Südosteuropa 59 (2011), H. 2, S. 214-237 DAREG A. ZABARAH The Role of the Orthodox Churches in Defining the Nation in Post-Soviet Moldova Abstract. This study looks into current nation-building processes in Moldova on both sides of the Dniester and the role of Orthodoxy in enforcing them. It demonstrates how the clerical and political hierarchy of Moldova utilized the category of Orthodoxy in order to construct and implement their respective ideas on nation- and statehood. The paper argues that institutional heritages had a strong influence on the autocephalous churches, which led to a divergence in interpreting canonic issues, especially regarding nationalism. This allowed both political and church elites to agree on an understanding of nation- and statehood that was conducive to their respective nation- and state-building processes. The article further argues that the collapse of communism enabled Orthodoxy to quickly fill in the resulting ideological gap by replacing the discursive fields previously occupied by communist discourse. Dareg A. Zabarah is a post-doc researcher at the Faculty of Southeast European History at the Humboldt University in Berlin. Introduction: Offered Identities and Their Construction Although the interconnections between the Church and state in the Republic of Moldova have drawn the attention of scholars in ecentr years,1 a study putting the Church-state relationship into a wider comparative perspective is still miss- ing. The debates on nation- and statehood in Moldova involve two competing Orthodox Churches who have been fighting over jurisdiction in Moldova – the Romanian Orthodox Church (RomOC) and the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). In order to understand the current lines of conflict, a closer look at the legacies and institutional heritages of these churches is much needed. Today, at least four different ideas on nation- and statehood in Moldova are supported 1 For a comprehensive study see Lucian Turescu / Lavinia Stan, Church-State Conflict in Moldova: the Bessarabian Metropolitanate, Communist and Post-Communist Studies 36 (2003), n. 4, 443-465. For Pridnestrovie see Kimitaka Matsuzato, Inter-Orthodox Relations and Transborder Nationalities in and Around Unrecognised Abkhazia and Transnistria, Religion, State & Society 37 (2009), n. 3, 239-262. The Orthodox Churches and the Nation in Moldova 215 by the respective clerical hierarchies. This article shows how they have worked within the category of Orthodoxy in order to construct and implement their respective ideas on nation- and statehood. The paper argues that different institutional heritages had a strong influence on the autocephalous churches, leading to a divergence in interpreting canonic issues, especially regarding na- tionalism. This in turn allowed both political and church elites to agree on an understanding of nation- and statehood that was conducive to the respective nation- and state-building processes. This study further argues that Orthodoxy quickly filled the ideological gap created by the collapse of communism by re- placing the discursive fields previously occupied by the communist discourse. Religion as a Category of Group-Building In line with the constructivist stream within modernist approaches, this paper views groups neither as fixed and unchangeable nor as completely open, but rather as socially constructed by human interaction. An individual’s choice of identity is not merely a choice of his or her own, but is embedded in social interactions. With changes in these interactions, conceptions of group-building evolve as well. Therefore this study analytically defines a group as a category while simultaneously examining the processes of group-building (or groupness) from within a given group.2 Group-building processes differ widely. For some groups, common descent and features play an important role in enforcing what is widely referred to as ethnic nationalism. Others in turn may constitute on the basis of an imagined common destiny in which an exclusive ideology provides the main pillar of their groupness. Communism, Islam, Christianity, and Liberalism are a few examples of such exclusive ideologies. Groups may also base their group loyalty on com- mon space. Various territorial nationalisms are results of common space based group-building processes. The group-building processes based on these three categories can be mutually exclusive or reinforce each other. Their construc- tion and the subsequent mobilization of masses around them are embedded in complicated socio-political contexts, in which the elites of a given society play a leading role in determining their shape and structure. After the collapse of the bipolar world order, the elites of the Soviet Union and Moldova were not able to present a liberal alternative to the communist ideol- ogy. Although a diffuse ideological conglomerate which was widely referred to as “western values” had gained popularity in many intellectual discourses since the late 1980s, these “western values” were not able to replace the exist- ing ideology or substantially influence the institutionalization of nation- and 2 For further details see Rogers Brubaker, Ethnicity Without Groups. Cambridge/Mass. 2006, 11-27. 