reads, "The Italian and Hungarian national communities shall be directly represented in bodies of local self-government and in the National Assembly. The position of the communities and the manner, in which their rights are exercised in the geographic areas where they live, the obligations of the self-governing local communities for the exercise of these rights, and those rights which the members of these national communities exercise also outside these areas, shall all be regulated by the law. Laws, regulations and other general acts that concern the exercise of the constitutionally provided rights and the position of the national communities exclusively, may not be adopted without the consent of their representatives." A self-governing national community (SGNC) is an effective form of the exercise of minority rights. In 1994, the Slovenian government adopted the law "On Local Self-Government". The law determines tasks of these communities, methods and scope of their activities, organizational structure and mechanisms for funding and maintaining relations with state institutions and local self-governance bodies. These organizations existing in every ethnically heterogeneous area are united under the Italian Self-Governing National Community, which has relations with the state. The Community must approve actions relating to the status of the minority prior to their implementation by the state. In addition, the Community is responsible for international cooperation with Italy and other states having a sizable Italian minority and deals with international agreements, in particular those affecting minority rights and status. In the context of the right to participate in decision-making, existence of such self-governing organizations does not prevent minorities from any other type of political or social organization for the promotion of interests that may exist outside a SGNC. By the way, the identical self-governing national communities exist in Hungary (from 1995). Today, 11 out of 13 officially recognized Hungarian minorities formed their self-governing communities. In Slovenia and Hungary, SGNC are built as follows: the Assembly (a legislative body), committees (executive bodies), while some SGNC may have the President, the Secretary and experts on education, culture and information. In Macedonia, national minorities have fewer opportunities to participate in decision-making. Under the Constitution of Macedonia, the Assembly establishes a Council on Inter-Ethnic Relations. The Council consists of the President of the Assembly and two members of every ethnic group. The Council considers issues of inter-ethnic relations and makes appraisals and proposals for their solution. Under the law on local self-government, such councils can be established at every local self-government body located in the area, where national minorities are concentrated territorially. However, there are numerous obstacles impeding the exercise of minority rights. First and foremost, the matter in question is the absence of coordination between local self-government bodies and local executive authorities (departments of the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy). Furthermore, culture, education and other socio-humanitarian spheres are under jurisdiction of national executive authorities. In the republic of Croatia, national minorities constituting over 8% of the whole population are guaranteed proportionate representation in the Assembly (parliament), the government and institutions of legislative power. In case a minority forms less than 8% of population, it shall elect five representatives to the Assembly. Legal acts regulate opportunities of national minorities to participate in decision-making on the local level. Statutes of local communities determine a procedure for representation in local assemblies: it shall be proportionate to percentage composition of population, while commissions on minority issues shall include representatives of political parties members of the Assembly. If the Assembly is not adequately presented, the status of some regions provides for a special procedure: increase of members of the Assembly. The Serbs shall appoint one (if they form less than 8% of population) or three representatives (if they form over 8% of population). Other minorities (the Italians, Albanians, Bosnians, Montenegrins, Czechs, Hungarians, Slovenians, Roma, Jews and others) have one representative in the Assembly. Notwithstanding regulations in force, inclusive of the law on elections of members of electoral institutions of local governance and self-governance, minor progress is observed. The above is explained by the fact that for the time being, an official national census has not been conducted in Croatia, which resulted in a failure to determine a proportionate correlation between elements of ethnic composition of society. Moreover, the exercise of the right to participate in decision-making requires actual political power. As a rule, members of local Assemblies belonging to national minorities represent party interests. Therefore, in practice (in either Croatia or Yugoslavia), party interests dominate, whereas influence of minority representatives is minor. As far as the exercise of minority rights is concerned, the problem of politization of