The Position of National Minorities in Putin’s Russia: Uniformity or Diversity?

No abstract available

Shrinking autonomy for Tatarstan and Gagauzia: the perils of flexible institutional design

No abstract available

National in form, Putinist in content: minority institutions ‘outside politics’

Over the past three decades, Russia has developed a set of institutions for the management of ethno-linguistic diversity based on the principle of ‘national cultural autonomy’. This article examines the positioning of these institutions within Russian society, arguing that while state-endorsed discourses locate them within the culture sphere—treated as distinct from political processes—there is in fact an interpenetration of ‘politics’ and ‘culture’. The article identifies why these institutions position themselves within the ‘cultural sphere’ while also supporting the country’s meta-narratives on inter-ethnic tolerance and, effectively, the political status quo. Soviet legacies of inter-ethnic relations continue to be socially embedded, yet within this framework some dissenting voices are also discerned

Shrinking autonomy for Tatarstan and Gagauzia: the perils of flexible institutional design

No abstract available

Non-territorial autonomy and minority (dis)empowerment: past, present, and future

This review article outlines the literature on nonterritorial autonomy (NTA) from the renewed interest in the concept in the mid-2000s until today. First, the article provides a brief overview of the meaning of NTA and the rationale behind it, highlighting how, in academic literature, NTA oscillates between positions that treat it as an attractive option and a highly impractical system (difficult to realize in practice or even pin down conceptually). Second, the article looks at trends in the existing literature, which has approached NTA with various emphases: the functions it fulfils (or has fulfilled); its (at times) supplementary role vis-à-vis territorial autonomy; and the dynamics that have led to its introduction in some countries, with attendant implications. Third, the article outlines some of NTA’s complexities, suggesting future areas of research, with reference to the interaction of territoriality and nonterritoriality, collective rights and participation, and potentially negative consequences of NTA regimes

Linguistic rights and education in the republics of the Russian Federation: towards unity through uniformity

This article traces the evolution of the debate on the balancing of federal and regional competences in regulating the use of minority languages in Russia’s education system. Taking into account relevant law and judicial practice, as well as developments in center-periphery relations since 2017, the article argues that the federal center has been increasingly depriving Russia’s republics of the ability to self-regulate in the education sphere – particularly over the question as to whether they may require the compulsory study of republican languages (recognized as co-official with Russian) in schools located within their administrative borders. These processes can be located in the context of the centralization of the education system and a corresponding reduction of multilingualism in Russia’s schools. This can, in turn, be seen as part of an underlying drive to promote national unity through uniformity, through the dilution of the country’s linguistic and cultural diversity and a concurrent emphasis on the primacy of the Russian language. The article further argues that the Russian education system’s centralization has been ongoing: while it has intensified since 2017, the trajectory of the jurisprudence shows an earlier movement towards a concern for ‘unity’ that anticipated it

Ukraine's law on national minorities and ‘effective’ participation: Expanding or diluting standards?

This article provides a critique of Law No. 2827-ix ‘On National Minorities (Communities) of Ukraine’, adopted in December 2022, with a focus on minority participation. Following an overview of Ukraine’s international commitments and domestic legislation on minority protection, we consider some of the complexities of Ukraine’s minority rights regime, particularly those linked to the enduring challenge in striking a balance between the promotion of Ukrainian as the sole state language and the use of Russian and other languages. These dynamics have frequently resulted in the politicisation of language issues, with polarising effects. Meanwhile, participation of national minorities in these debates – and more generally in devising law and policy on matters affecting them – has been limited. The Law on National Minorities represents a welcome attempt to bring about inclusive decision-making, and for the Ukrainian state to meet the requirement of guaranteeing opportunities for effective minority participation. However, the Law’s provisions also reveal a clear preoccupation with national unity at a time of acute crisis, and over the instrumentalisation of national minorities by kin states for political ends. Hence the need for balancing out two equally legitimate concerns. Placing the Law on National Minorities in the context of international standards on minority rights, the article points to an increasing emphasis, at the international level, on the substantive – rather than procedural – aspect of minority participation, through a new focus on outcomes and joint ownership of decisions. In this sense, the Law on National Minorities, and subsequent legal reform, can lay the foundations for a system that devises, implements, and evaluates concrete measures for effective participation. The article concludes that inclusive debates, and igo s’ role in facilitating them, are more critical than ever in light of the severity of ongoing challenges

The mechanics of consensus: non-territorial national cultural autonomy and the Russian state

Russia’s institutions on nonterritorial cultural autonomy (NTCA) can be broadly situated within the country’s political community, in the sense that they—for the most part—recognize the government’s rules of engagement and its role as decision maker, leading to overarching consensus and pursuit of shared objectives. At the same time, they remain at the periphery of the political community. This article outlines the reasons for NTCA institutions’ peripherality and limited influence upon Russia’s minority policies. Such reasons are linked to external factors—Russia’s undemocratic political system—but also to conditions intrinsic to NTCA institutions themselves—forms of passivity and (non)participation, and blurred boundaries between NTCA institutions and state actors. The interaction of such factors generates the noted prevailing consensus between NTCA institutions and the Russian state. Interview data further reveal that representatives of NTCA institutions are far from monolithic: the said external and internal factors affect them in different ways, resulting in variations in forms of consensus and cooperation with state actors. This, in turn, allows for multiple interpretative frameworks of state–civil society coexistence in the sphere of Russia’s diversity management

Ethnicity, culture and language: individuals and groups

No abstract available

Constructing ethnic diversity as a security threat: what it means to Russia’s minorities

This article analyses the Russian government’s securitisation of inter-ethnic relations, and national minorities’ responses to such processes. While Russia’s securitising dynamics have been linked to threats associated with ethnic groups (perceived as) culturally distant from the Russian majority (such as non-Slavic and Muslim minorities), this article argues that securitisation can affect all of Russia’s national minorities (including Slavic and well-integrated communities). Through the analysis of the securitisation of three, partly converging, spheres of domestic politics (civil society, migration, and minority issues) the article highlights forms of (in)security impacting upon national minorities with reference to their experience of securitisation and format of their civic engagement. The article contributes to research exploring the relationship between security and minority studies, through a bottom-up perspective focusing on national minorities’ experience of securitisation. It employs empirical data based on semi-structured interviews with minority representatives held in 2015–2016 in six locations in the Russian Federation