Authoritarianism in Crimean Tatar national movement is a law or anomaly? Presence of opposition in the environment of political forces of Crimean Tatar communities: treachery of national interests or a movement source?

Temur Chelebiev:

— Recently I am called, for example, by the Mufti of Crimea: «I forbid to hold meeting in a mosque. If you is a member of Milli Firka, you will not be the chairman of a religious community. The religious figure has no right to be the party member? Though Mufti is a member of Medzhlis from the service record of Milli Hak. Co-ordinate to me it. Unfortunately, it is not an anomaly, is law, here this authoritarianism.

Nadir Bekirov:

— Authoritarianism or absence of democracy is a stamp which was thought up by journalists. In the late eighties there was a fashion on democracy, basically, authoritarianism is a method of board a society. During other periods of development the society endured authoritarianism and only thanks to it survived. Were Chingiz-khan or Girai democrats? We do not and did not have authoritarianism in national movement. Under our conditions I would act as the supporter of reasonable authoritarianism when there would be well thought over strategy, resources, correct distribution. I would submit, respecting game rules which, obviously, would be directed on advantage to the people.

The self-admiration inherent in Mustafa Dzhemilev and his environment, is at all authoritarianism, these are whims. We do not have authoritarianism. Who carries out decisions of Medzhlis — not those who frankly left it and resist. And those who is in it. Would be July Caesar, De Gaulle, Churchill, would knock a fist on a table and has forced all to make how it is necessary to make.

Reshat Ablaev:

— Authoritarianism for national movement — anomaly. There never it was, all questions were discussed with the people and only after that decisions were made. That then when national movement has passed in system Kurultaj-Medzhlis, this system has incurred all powers to solve movement questions, has degenerated and has turned to a farce, here this natural phenomenon. In our people with statehood loss the conceiving part of the people, naturally the people from generation to generation was always destroyed could not create those or other institutes which could expect prospects. It has not allowed the people to see those processes which can occur after have created Medzhlis. Against the people institutes worked, analyzing processes, mentality of the people. They could develop such mechanism, subordinate that body to themselves and completely supervise over national movement. The people, even when have seen it (movement usurpation, a withdrawal from movement principles), in the person could not react in time and in time correct it, that institute sabordinated the power to itself.

The opposition is always necessary, if it is healthy opposition. If the group of people has created any organisation working on an overall aim, without pursuing the personal purposes, such opposition only on advantage. They can not agree with work methods, but work on an overall aim.

Vasvi Abduraimov:

— Authoritarianism not always plays a negative role. All sharpness of a question that is a question not of authoritarianism in national movement (the wide initiative of the people). It was not and is not present. If any organisation is satisfied with such form of government (authoritarianism) — please. Danger that there was a usurpation of sense of national movement or equalising of principles of national movement to those principles which have established today in same Medzhlis — usurpation and representation as a unique official position of all the Crimean Tatar communities, sounded by that or other leader of this structure. Danger is in it.

The opposition in the environment of political forces, as a rule, is a minority to the majority. The today’s situation is that that 2/3 of the Crimean Tatar communities to some extent do not support a present representative body. It is bad, but it is the fact. Most likely it is necessary to speak not about opposition in the environment of political forces, and already about opposition of Milli Medzhlis to the Crimean Tatar people. If not to change this situation fundamentally, not to reformat representation of the Crimean Tatars and in an environment and inside further there will be a degradation, strengthening of these tendencies. Authoritarianism of ideas, the purposes, authoritarianism of following those or other principles — can agree with it, but if there is a withdrawal from principles, the purposes then all it reincarnates in the ugliest processes. The fresh example of how Medzhlis was selected in Kefa (Feodosiya) is in what results a withdrawal from the movement principles which priority should be absolutely for all participants of national movement.

Hubedin Kurtbedinov:

— It was much told about Crimean Tatar youth. I have avoided this question, it is serious. The Crimean Tatar youth, its outlook, its relation to Crimean Tatar national movement, to a problem of the Crimean Tatar people is a separate theme.