national minorities has emerged recently. The countries of former Yugoslavia made efforts to bring party interests in line with those of national minorities, especially on the local level: during elections, parties established on ethnic basis helped their candidates to be elected to local self-government bodies. Such form of representation of minority interests proved to be useful for solving problems of national minorities (the Democratic Union of Albanians, the Democratic Union of Albanians in Montenegro and the Party for Full Emancipation of Roma in Macedonia). However, a positive assessment of parties established on ethnic basis is situational. Politization of national minorities causes ethnic separateness, complicates elimination of antagonisms in interethnic relations and formation of a system of tolerance upbringing. Tolerance is of paramount importance for any multicultural society, while for the countries of former Yugoslavia, it is the most significant factor influencing their development. The following two factors determine too sensitive perception of tolerance in this region: 1) localization of ethno-national problems (narrowing of ethno-cultural relations) as a result of Yugoslavia’s disintegration and a new situation in interethnic relations; 2) climax of interethnic confrontation in some regions attended with military operations. Some citizens, who had been forced to leave places of their permanent residence after the war, returned while some remained. So, their adaptation and reintegration represent the major interethnic problems, for the above means overcoming of linguistic barriers and finding a niche in social and cultural spheres of society. Therefore, formation of a system of overcoming negative stereotypes, establishment of interethnic cooperation, development of ethno-cultural tolerance and mutual respect are extremely important, especially at the administrative level. Slovenian and Croatian authorities developed special programs for psychological and social assistance to refugees as well as children and youth, who suffered as a result of military actions. Structured as modules, these programs provided for reconstruction of some episodes relating to military actions and search for ways of overcoming stress situations; self-affirmation and cultivation of traits that would help to get over diffidence creating preconditions for a life under new circumstances; future prospects with regard to the need to set up and maintain contacts with other groups of population; understanding of minority rights and methods for their application; mastering of decision-making and conflict settlement strategies and principles of tolerance. Use of the above programs produced certain positive results, having paved the way for eliminating hostility and prejudices in interethnic relations. Needless to say, positive results could be achieved only subject to formulation of adequate ethnic policies. At contemporary stage of social development, ethnic policies of the countries of former Yugoslavia are focused on creation of conditions encouraging ethno-national processes of integration. In this respect, there is the pressing need to develop special programs for combating interethnic intolerance in Ukraine under the circumstances of economic instability, competition between ethnic groups for social and political niches, absence of opportunities to completely meet ethno-cultural needs of both national minorities and the core nation. By the way, such programs could be developed on the basis of school and university textbooks on history and culture of Ukrainian national minorities and their relationship with the core nation over the period of their co-existence within the country. Under the circumstances of Ukraine, such programs could prevent interethnic conflicts. Speaking about efforts to get over interethnic crises in former Yugoslavia, it is necessary to pay attention to cooperation of governmental agencies and public organizations. Experience proves that the above cooperation, especially at the local level, produces positive results for settlement of ethnic problems, in particular those relating to the exercise of compensatory minority rights. In cooperation with NGOs, local authorities of the countries of former Yugoslavia work out and realize various initiatives geared toward integration of minorities (especially, refugees) into social, cultural and political life of their communities within a specific territory. These actions include formation of autonomous administrative bodies of national minorities (Slovenia); funding of actions of minority organizations (Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia); bilingual programs in kindergartens and programs providing for equal educational opportunities, including education in minority languages; the Roma Integration Program (Macedonia); special seminars for training in ethnic conflict management; seminars on successful implementation of peaceful processes and interethnic tolerance; public initiatives on integration and building of trust between local multicultural population and refugees (Bosnia and Herzegovina); programs for building tolerant relations between immigrant and refugee children and youth returning to Croatia from regions of military operations of former Yugoslavia, especially, Bosnia