Secession as an International Phenomenon: From America?s Civil War to Contemporary Separatist Movements

“Structure, Agency, and Secessionism in the Soviet Union and Post-Soviet States”

PAUL KUBICEK Structure, Agency, and Secessionism in the Soviet Union and Post-Soviet States Any comparative consideration of secessionist movements should take into account the Soviet and post-Soviet experience. Although ethnopolitical mobilization did not occur in all Soviet republics or regions, the implosion of the Soviet empire produced the most successful wave of secessionism in modern times. Fifteen independent countries now exist in the post-Soviet space. The end of the Soviet Union, meanwhile, has not seen the end of separatist movements in post-Soviet states, as demonstrated by ongoing conflicts in Chechnya, Abkhazia, Transnistria, and Nagorno-Karabakh. The Soviet and post-Soviet experience therefore represents a wonderful opportunity for those interested in secessionist movements, offering as it does numerous cases to study and compare. Although many strong secessionist movements have materialized in the former Soviet Union, there are also many dogs that did not bark: ethnic groups or regions that one thought might witness secessionist mobilization but did not. In addition, there have been several cases in which groups mobilized but in which the crisis was defused peacefully. While it is perfectly natural to want to examine the often dramatic cases of Soviet and post-Soviet secessionist movements, one should not forget the more quiescent peoples and regions when trying to explain why secessionist movements occur and how they fare. In social science parlance, one should not select cases on the dependent variable. This chapter first reviews the literature associated with the development of secessionist movements in the Soviet Union and puts forward several hypotheses about secessionism that one can apply to the Soviet context and, hope- [278] Paul Kubicek fully, to other contexts as well. Second, it examines in more detail the cases of Moldova and Ukraine, focusing in particular on their experiences in the postSoviet environment. Located on the western edge of the post-Soviet space, parts of both Ukraine and Moldova were, for long periods of time, ruled by states other than Russia. Both have significant minorities that could make separatist claims. Of the two, Moldova has faced the greater threat from its Transnistria region, but it has managed to defuse ethnic Gagauz separatism. Meanwhile , despite marked regional fissures in Ukraine, its main separatist crisis, in Crimea, was resolved and a secessionist movement it was threatened with in the eastern region of Donbas did not occur. This chapter argues that although there are structural factors that facilitate secessionism, human agency—more specifically, the agency of political elites—matters greatly. Where it is possible for elites to achieve “voice” within a state, secessionism is less likely or can be defused. If there is little prospect for gaining “voice” within the state, “exit,” or separatism, becomes far more likely. EXPLAINING SECESSIONISM IN THE SOVIET UNION The collapse of the Soviet Union was brought about by two failures: that of Communist ideology to deliver on its promises and that of the Soviet government to maintain control over its disparate peoples and regions. What led to these failures is hotly debated, but this lies beyond the scope of this chapter. Instead , my focus is on the collapse of the Soviet state in the face of ethnoseparatist mobilization. This is not to say that there was nothing unique about the Soviet experience but rather that we should not treat the Soviet experience as sui genesis because of its ideology. One should note at the outset that secessionism in the Soviet Union came as a surprise to many observers. Various groups held grievances against Russian/ Soviet rule for decades, but it wasn’t until Gorbachev’s reforms in the 1980s that political mobilization around nationalist-secessionist causes became possible. The net result, as Mark Beissinger notes, was that the “seemingly impossible” became “seemingly inevitable.” Nonetheless, not all ethnic minorities mobilized in the waning days of the Soviet Union. Some ethnic groups developed sizeable separatist movements. Others did not. The factors that account for the appearance of ethnoseparatist movements in the Soviet case fall into four categories : institutional, cultural/historical, economic, and agental. Secession in Ukraine and Moldova [279] Institutional Factors The Soviet Union was a federal state. For much of its history, this had little practical relevance, but it did mean that the various regions of the ussr had both geographic boundaries and their own political and economic administrations, even though these administrations were largely under the control of Moscow. This division, which had the effect of creating republic...