The most terrible — anybody never investigated this outlook. Nobody knows, what percent of Crimean Tatar youth thinks so. The unique that published, statistical data about which, likely, all of you know, I do not carry it only to Crimean Tatar youth: when figure 30% of the Crimean Tatars has been named approve halifat. I think that in these percent 90 % was youth. Today the Crimean Tatars do not have spiritual leader who could tell to everyone, irrespective of its political convictions. The people deprived of the spiritual leader — very poor people. I wish to tell: the most terrible error of Medzhlis that they have crushed muftiyat under themselves. As to authoritarianism. That did not suffice the Crimean Tatars, since the Crimean khans, it is authoritarianism. If, of course, there would be an absolute monarchy, can be and the statehood of the Crimean Tatars would be saved. Only because the Crimean khans were not authoritative, nevertheless this management was democratic enough, balanced on murzas and on other part of the population of that time, it became very weak state and has allowed to lose in any historical moments. There was and is not present no authoritarianism in Medzhlis. We (have accused 16 members who have left Medzhlis) then a management of Medzhlisa acused not of authoritarianism, and that methods and style of a management of chairman Medzhlisa did not suit a part of members of Medzhlis, with this chairman of Medzhlis it was impossible to work.

Oppositions are not present. It was some time. Chairman of Medzhlis was in opposition to the majority, has made 16 members of Medzhlis opposition to itself. It was very small episode in the history of a representative body — Kurultay-Medzhlis. The opposition then was enough fair, clear. But today nobody opposes to Medzhlis. Today all those organisations which are outside of Medzhlis, cannot be to it in opposition, Milli Firka or Coordination council — not opposition. Меdzhlis speaks about restoration of the rights of the people, and everything tells about it. We have a single purpose — to restore the rights of our people.

What to us does not give possibility to unite and solve these questions? Our human ambitions.

There are some organisations outside of Medzhlis — «Namus», Milli Firka, Coordination council and others — well you unite, show that you that part of the people which can lift the people on any affairs.

Timur Dagdzhi:

— In the beginning of 1965 in Tashkent the group of people developed tactics and strategy of national movement. I have asked Mustafa Selimov a question: Who will supervise over movement? He has very wisely told: in national movement there can not be a head. It can kill, plant, but these are half-troubles. But if it will buy, here it is terrible. That happens with us. Our trouble that we are in such position — we are as amateur performance, and from that party professionals work. After all special institutes, likely, have developed such program to create such exaggerated authority, have found the person, who as Moisej, like would result the Crimean Tatars to Crimea. Our trouble: is artificial to create an image of the leader who takes reins of government in hand, and actually solves nothing. This our biggest misfortune, is anomaly for national movement. Opposition in the environment of political forces, I will show on the example. E.Avamileva has persuaded me to become delegate of Kurultaja. 1, 2, 3 sessions of Kurultaj, and all time stand questions: presidential elections, deputies and more something and any concrete questions. Then I have raised the question about a deportation recognition of the Crimean Tatar people a genocide. This question has been considered hardly, with the big scandal on Kurultaj. I have not understood — this problem about a genocide is necessary to the people or the head of the Medzhlis in opposition to the people?

The second problem.

When it has been sounded that Yushchenko has instructed to assimilate our people, and it has been told loudly, and I have begun litigation against R.Bezsmertniy who has been got mixed up in this game, apparently, it is shocking — the country leaders want to destroy all your people. And all Medzhlis led by the leader should resist to it. Instead to me have told: you offend our friends. Then I have been compelled to leave structure of Kurultaj. It was not pleasant to the Medzhlis, they have counted me as opposition.

The phrase «enemies of the people» is added today to the arsenal by heads of the Medzhlis.

Nariman Ibadullaev:

— I agree that to the Crimean Tatar community authoritarianism was not inherent. All was based on fair legislative base. To a Torah, Jasa is was smoothly led in the legislation of the Crimean khanate which has been corrected by Sheriyat. And always value of the head depended on how much it follows a law letter. A trouble — absence of the spiritual leader.