and Herzegovina (Croatia); foundation of youth clubs maintaining and promoting good interethnic relations (the Republic of Yugoslavia) etc. Under certain circumstances (crises and obvious discrimination against national minorities), the Program of Positive Actions may prove to be rather efficient. The above policy of protection of national minorities was used within periods of deterioration of ethnic conflicts in America, Canada and other multicultural states in the 60s and 70s. Authorities resorted to fixed representation of national minorities in local governance bodies (representation by quotas), granted privileges for admission to higher educational establishments, created a definite number of minority jobs in different branches of industry etc. The above endeavors quelled minority protests though caused dissatisfaction of the US white population. In the countries of former Yugoslavia, the Program of Positive Actions represented a key aspect of ethnic management. The national legislation and legal acts of some countries, inclusive of Slovenia and Croatia, provide for representation of national minorities in electoral and executive bodies at the regional and local levels. In the Republic of Yugoslavia, (Subotica, the province Voevodina), the so-called policy of national keys became a kind of the Program of Positive Actions: local authorities influence appointment of the ethnics to governmental and other high-ranking positions in a proportion adequate to ethnic composition of a city. The above approach is applied to representation in public services and institutions formed by local authorities, which is typical for other states as well. Due to the Program of Positive Actions, it is possible to effectively protect minority rights on the one hand and integrate cultures and traditions into a multicultural society. As far as other European multicultural states are concerned, ethno-political problems are not that serious. The only exception is Belgium, where the issue of the status of the Walloon and the Flemish minorities deteriorates every now and again provoking conflicts. Belgium’s experience of solving this problem is interesting in the context of a territorial principle of the exercise of minority rights though it can hardly be adapted by Ukraine. Nevertheless, from the viewpoint of legal regulation, it deserves attention, since this regulation entirely considers rights of both territorial communities. According to classification suggested by Georg Brunner, Hungary does not belong to multicultural states with serious ethno-political problems. Having passed the law on self-governing national minorities, the country gave an example of "preventive regulation" of their status. All the above has already been mentioned and it will be mentioned further in the context of application of historical experience of solving minority problems in Ukraine. I would like to point out that looking for ways of formulating the most effective legislation on national minorities, it would be useful to study Ukrainian experience. From the very beginning of its formation after the October Revolution, Ukrainian government attempted to develop its own policy taking into account the multicultural nature of Ukraine’s society. First and foremost, the above relates to power structures of Ukrainian People’s Republic (UPR). The law of UPR "On National-Personal Autonomy" approved by the Central Rada on January 9, 1918 played a special role in interethnic relations. The law formulated basic principles of rights of national minorities as integral components of ethno-national structure of Ukrainian society and outlined opportunities for the exercise of their right to self-governance. Without going into details, I would like to emphasize two generally recognized principles of the exercise of minority rights: within a territorial or ethno-cultural (national-personal) autonomy. The first one is used in case a minority is concentrated territorially. The second principle is applied in case of dispersed settling of a national minority. Principles of national-personal autonomy are adequate for Ukraine, since its ethnic communities are dispersed and in none of the regions, a national minority forms even a half of local population, save the Crimea. Notwithstanding the fact that the law "On National-Personal Autonomy" consists of 10 Articles, in my opinion, it provided for basic opportunities for solving numerous problems of ethno-national development experienced by contemporary Ukrainian society. I would like to pay attention to some of the above opportunities. Among them, the most important is the right of national minorities to ethnic identity. Article 1 of the law reads, "Every national minority has the right to national-personal autonomy… The State may not discriminate against these minorities nor shall it unduly restrict this right." Article 1 incorporates some other important provisions structuring the right to self-identification. The law provided for the exercise of the right to national-personal autonomy trough a special coordinating body. In contemporary terminology, this is a self-governing body of a national minority. In the law of UPR, it was called the "Body of the National Union". By the way, in European practice of securing minority rights, the above approach