­Around 7,000 angry ultra-nationalists marched through Moscow on Friday and Russian politicians are partly to blame.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Neo-Nazi’s have often hijacked November the 4th, celebrated as Russia’s Day of Unity.  It’s a problem that isn’t going away in Moscow, or Russia at large, and amidst the pre- election hype there are some telling reasons why.

This is not to suggest any mainstream politician is in collusion with Neo-Nazi’s, but they are guilty of reactionary policies and proposals.  It bears similarities to the UK in response to gains made by the BNP (British Nationalist Party).  There, whilst deploring their views and agenda they still embraced the need to listen to some of the undertones – taking a stronger stance on immigration.

In Russia nationalism is more acute, firstly it seems to garner more support, and secondly in a less PC culture it’s voiced more openly.  For a minority, that nationalism has manifested itself worryingly in hate speech, violent attacks and murder.

Where politicians enter the fray is their flirtation with nationalist sentiment and it’s here where opposition parties are most culpable.  Lacking a real left much of what it is said is right leaning, nowhere else is this more evident than with the Communist Party. They recently announced that if they came to power ethnicity pages in passports would be re-introduced – a Soviet-era tool, often cited as a means to discriminate against minorities. On this one the ruling party, United Russia, got it right – calling the move a populist stunt aimed at winning votes.  Contradictory to the universalism ethos evident in Communist thought, it is disconcerting as it highlights an open acknowledgement that such actions may win votes for Russia’s second-largest party.  But more disappointing is the Communists willingness to yield this dangerous weapon in order to do that.

Ultra-nationalists marching through Moscow

The Liberal Democrats – with the third largest share of the vote- are also guilty of playing on nationalist sentiment.  They are currently running an election campaign which has again based their ballot paper on “The Russian Question”.  The party’s self-stated goal is “the defense of the Russian people”, with much of their electioneering distinguishing ethnic lines and reasoning that the future of the country lies with the success of ethnic Russians. They’ve gone further – in May holding roundtable discussions with known ultra- nationalists, including the banned Slavic-Union.

These are examples of recent outpourings made by those with a say on state legislation, smaller parties have also followed similar routes.

Of course political podiums do not create xenophobia. Such sentiments have to be simmering under the surface.  At Friday’s rally the majority present were young, many appearing under 20. They represent a disenfranchised youth looking to vent their anger.

The majority present were young

That means employment and social prospects for the young and impoverished need vast improvements.  It also boils down to a lack of education and cultural misunderstandings.  Though Russia as a nation engulfs different cultures, it remains far from a multicultural utopia and somewhat segregated. Crime from minority groups, particularly from the Caucasus, also plays its part. The case of murdered Spartak FC fan Egor Sviridov was championed by Neo-Nazis at the rally. But such crime stats are often ballooned by local media and politicians.

More to the point, these problems seem universal with nationalism in any country. A disenfranchised youth, depressed areas within an ethnic majority and an obvious group to target, are common ingredients. What makes Russia stand out at present is that far from denounced by mainstream parties, these views are employed.

Running an election campaign and a country are two different things – and as long as those in parliament continue to play games with opinion for personal gains, all they’re showing is they lack of responsibility needed to govern a 21st-century country.

In short, they should remain on the sidelines, along with their more unpalatable opinions.

­The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.