I here do not agree with the sounded opinion that we did not know, where the Medzhlis-kurultaj will move, we knew it. We did not believe Yury Osmanov that all is (Medzhlis) will degenerate. Everything about what Yury Osmanov warned, unfortunately, is carried out in the most dangerous image

Sinaver Kadyrov:

— Have initially told: authoritarianism is an anomaly. I see more problems not that Kurultaj as national meeting is created, and that nobody says that «the Declaration on the national sovereignty» is a document of Kurultaj. And here how much as a whole all has changed. If today have put this document on consideration, Kurultaj would cut the Declaration». It speaks about that spirit, outlook, about that moral component among active workers of national movement. In those days reprisals from outside the states were a good sieve. The person who is not burning in a shower or immoral, could not join numbers of movement and combat for the people rights. Today it is easy. Today this sieve is not present. I see a problem in other — that we, having created the rather strong lever to lift the decision of a national problem on the international level, without having finished building of this institute.

Since 1994, basically has won other direction — about occurrence in the power. Institute Kurultaj became an appendage. That we have today as an appendage, ourselves then have taken this step. Explained that it is necessary to enter into the power, to influence from within, but that has turned out has turned out. I am a supporter of that institute Kurultaj-Medzhlis as political institute really unique, the function will execute up to the end if its building if numbers of delegates replenish with those people for whom moral values not an empty phrase is finished.

Ways to constructivism among political forces of the Crimean Tatar people.

Izzet Hairov:

— Political forces should lean against the people and serve only to it.

Nariman Ibadullaev:

— Those problems which prompt consolidation ways: returning of a part of the people who have remained in places of deportation, social problems — should be the focus of attention all. The Crimean Tatars for the decision of a question on statehood should appeal either to the international community or, in case of a failure, probably that the Crimean Tatars as a part of Muslim umma will search for ways of realisation of idea in Muslim umma.

Sinaver Kadyrov:

— Medzhlis should finish system building, an another matter to end — what forces will do it. Nobody prevents to leave to the people and to be selected. Today election goes the direct. Now a principle: we have created institute, have allocated with powers. Today a problem not in that it to disperse. You are assured, what can we create? Clearly that problems serious, we are at a stage when the conformism became as though norm. Many act as national patriots, thus being conformists. A problem in that all were fair concerning idea, as though the consensus heavy did not get.

Timur Dagdzhi:

— It is necessary to make the general projects for realisation of national problems. «Namus», Milli Firka successfully work, it is necessary to unite effort and other organisations.

Hubedin Kurtbedinov:

— Forthcoming time will give the chance to the people, to public organisations to unite for the decision of the important questions and if we miss chance, we will wait long for effort. I would address to leaders of public organisations who feel responsibility — to unite efforts in restoration of the rights of the people.

Vasvi Abduraimov:

— Constructivism will come when we will break a situation which 200 years define destiny of the people. After falling of the Crimean khanate external forces have started to define destiny of the people.

If we manage to return to values of our national project, to create political force which will manage to co-ordinate our national project with the external project — prospect is. «It is impossible to be too sweet that you have not swallowed, too bitter that you have not spat out».

Reshat Ablaev:

— We had the purpose — to return home. Today we should have that purpose to which should aspire all then can be found common language even being in the different organisations.

Nadir Bekirov:

— I do not regret that have taken part in creation of Kurultaj, I saw: the local authorities were dissatisfied. Now on the contrary. Меdzhlis has turned to club of sharpers. It is a card play.

Temur Chelebiev:

— There should be round tables not adherents, and opposition. It is necessary for us to induce youth to display of the initiative. It is inert and engaged in by the affairs. There was a requirement for people who can authoritatively convince.

Has prepared

Gulnara USEINOVA.

«A voice of Crimea» № 31 (866) on July, 30th, 2010