is applied as the most efficient one. For instance, in Hungary, actions of self-governing national minorities proved to be very effective. Under the Act LXXVII "On the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities" passed by the Hungarian parliament on July 7, 1993, 13 officially recognized national minorities had the right to establish self-governing national minorities, of which 11 exercised that right in 1995. According to the law of Ukrainian People’s Republic, all people "irrespective of their place of residence within Ukrainian People’s Republic" were under jurisdiction of the Body of the National Union (BNU). This principle is significant because even members of national minorities, who did not belong to any ethnic organization, fell within jurisdiction of the BNU. In contemporary Ukraine, the right to ethnic identity declared in the 1992 law "On National Minorities" can be fully exercised only in areas, where national minorities are concentrated territorially. The above includes meetings of minority organizations, holding of festivals and contests, organization of Sunday schools, foundation of amateur art groups and other actions. Article 3 of the law "On National-Personal Autonomy" determined a procedure for identifying a citizen’s belonging to a national minority. It should be mentioned that the National Union was established on the basis of lists (the National Cadastre) and everyone, who realized his or her ethnic identity and was willing to identify himself/herself with a national minority, had the right to be included to the National Cadastre. Also, he/she had the right to demand exclusion from the Cadastre. Such a principle was democratic and optimal for manifestation of conscious ethnic identity. The above provision not only enabled citizens to be voluntary included into the Cadastre but also encouraged further structuring of national minorities. The Cadastre served for identification of the realistic number of minorities. A national minority is part and parcel of ethnic composition of society and has certain features and functions as such. For example, a national minority organizationally consolidates members of the same ethnic group and reproduces both ethnic environment and ethnic minority. A national minority can perform these and other functions provided that a considerable number of components - "institutional completeness" according to R. Breton - are available (minority organizations, minority press, radio, television, schools offering tuition in minority languages etc.). The National Cadastre was an important factor of structuring of national minorities: a desire voiced in public (through a statement and publication of respective lists) actually meant realistic self-identification with a certain ethnic community. The National Union had considerable powers as well as financial and material resources for encouraging development of a definite ethnic community, which urged some members of the community to take active measures for its reproduction. The above ensured phenomenon of not only virtual (on the basis of census data and declarations of leaders of ethnic movements) but also realistic existence of national minorities. In this respect, the indicated in the law approach gives an argument for a discussion on what communities can be classed as ethnic (national) minorities. In other words, not only the arbitrarily determined number of members and intentions of leaders of a national minority to be at the head of powerful ethnic movements but also realistic ethnic identification of its members evidence existence of such a minority. Identification of ethnic (national) minorities and their participation in maintenance and development of ethno-cultural and political life is based on the above factors. Other aspects promoting structuring of national minorities are rights of the National Union (Articles 4 and 5) and rules of relations between the Union and power. Under provisions of Articles 4 and 5, the National Union had the right to legislation and governance within its competence. Competence of the National Union was determined at a Constituent Assembly of the national minority. The above provision is an important factor of democratization (at least, it evidences intentions of democratization) of social life, especially in ethno-national sphere. Decentralization (de-concentration) of power and delegation of some legislative and executive functions to local self-governance serve as indicators of democracy. In areas, where national minorities are concentrated territorially, local authorities in cooperation with members of those minorities can more clearly determine their needs for ethno-cultural development, while decentralization offers national minorities more opportunities of access to governance. One of the most urgent requirements of the Council of Europe to regulation of ethno-national development, especially in the field of interethnic relations, was fixed as long ago as in the early XXth century. The law "On National-Personal Autonomy" also emphasized the right to representation of national minorities in state institutions and public organizations. Introduction of the above provision into the legislation in force would force leaders of minority associations (according to data of the State Committee