University of Oklahoma Gradaute College
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADAUTE COLLEGE OPPOSITION TO AUTHORITARIANISM: IDEATIONAL AND MATERIAL RESOURCES IN RUSSIA AND UKRAINE A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPY By BURCU F. DEGIRMEN Norman, Oklahoma 2017 OPPOSITION TO AUTHORITARIANISM: IDEATIONAL AND MATERIAL RESOURCES IN RUSSIA AND UKRAINE A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE BY _____________________________ Dr. Charles D. Kenney, Chair _____________________________ Dr. Ann-Marie E. Szymanski ______________________________ Dr. Eric Heinze ______________________________ Dr. Katerina Tsetsura ______________________________ Dr. Jill A. Irvine © Copyright by BURCU F. DEGIRMEN 2017 All Rights Reserved. For my mentor, Dr. Charles D. Kenney Acknowledgments When I started my doctoral studies eight years ago, I could have hardly imagined this would be one of the greatest challenges and adventures of my adult life. I am very grateful to the Fulbright Commission for giving me this opportunity to pursue my PhD in the US. I must also thank OU Political Science Department and Graduate College for funding my work throughout the years. There have been many people who helped me along through my doctorate. First of all, I am enormously grateful to my adviser, Charles Kenney. Without his support, guidance, and encouragement, this dissertation would not be possible. Thank you, Prof. Kenney, for teaching and cultivating my interest in democratization and authoritarianism, providing me with constant feedback in the writing of this dissertation, and pushing me to become a better scholar. Thank you for always lending me a hand when I struggled to navigate through academe, research, and writing. Thank you for setting a great example as a teacher and mentor. I am also particularly grateful to Ann-Marie Szymanski for her support and guidance throughout my doctoral studies. Thank you so much, Prof. Szymanski, for sharing your invaluable insight into the matters of social mobilization and beyond, always keeping an open door, and setting a great-role model as a woman scholar. I owe many thanks to Eric Heinze, Jill Irvine, and Katerina Tsetsura, who provided thoughtful suggestions and helpful comments on different aspects of my dissertation. I am truly grateful to you all for encouraging me to think further on a variety of issues which might have otherwise been left out. Your diverse expertise enriched this dissertation substantially. iv I would also like to thank to many friends who helped me in Russia and Ukraine. I am truly grateful to Anna Siprikova, Philip Katz, Marina Marshenkulova, Margarita and Mikhail Sinitsyn, and Ekaterina Izmestieva in Russia, and Tetyana Pasko, Yaroslav and Nata Doroshenko, Kateryna Nechai, Lyubomyr Regush, Elena Matviychuk, and Svitlana Boyko in Ukraine. Thank you for all the support you gave me in the field and for sharing your insights with me. I am very grateful for your generosity and friendship. This dissertation would not have been possible without the courage, frankness, and kindness of my interviewees. I feel very honored that you shared your stories and struggles with me. Your enthusiasm inspired my dissertation in so many ways. Thank you for letting me learn from your experiences. I would also like to thank to many friends who offered their support throughout my years in Oklahoma as a student. I am enormously grateful to my first and oldest friend at OU, Jordan Jones, for always having time to meet me in the Library. Thank you so much, Jordan, for listening to my complaints about the life in OK and the US over the years, being there for me when I felt alienated, and for always sharing your views about post- modern French philosophers. I also feel very fortunate for the friendship of my fellow graduate students, Mark James, who patiently offered me as an international student much wise advice, Geoff Wilkerson, who helped me better understand the life in OK and politics in the US, and Tao Wang, who had been always willing to exchange ideas in comparative politics. I must also thank to our Turkish/American community at OU for their support, encouragement, and friendship. Finally, there are not enough words to express my gratitude for my family in Turkey and the US. Without their unwavering support, this project would not have been v completed. I owe many thanks to my parents, Aziz and Nesibe Degirmen, for encouraging me to pursue my education in the US, even though this meant spending many years apart. I am also very grateful to my husband, Cass Dysart, who has been a tremendous source of support in the making of this project. Thank you for being my travel companion on adventures through Russia and Ukraine and for all the love and help you gave me while writing this dissertation. vi Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 The Legacy of Soviet Nationality Policies 30 3 Post-Soviet Transition in Russia (1992-1999): 49 The Rise and Survival of Authoritarianism 4 Post-Soviet Transition in Ukraine (1992-2004): 82 The Rise and Fall of Authoritarianism 5 Authoritarian Consolidation and Popular