WRESTLING WITH THE CENTRAL STATE: COMPARATIVE ETHNIC REGIONAL AUTONOMY IN CHINA AND RUSSIA by Sansar Tsakhirmaa (Sier San) A dissertation submitted to the Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland June, 2018 © Sansar Tsakhirmaa (Sier San) 2018 All Rights Reserved Abstract This dissertation compares ethnically-based identity politics in two constitutionally- defined multi-ethnic states, China and Russia, by focusing upon one type of prescriptive institution, territorially-based formal autonomy designated at the sub-national levels for ethnic minorities. Intriguingly, some of these ethno-regions have been more capable of actually exercising the formally promulgated autonomy than others. What can explain the variations across different ethno-regions in terms of implemented autonomy outcome? This dissertation develops an analytical framework that consists of a response variable, an ethno-region’s implemented autonomy outcome, an explanatory variable, an ethno- region’s inter-ethnic boundary-makings, an intervening variable, titular elites’ bargaining capacity, and two condition variables, formal arrangements of center-periphery relations and party-state relations. An ethno-region’s implemented autonomy outcome is assessed in terms of compliance with the corresponding autonomy-establishing legal document(s) on three dimensions, political participation, economic development, and cultural promotion among the ethno-region’s titular ethnic population. Based upon fieldworks that combined elite interviews, participant observations, and oral history, a controlled comparison is conducted of two ethno-regions with strikingly contrasted autonomy outcomes for the first six years of the 2010s, the more autonomous Republic of Tatarstan in Russia and the less autonomous Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in China, by tracing the process of how three dimensions of inter- ethnic boundary-making processes, acculturation, social integration, and psychological identification, mold three dimensions of titular elites’ capacity, elite-level inter-ethnic relations, central state’s perception of the titular population, and intra-ethnic cleavage ii structure, which jointly shape a fourth dimension, titular elites’ representation in the ethno-regional state’s most powerful positions. Four additional ethno-regions, Tibet and Inner Mongolia of China, Bashkortostan and Yakutia of Russia, are used as shadow cases. It is argued that greater inter-ethnic integration, when combined with robust consciousness of inter-ethnic distinction, is conducive to building the capacity both for elites of the titular ethnic category to bargain with the central state and for intra-ethnic cohesion, which in turn can lead to greater autonomy outcome for the ethno-region. In such processes, the key to socio-economic development in ethnically heterogeneous societies is to strike the balance between the mutually competing but not necessarily irreconcilable tendencies towards inter-ethnic differentiation and inter-ethnic integration. iii Acknowledgments I would like to thank my advisors for guiding me through the process of producing this dissertation. Kellee S. Tsai and Erin A. Chung encouragingly initiated me onto the stage of research design, generously helped me create a timeline for fieldwork and write-up, and consistently provided helpful, cogent feedback on different versions of each chapter. Sebastián Mazzuca’s insights were very inspirational for the framing of the dissertation’s argument. I would also like to thank Tobie Meyer-Fong for chairing my dissertation committee and Joel Andreas for meticulously reading through the final draft. Both of them provided helpful, cogent feedback. I would also like to thank: JHU Department of Political Science, JHU East Asian Studies Program, the donor and stewardship of Beulah Benton Tatum Endowment Fellowship, the donor and stewardship of Nicole Suveges Fieldwork Fellowship, (the followings in alphabetical order) Bulat Akhmetkarimov, Leyla Almazova, Christopher P. Atwood, Bergənbek Bolatkhan, Laura Bosco, Samuel Chambers, Lindsay Cook, Jennifer Culbert, James Flowers, Gulnara Gainetdinova, Burak Gürel, Ali İğmen, Damir İskhakov, Röstəm İslamnurov, Liliya Karimova, Richard Katz, Amanda Kerrigan, Rafael Khəkim, Khöbchin, Jacob Lewis, Ruinan Li, Yao Li, Zhenhua Lü, Renée Marlin-Bennett, Joshua Noonan, Mary Otterbein, Svetlana Peshkova, Odongerel Pount, Allison Quatrini, Rena, Guldana Salimjan, Uli Schamiloğlu, John Schoeberlein, Adam Sheingate, Annelle Sheline, Yue Shi, Svetlana Sibrina, S. Frederick Starr, E. Nicole Thornton, Karyn Jiamin iv Wang, Tan Wang, Ündes Wang, Lisa Williams, Nomin Wu, Xing Yuan, Alfiya Yusupova, Oleg Zaznaev, Chunman Zhang, Zhe Zhang, and Borjan Zic. Ultimately, this dissertation is dedicated to the memory and the honor of my beloved mother, who passed away in June, 2016. I completed the dissertation in loving memory of her. I would also like to thank my father, whose moral support accompanied the entire dissertation write-up. v CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................................. IV LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ IX LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... XIII ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................................... XIV 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1 THE PUZZLE ................................................................................................................................................. 1 WHY STUDY ETHNIC TERRITORIALLY-BASED AUTONOMY? ......................................................................... 8 THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Components of the analytical framework ............................................................................................ 19 Scope conditions ................................................................................................................................... 25 CASE SELECTION ........................................................................................................................................ 27 Respective central states ...................................................................................................................... 28 Respective ethno-regions and titular ethnic populations ..................................................................... 33 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 38 PLAN OF THE DISSERTATION ..................................................................................................................... 42 2. SITUATING THE ARGUMENT IN THE EXISTING SCHOLARSHIP ............................................................. 46 ETHNICITY, ETHNIC MAJORITY, ETHNIC MINORITIES, ETHNIC INSTITUTIONS ........................................... 46 Ethnicity and its change ........................................................................................................................ 46 Ethnic majority versus ethnic minorities ............................................................................................... 53 State and institutionalized ethnicity ..................................................................................................... 57 ETHNO-FEDERALISM AND ETHNIC TERRITORIALLY-BASED AUTONOMY AS TYPES OF ETHNIC INSTITUTIONS............................................................................................................................................ 63 Ethno-federalism .................................................................................................................................. 63 Ethnic territorially-based autonomy ..................................................................................................... 68 COMPETING EXPLANATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 72 Groupness as exogenous ...................................................................................................................... 72 Groupness as endogenous to historically-determined structure .......................................................... 77 Groupness as endogenous to elite agency............................................................................................ 97 GROUPNESS AS ENDOGENOUS ITERATIVELY TO STRUCTURE AND AGENCY ........................................... 102 Assumptions of the mechanism .......................................................................................................... 103 Some caveats ...................................................................................................................................... 107 Added value of the analytical framework ........................................................................................... 109 3. AUTONOMY