for Nationalities and Migration, in Ukraine, there are over 1,000 national minority organizations at a variety of levels) not only demand national authorities to meet needs of these organizations or ethno-cultural communities but also coordinate their actions. The law "On National-Personal Autonomy" also governed that National Unions should be funded from national and local budgets in the amount proportionate to the number of their members. Such a clear procedure takes the wind out of sails of those minority leaders, who like to discuss unfair distribution of budgetary funds or complain about "special attitude to certain minorities", and allows developing a sound policy of minority funding thereby alleviating interethnic tension. A procedure for constituting national-personal autonomy represents another important aspect of structuring of national minorities. The law "On National-Personal Autonomy" provided for the right of the Russian, Jewish and Polish national minorities (as the most numerous and structured) to autonomy. Other ethnic minorities - the Belorus, Czech, Moldavian, German, Tatar, Greek and Bulgarian - could use the right to autonomy on filing the application singed by not less than 10,000 members citizens of Ukrainian People’s Republic to the General Court. National minorities not listed in the above law were not deprived of the right to autonomy (the only difference was that the application had to be filed through the parliament of Ukrainian People’s Republic). Such approach evidences that the issue of quantitative parameters of national minorities claiming for national-personal autonomy was of great importance. Today, when forms of self-governance of national minorities are in question, the idea of a numerical threshold is being successfully realized in Hungary. In other multicultural states, it is interpreted as a rule necessary to determine the status of ethnic (national) minorities. As a matter of fact, discussions about changes in Ukraine’s legislation in force on national minorities should include the issue of a minimal threshold of numerical composition of an ethnic (national) community. This threshold shall be determined on a basis of a key postulate: the number of members of a national minority shall be sufficient for performance of its major functions and formation of a system of institutional completeness. Under the law "On National-Personal Autonomy", the Body of the National Union had the status of the national body, whose competence was determined at the Constituent Assembly of Ukrainian People’s Republic or its parliament. The National Assembly was the higher representative body of the National Union. The National Assembly was elected from members of a certain national community on a basis of the common electoral law. The National Council was the higher executive body of the National Union elected by the National Assembly. Article 10 of the law regulated settlement of disputes in relations between the National Union and power structures. Hence, the 1918 law "On National-Personal Autonomy" can serve as a basis for the law regulating the status of national minorities and opportunities of their ethno-cultural development. Special attention shall be paid to provisions on the procedure for constituting national minorities through their right to national-personal autonomy; competence of the Body of the National Union (in modern terminology - the higher executive body of a national minority); the procedure for regulation of relations between the National Union and power structures at the national and local levels; and activities of the National Union. The need for optimal regulatory models of Ukraine’s ethno-national development is caused, first of all, by an intention to secure right of national minorities so that to prevent discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin. It is to be stressed that at the very beginning that that there is no direct discrimination in Ukraine. Though, there are cases of indirect discrimination based on ethnic origin, language, religion, color or belief, which needs their analysis, development and implementation of measures for their removal. Furthermore, different politically active groups declare ethnic, linguistic and religious discrimination without insufficient reason. That is why the in-depth analysis of certain problems is necessary to show the real situation. We can assert that discrimination and inequality of national minorities, ethnic groups and immigrants are not the results of governmental policy based on racial superiority or hatred but influence of the following factors: 1) Unsatisfactory level of Ukraine’s socio-economic development; 2) Weak developed level of socio-humanitarian infrastructure with regard to specific needs of ethno-cultural development of national and regional minorities; 3) Lack of correspondence of the Ukrainian legislation in force in the field of ethno-national development; 4) Absence of effective mechanisms for the exercise of fundamental and, especially, compensatory rights of national minorities adequate to increasing ethnic self-consciousness of their members under conditions of ethno-political and ethno-cultural revival in their milieu; 5) Insufficient level of social consciousness of Ukrainian citizens to adequately perceive the