Livshin Alexander Yakovlevich

To understand the modern role of nonprofi t organizations in the system of interethnic relations, it is important to analyze the historical experi-ence of public participation in the formation of ethnic policies in Russia. The goal of this article is to identify the potential of civil society organizations in
the field of harmonization of interethnic relations, and to consider the possibilities and limitations of the potential of national-cultural autonomies based on reference to historical experience and its comparison with modern phenomena. To achieve research goals, the article uses a historical-genetic method that allows us to identify cause-and-eff ect relationships of historical processes and
phenomena, as well as classifi cation methods that allow to systematically analyze
the mechanisms of cross-sector partnership. Th e idea of national-cultural autonomy as a tool for maintaining and harmonious development of the cultural identity of “non-dominant” ethnic groups gained particular popularity in Austria-Hungary and Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century. The revival of this concept in our time is due to the fact that NCA is a historically established and theoretically substantiated “classical” principle for implementing ethnocultural development that does not violate the political structure and territorial-administrative composition of multinational states. However, the national-cultural autonomies created in accordance with the 1996 law are heterogeneous
both in size and development potential. Due to this inconsistency, the possibilities of civil society in the ethnocultural and ethnopolitical sphere are realized not only in the form of creating national and cultural autonomies, but also using other organizational and legal forms. Th e nonprofi t sector is the
organizational and economic basis of civil society, and it is in this capacity that it reflects the diversity of public interests. Th e role of the nonprofi t sector is not limited to representing the interests of diverse groups, including national and religious groups, in the public political space. Nonprofi t organizations are called upon to solve specifi c problems of society, provide social assistance, prevent
crises and help resolve them. It is in this capacity that they are most useful as a tool for harmonizing interethnic relations. Civil society organizations, due to natural resource limitations, cannot eff ectively solve the problems of harmonizing interethnic relations without cooperation with the state and business. The issues of development of national culture and national heritage, social assistance
and support for representatives of various ethnic groups, public participation in the activities of government bodies on issues of interethnic relations become the responsibility of various civil structures involved in the system of intersectoral
social partnership.

The main research problem of this article is the possibility of applying
some concepts of the neo-institutional approach to analyzing the history
of public administration system in Russia in the 19th — early 20th centuries,
as well as in the late Soviet era. Th is allows us to better understand the general
patterns of evolution of the mechanisms of state institutions functioning
in the past and present. Th e research method was case analysis; the selected
cases relate to manifestations of information asymmetry and opportunism of
subjects of state governance interactions. Th e paper examines the reaction of
government offi cials to the Decree of Alexander I of August 6, 1809 “On the
rules of promotion to ranks in the civil service and on tests in the sciences,
for promotion to Collegiate Assessors and State Councilors.” As the second
example illustrating the manifestation of “government opportunism”, the period
of the “Great Reforms” in Russia was chosen. Th e third case considered
was the development by the supreme power of normative documents ensuring
the activities of representative government bodies created in accordance with
the provisions of the Manifesto of October 17, 1905. Th e latest of the analyzed
cases were manifestations of information asymmetry and opportunism during
the perestroika period, examined using the examples of cotton pricing and the
behavior of regional government offi cials in relation to production cooperatives.
In all analyzed cases, the possession of more information by one of the parties led to an increase in mistrust between the participants in the interaction, usually
supporters of reforms and their opponents. In turn, mistrust resulted in opportunistic
behavior of subjects in the process of developing and implementing
reform plans. Ultimately, all this led to falling into institutional traps and the
consolidation of negative institutional qualities.

The process of transit of state power in the history of Russia has repeatedly taken place in conditions of crisis: full-scale or intra-elite. Weak expression of the institutions accompanying this process led to personal struggle between contenders for power. This led to the use of "cancellation mechanisms" of this or that contender. The objectives of this article are: to identify the conditions in which the need arose to use "cancellation mechanisms"; to show the tools of "cancellation"; to point out the results that the use of this tool led to. To solve these problems, the case method was used. The authors selected the most illustrative of the situations of power transit in the USSR. To identify and describe the "cancellation mechanisms", the methods of institutional, semantic and semiotic analysis were used. The analysis conducted by the authors confirmed the original hypothesis about the weakness of the institutions of power transit. In each of the first two cases of transit (the 1920s and 1950s), this struggle between the contenders turned into a "zero-sum game". It ended with one of the "successors" gaining full power and the complete loss of political positions by all the others - their symbolic "cancellation". In the last of the cases considered, M.S. Gorbachev took steps to make it more difficult for "successors" to appear, but was unable to resist the process in which he himself, along with his decorative successors, was "cancelled" by the self-proclaimed successor - B.N. Yeltsin.