216 Dareg A. Zabarah statehood. The ideological gap left by the decline of the discursive category communism was instead quickly filled in by those of Orthodoxy as well as by those of different ethnic nationalisms.3 In Moldova, nationalism based on common descent and features was highly connected with Orthodoxy, and the two strains of thought often reinforced each other. Since the principle of autocephaly in Orthodoxy allows each nation to have its own autonomous church, clerical elites supported differing ideas on nation and statehood depending upon their own clerical organization and political views. The Moldovan case is of particular interest not only because of such intra-Orthodox group-building processes, but also because the dispute between the various Orthodox Churches in Moldova represents a struggle for power and influence within the same organization, rather than a dispute over rites or fundamental beliefs. Defining Ethnos: Orthodox and Communist Ideological Heritages According to the apostolic canon 34, which dates back to around 380 A. D., churches are allowed to organize along ethnic lines. The word ethnos – as it ap- pears in the original Greek texts – is not comparable to today’s understanding of an ethnic group or a nation, but instead open to wide-ranging interpretations. Various Orthodox churches have interpreted the canon differently. While the Romanian Orthodox Church (RomOC) interprets the term ethnos as a com- munity of descent and features (a neam),4 the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) interprets the term as inhabitants of a land and thus a community of common space (a narod). The difference in interpretation is clearly reflected in the stat- utes of each respective organization. In the statutes of the ROC, articles 1 and 3 read as follows: “(1) The Russian Orthodox Church is a multinational Local Autocephalous Church in doctrinal unity and in prayerful and canonical communion with other Local Orthodox Churches. […] 3 For a broader discussion on the return of nationalism see Valerie Bunce, Subversive Institu- tions. The Design and the Destruction of Socialism and the State. Cambridge 1999; and Juan J. Linz / Alfred Stepan, Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore/MD, London 1996. For Moldova see Dareg Zabarah, Nation- and Statehood in Moldova. Ideological and Political Dynamics since the 1980s. Wiesbaden 2011 (Balkanologische Veröffentlichungen, 53). 4 Ioan N. Floca, Canoanele bisericii ortodoxe. Note şi comentarii. Sibiu 1992, 2. However, Floca points out that the ethnic or national basis is not the only principle for establishing an autocephalous church. Idem, Drept canonic ortodox. Legislaţie şi administraţie bisericească. Bucharest 1990, 324. The Orthodox Churches and the Nation in Moldova 217 (3) The jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church shall include persons of Ortho- dox confession living on the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia, Ukraine, Byelorussia, Moldavia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Latvia, Lithuania, Tajikistan, Turkmenia, Uzbekistan and Estonia, and also Orthodox Chris- tians living in other countries and voluntarily joining this jurisdiction.”5 The current Patriarch of Russia, Kirill, explains his position on the meaning and understanding of the word Russian as follows: “The church is called ‘Russian’ not for ethnic reasons. This naming indicates that the Russian Orthodox Church fulfils its shepherd mission among those people, adopting the Russian spiritual and cultural tradition as a basis for their national identity, or, at least, as their essential element. This is why, in this context, we re- gard Moldova as part of the Russian World [Russkij Mir, D. Z.]. At the same time the Russian Church is the most multinational Orthodox church in the world and aspires to develop its multinational character.”6 In contrast, the RomOC defines itself according to Article 5 of its statutes as follows: “(1) The Romanian Orthodox Church comprises the Orthodox Christians both from the country and from abroad, as well as those canonically received in her communities. (2) The Romanian Orthodox Church is national and in majority according to her apostolic age, tradition, number of faithful and her special contribution to the life