fact of society’s polyethnicity and correspondingly react to other ethnic identity. The following ethnic groups can be classified as discriminated or disadvantageous on the basis of their race, color, language and religion, social and ethnic origin, political and other belief or as those, who as result of different conditions experience problems of the exercise of their rights as national minorities, ethnic groups or immigrants related to of the exercise of their minority rights: - Bulgarians (especially those returned from deportation) - Armenians (especially those returned from deportation) - Gagauses - Greeks (especially those returned from deportation) - Jews - Karaims - Crimean Tatars - Krymchaks - Germans ((especially those returned from deportation) - Roma (Gypsies) - Russians (problems appeared in the process of transformation into minority as the result of appearance of independent countries on the post-Soviet space) - Romanians - Hungarians - Ukrainians (as a regional minority in the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea) - Immigrants from Asia, Africa, who stay in Ukraine temporarily, and immigrants from Caucasus. The problems of direct and indirect discrimination and inequality of ethnic, national ad immigrant groups occur at a variety of levels and in different spheres of social life. I selected a few of them, where discrimination and inequality occur very evident, and tried to identify factors of and reasons for discrimination and inequality. 1. Legislative sphere (legislation and mechanisms for the exercise of minority rights): - Deficient Ukrainian legislation (unclear definition for the "national minority", its criteria and mechanisms for the exercise of minority rights); - Absence of the definition for "discriminated peoples"; - Absence of the definition for the "core nation" and "indigenous peoples"; - Absence of clear mechanisms for the exercise of minority rights. 2. Socio-economic sphere (employment; social services; pension security; property; housing; life security; privatization): the crisis of economic development and inadequate official policy that evoked high level of unemployment, inflation and stratification of Ukrainian population are the main causes of discrimination and inequality ethnic, national, regional minorities and immigrants. 3. Socio-humanitarian sphere (education and vocational training; linguistic situation; the media; culture; religion): limited material resources, incompetence of the legislation and its implementation mechanisms, especially on the regional and local levels, are the main factors, which do not allow realizing the rights (especially compensatory ones) of Ukraine’s population of other ethnic origin. 4. Sphere of public and political activities is characterized by the following major problems evidencing discrimination or, as minimum, limited opportunities for national minorities, which is caused by limited opportunities to express freely their will due to dominant command-administrative structure of power in Ukraine, deficient system of activities of public organizations and political parties, absence of regulatory relationship between NGOs and political parties as well as NGOs and the state and low level of political culture of Ukraine’s population. 5. Sphere of individual and personal relations is characterized by manifestations of xenophobia and intolerance in interethnic relations. In all those spheres, the above national minorities face direct or indirect discrimination. Classification of spheres of social life characterized by manifestations of discrimination and ethnic separateness allows distinguishing the following acute problems: 1. In socio-economic sphere: for analysis I selected the following two major problems: - Employment in the milieu of the above national minorities, ethnic groups and immigrants of members of national minorities. First and foremost, the problem to be seen in the milieu of those parts of the Ukrainian population, which during the last ten years returned from deportation (mostly to the southern regions of Ukraine). Those are the Crimean Tatars (over 200,000 persons came back to Ukraine), the Armenians, Germans and Greeks (all together approximately 12,000 persons) and immigrants. The unemployment problem was caused as a result that infrastructure of the regions, where the repatriates came, was not ready to accept such number of once deported. it was not possible to settle, especially the Crimean Tatars, in the places of their traditional settlement, which made them look for new places outside major industrial and cultural centers, where chances to find a job were relatively higher. This situation evoked increasing unemployment among deported peoples thus decreased their living standards and caused discrimination toward them as to access to normal conditions of life. For instance, 128,000 persons have no housing and over 71,000 have no job. The majority of the Crimean Tatars, who are returning to the Crimea, live in 300 settlements lacking electric energy and water supply systems (75% and 27% respectively), highways, schools and hospitals. All that evoked increase of diseases and death rate. - Privatization is the second acute problem for those people, who returned from deportation after privatization mainly took place in Ukraine (the late 1990s-the early 2000s). 