State & Nation Building Processes in the post-Soviet Caucasus
In a previous article I wrote about the concept of titular and non-titular nation status in the post-Soviet Caucasus. I wish to return to this an briefly examine the impact of how a titular nation affected state-and nation building processes in the post-Soviet Caucasus.
In regards to titular post-Soviet state and nation-building, Holsti's notion of state strength as a measurement based on citizen loyalty and emerging consensus based political community, is essential to understanding the complex dynamics involved in state formation and citizen solidarity. In examining two examples, post-Soviet rule, issues concerning both vertical and horizontal legitimacy are of prime importance.
Armenian nationalism was an important element regarding the historical emergence of a national sovereign identity, especially in relation to an external threat (Azerbaijan) in relation to the ethnic conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. As previously indicated the use of nationalist rhetoric, symbols, and slogans were instrumental for influencing post independent Armenia. As Holsti (1996) states, the Soviet Armenian leadership used communism to build the nation and that most Armenian intellectuals, political leaders pursued nationalist goals within the confines of the USSR (p.226). This was essential since Armenians defined nationhood based on ethinic and cultural lines. It was clear who belonged to the nation: those who were ethnically Armenian—wherever they lived (Ibid). In addition, this blood based definition of national identity reflected religious and linguistic aspects. This is in opposition to civic nationalistic characteristics which were predefined by the State. Holsti further stated, the overarching characteristic of Armenia nationalism was ethnic nation-protecting.
It was specific nationalistic interests and goals which dominated Armenian independence until 1992, when the shift to post independence which focused on normal politics in which power and specific interests, became more prominent. However, the drive for nationalism remains as the politics of nationalism can be rekindled easily in relation to an emerging crisis or war. In this sense, the inherent ethno-cultural identity of the Armenians was already predefined providing the political incentive for nationalistic rhetoric to empower effective nation building efforts by various populist political parties.
In contrast, Georgian nationalism was characterized during the post-Soviet period by violence and state challenging motives resulting in socioeconomic crisis, state disintegration and challenges to territorial and political legitimacy (Holsti 1996, p. 253). As such, Georgian nationalism cannot be caricatured as tribal or medieval (Ibid). Holsti further acknowledges that nationalism in Georgia in contemporary times has been constructive, legitimate and even stabilizing. Considered an essential element in state and nation building. As a result, for most Georgians today, as in the past, it is the economy and social conditions, not radical nationalism, that determines political behavior (Ibid).
In addition, the Soviet state maintained nationalistic focus in regards to Georgia based on traditional cultural issues such as language and literature. The eventual collapse resulted in Georgia divided into nationally or religiously based territories, each assigned to a titular group. These territories were sacralized, with their own borders, national institutions, popular assemblies and symbols resulting in small domestic states within Georgia's borders. Titular nations conceived of these autonomous units as their own (Ibid p 262). In the end, aspects of national identity and nationalism became essential for Georgian unity despite ethnic conflicts involving secessionist claims of Abkhazian and South Osetian disputes.
Recommended Literature:
Taras Kuzio, Transition in Post-Communist States: Triple or Quadruple? POLITICS: 2001 VOL 21(3), 168–177