Protests 134 in Russia (2000-2012) 6 Democratization, Authoritarianism, and 183 Populer Protests in Ukraine (2005-2014) 7 Conclusion 222 Bibliography 233 Appendix: In-depth Interviews 247 vii List of Tables Table 3.1 Russian Parliamentary Elections, December 12, 1993 64 Table 3.2 Russian Parliamentary Elections, December 17, 1995 67 Table 3.3 Russian Presidential Election, 1996 75 Table 3.4 Russian Parliamentary Elections, December 19, 1999 79 Table 3.5 Russian Parliamentary Elections, 1995-1999 81 Table 4.1 Ukrainian Presidential Elections, December 1, 1991 87 Table 4.2 Ukrainian Parliamentary Elections, March – April 1994 91 Table 4.3 Ukrainian Presidential Elections, 1994 94 Table 4.4 Ukrainian Parliamentary Elections, March 29, 1998 103 Table 4.5 Ukrainian Presidential Elections, 1999 108 Table 4.6 Ukrainian Parliamentary Elections, March 31, 2002 114 Table 4.7 Ukrainian Presidential Elections, 2004 131 Table 4.8 Ukrainian Parliamentary Elections, 1994-2002 132 Table 4.9 Ukrainian Presidential Elections, 1991-2004 133 Table 5.1 Russian Presidential Elections, March 26, 2000 140 Table 5.2 Russian Parliamentary Elections, December 7, 2003 144 Table 5.3 Russian Presidential Elections, March 14, 2004 151 Table 5.4 Russian Parliamentary Elections, December 2, 2007 161 Table 5.5 Russian Presidential Elections, March 2, 2008 163 Table 5.6 Russian Parliamentary Election, December 4, 2011 167 Levada Center’s Survey with Protesters, Table 5.7 169 December 24, 2001 and February 4, 2012 Levada-Center’s Survey with Protesters, Table 5.8 170 December 24, 2011 and February 4, 2012 Levada-Center’s Survey with Protesters, Table 5.9 171 December 24, 2011 and February 4, 2012 Table 5.1.1 Russian Presidential Elections, March 4, 2012 177 Table 5.1.2 Russian Parliamentary Elections, 2003-2011 181 Table 5.2.1 Russian Presidential Elections 2000-2012 182 viii Table 6.1 Russian Parliamentary Elections, March 26, 2006 189 Table 6.2 Ukrainian Parliamentary Elections, September 30, 2007 192 Table 6.3 Ukrainian Presidential Elections, 2010 196 Table 6.4 Ukrainian Parliamentary Elections, October 28, 2012 201 Survey of the Fund “DIIK” with KIIS, Table 6.5 206 December 2013 and February 2014 Survey of the Fund “DIIK” with KIIS, Table 6.6 208 December 2013 and February 2014 Table 6.7 KISS’ survey: “Ukraine – by regions” 209 KISS’ survey: “Ukraine – by age,” Table 6.8 211 “Ukraine – by education level” Table 6.9 Ukrainian Parliamentary Elections, 2006-2012 220 Table 6.1.1 Ukrainian Presidential Elections, 2004-2010 221 ix Abstract Why do some opposition movements succeed in deposing authoritarian leaders in the former Soviet Republics, while some others fail? How do regime opponents challenge authoritarian discourses and practices? How do authoritarian regime institutions and their narratives galvanize popular support to retain power? Although post-Soviet scholarship has to date offered a variety of explanations for diverse regime trajectories, little work has simultaneously examined how autocrats and opposition forces build popular support in their efforts to maintain power or resist it, respectively. My work sought to remedy this gap by exploring competing political forces’ engagement in the symbolic politics of national identity and their access to economic resources in Russia and Ukraine. I find that that opposition forces’ effective appeal to a competing vision of national identity and autocrats’ limited control over wealth provides a sufficient explanation for the collapse of authoritarianism. Yet incumbent leaders’ preeminence over the symbolic struggle of national identity and broad control of economic resources enable authoritarian regimes to mobilize support both from masses and the political and economic elite, while depriving potential opposition forces of meaningful sources of popular support. Overall, this study seeks to shed light on how ideational and material resources available to both incumbent leaders and opposition movements are important in shaping authoritarian outcomes. x CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION On November 21, 2013, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich decided not to sign the European Union Association Agreement which anticipated closer political and economic ties between his country and the Union. In protest, a few hundred young Ukrainian men and women began to gather in Kyiv’s central square, Maidan, and agreed to camp out in the city center until the government heard their call. On the night of November 30, 2013, Yanukovich’s security forces responded by conducting a brutal sweep through the Maidan. Images of police beating protestors prompted widespread public outrage, and led thousands of people from all over Ukraine to join the demonstrations in solidarity and march in the streets of Kyiv by early December. The demonstrations that began as a peaceful gathering of a few hundred-people hoping to force Yanukovich’s government to reconsider its suspension of the Agreement evolved into a more dramatic political movement, seeking the removal of a leader who had been edging the country toward an autocratic future.