50% of the Crimean Tatars, Bulgarians, Greeks, Armenians and Germans are affected by this problem. They are parts of the Ukrainian population, who acquire Ukrainian citizenship, when privatization and sharing of land had been over. Today, they do not have land plots, which for many of them are the only source of their existence. As a result, their socio-economic plight dramatically worsened. 2. In socio-humanitarian sphere: the deepest problems illustrating the disadvantageous situation in the milieu of the above national minorities, ethnic groups and immigrants are the following: - Insufficient opportunities of national minorities and ethnic groups for learning ethnic languages or teaching in mother tongues, including: 1) insufficient number of minority schools (the Crimean Tatars, Roma and Ukrainians in the Crimea); 2) bad providing of schools with minority textbooks (the Crimean Tatars, Armenians, Roma and Romanians); 3) inadequate education of specialists at universities for their work in the milieu of national minorities (all mentioned above minorities); 4) limited funding of schools offering tuition in minority languages (all mentioned above minorities); - Insufficient knowledge of the Ukrainian (national) language of some ethnics (the Romanians, Hungarians, Russians, Crimean Tatars and others) restricts their admission to higher educational establishments and, as a result, limits their access to equal opportunities in the labor market; - Limited access to minority culture and information in minority languages, including: 1) insufficient volume of TV and radio broadcasting in minority languages do not cover the needs of national minorities (Bulgarian, Armenian, Gagaus, Greek, Jewish, German, Romanian, Hungarian and Ukrainian in the Crimea); absence of electronic minority media for the Roma, Karaims and Krymchaks; 2) problems relating to the printed minority media - irregular publication due to insufficient funding, lack of staff fluent in minority languages (the Armenians, Gagauses and Roma); 3) absence of professional art groups (save the Russians, Roma and Crimean Tatars); 4) lack of funds for maintenance of historical and cultural monuments (the Karaims, Crimean Tatars, Krymchaks, Roma and Romanians). 3. In the sphere of public and political activities: - Absence of funds and provision with premises for public organizations (all national minorities mentioned above). This situation does not allow to activate the work of minority associations in the sphere of ethnic revival of their milieu; - Practically all minorities (except the Russians and, in some cases, the Crimean Tatars, Hungarians, Jews and Romanians) cannot participate in decision-making at the national, regional and local levels (in the places of compact settlement). - In the public activities and personal relations discrimination occurs in the form of xenophobia affecting the Roma, Jews, Crimean Tatars and immigrants from Asia and Africa and Caucasus. It is based on existence of negative ethnic stereotypes and is also as a result of competition for adequate status in socio-economic and cultural sphere of social life under the circumstances of economic crisis in Ukraine. Xenophobia against mentioned minorities and ethnic groups is manifested in vandalism against Ukrainian, Russian and Jewish and other symbols. Reaction of Ukrainian officials to such events is not adequate. Without any reason, representatives of several groups in discussion (especially, from Asia and Africa and Caucasus) are detained by Ukrainian police; they are often victims of brutal treatment by police, army and other law-enforcement agencies. 4. In the sphere of individual and personal relations: the Roma, Jews, Crimean Tatars and immigrants from Caucasian, Asian and African countries are discriminated against. Such discrimination is based on existent negative ethnic stereotypes and arises from competition for the best niche in socio-economic and cultural spheres under the circumstances of economic crisis. In my viewpoint, the level of xenophobia in Ukraine is not higher than that in other post-totalitarian states. On the contrary, it is much lower compared to Russia, Romania, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia. However, manifestations of xenophobia against the Ukrainians, Russians, Jews, Crimean Tatars and other ethnics and hostility towards the Roma and immigrants from Caucasian, Asian and African countries are observed. These included actions of vandalism against Ukrainian, Russian and Jewish sacred places, objects and symbols and xenophobic publications in some periodicals. Analysis of ethnic tolerance evidences that the index of intolerance to the above minorities exceeds 5 points. So, it is possible to conclude that in mass consciousness, these groups are not viewed as permanent residents of Ukraine and are pushed out of Ukrainian society. 1 The article was prepared within initiative “Conceptual principles of ethnonational policy of Ukraine: between theory and practice”, which is realized under program “Advisers on state policy for support of reforms in Ukraine” with assistance Canadian International Development Agency and under the aegis of Canadian International Education Bureau. Original text in Ukrainian – in this issue “Krimski Studii” |
