THE RISE AND DECLINE OF ETHNIC MOBILIZATION AND SOVEREIGNTY IN TATARSTAN A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY DENİZ DİNÇ IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS JUNE 2017 Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences Prof. Dr. Tülin Gençöz Director I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Prof. Dr. Özlem Tür Head of Department This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Işık Kuşçu Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Şen Co-Supervisor Supervisor Examining Committee Members Prof. Dr. Fethi Açıkel (Ankara Uni., SBKY) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Şen (METU, SOC) Prof. Dr. Oktay Tanrısever (METU, IR) Prof. Dr. Taşansu Türker (Ankara Uni., SBKY) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Pınar Bedirhanoğlu (METU, IR) I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Name, Last name : Deniz Dinç Signature : iii ABSTRACT THE RISE AND DECLINE OF ETHNIC MOBILIZATION AND SOVEREIGNTY IN TATARSTAN Dinç, Deniz Ph.D., Department of International Relations Supervisor : Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Şen Co-Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Işık Kuşçu June 2017, 300 pages This thesis analyzes the rise and decline of the intertwined concepts of ethnic mobilization and sovereignty in the case of Tatarstan. The rise and fall of the ethnic revival of the Tatars is examined within a micro perspective as a part of the ongoing concept of autonomous sovereignty. The post-Soviet sovereignty experience of Tatarstan is evaluated within a macro chronological perspective taking the concept of state capacity into account. Research findings of this study reveal that the ethno- national nomenklatura network under the leadership of Mintimer Shaimiev was always the determinant in shaping the content of the ethnic revival in Tatarstan compared with the other rival actors, TOTs and Democratic Opposition. The legacy of the Soviet nationality policies formed a solid ethnicity regime structure, which created and constrained the Tatar nomenklatura elites. Thanks to this historical legacy, the Tatar nomenklatura elites mobilized and instrumentalized nationalism for their elite survival iv strategy and self-gain in the period of ethnic revival. During the 1990s, due to the expansion of the sovereignty of Tatarstan, the Tatar nomenklatura elites focused on obtaining as many concessions as possible from the federal center by putting forward the discourse of sovereignty. However, starting from the 2000s until today, the Tatar ethno-national nomenklatura exhibited a very submissive attitude against the overcentralization policies of Moscow. Having forgotten the sovereignty discourse of the 1990s, the Tatar elites currently chase federal subsidies and investments, which reveals how their pragmatic nationalist view easily adopts the new political conjectures Keywords: Sovereignty, Ethnic Mobilization, Tatarstan, Elite Theory, Russian Politics v ÖZ TATARİSTAN’DA ETNİK MOBİLİZASYON VE EGEMENLİĞİN YÜKSELİŞİ VE DÜŞÜŞÜ Dinç, Deniz Doktora, Uluslararası İlişkiler Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi : Doç. Dr. Mustafa Şen Ortak Tez Yôneticisi : Doç. Dr. Işık Kuşçu Haziran 2017, 300 sayfa Bu tez içiçe geçmiş etnik mobilizasyon ve egemenlik kavramlarının yükselişi ve düşüşünü Tataristan olayında (örnekleminde) analiz eder. Tatarların etnik uyanışının yükselişi ve çöküşü, devam eden özerk egemenliğin bir parçası olarak mikro perspektifle incelenir. Tataristan’ın Sovyet sonrası egemenlik deneyimi makro tarihsel bir perspektifle devlet kapasitesi kavramı göz önüne alınarak değerlendirilir. Bu çalışmanın araştırma bulguları göstermiştir ki: Mintimer Şaymiyev’in altındaki etnik- milliyetçi nomanklatura ağı diğer rakip aktörler olan TOTs ve Demokratik Muhalefet’le karşılaştırıldığında Tataristan’da etnik uyanışın içeriğini şekillendirmekte her zaman belirleyiciydi. Sovyet ulus politikaları mirası Tatar nomenklatura elitlerini yaratan ve sınırlandıran sağlam bir etnisite rejimi oluşturmuştur. Bu tarihsel miras sayesinde Tatar nomenklatura elitleri kendi elit varlıklarını sürdürme stratejisi ve kişisel kazançları için milliyetçiliği mobilize edip vi araçsallaştırdılar. 1990’lar boyunca, egemenlikteki genişlemeden kaynaklı olarak, Tatar nomenklatura elitleri, federal merkezden alabildiğince çok taviz almaya, egemenlik söylemini öne çıkararak odaklandılar. Fakat, 2000’lerden başlayarak günümüze kadar Tatar etnik-milliyetçi nomenklaturası Moskova’nın aşırı merkezileşme politikalarına karşı çok itaatkar bir tavır gösterdi. 1990’ların egemenlik söylemini unutan Tatar elitleri federal destekler ve yatırımlar kovalıyorlar, ki bu da onların pragmatik milliyetçi bakışının yeni politik konjoktüre kolayca uyum sağladığını açığa çıkarıyor. Anahtar Kelimeler: Egemenlik, Etnik Mobilizasyon, Tataristan, Elit Teorisi, Rusya Politikaları vii To My Grandmothers, Emine Yılmaz and Hatice Dinç Anneanne ve Babaanneme viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Şen and co-supervisor Işık Kuşçu for their guidance, advice and criticism throughout the research. I also would like to express my gratitude to the members of the examining commitee, Prof. Dr. Taşansu Türker, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Pınar Bedirhanoğlu, Prof. Dr. Fethi Açıkel and Prof. Dr. Oktay Tanrısever, for their valuable suggestions and constructive comments. This thesis could not have been completed without the support of numerous colleagues. Assoc. Prof. Vasil Sakaev and Prof. Dr. Tatiana Titova from Kazan Federal University organized my field research as my host advisors. I am extremely grateful to them for their valuable ideas, encouragement and help for the organization of interviews. I thank Dr. Kazım Ateş for his valuable ideas on political theory and friendship. Throughout this research, METU AWC staff and its coordinator Deniz Saydam helped me in improving the language and organization of the thesis. I would like to thank them as well. I wish to thank to The Scientific Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) for the research support (2214-A), which helped me to conduct a field research in Kazan. I would like thank to my friends Oğuzhan, Adem, Sotirios, Süleyman and Wasima for their support, motivation and encouragement. I am deeply indebted to my parents and my brother for their endless love and support. Lastly, this thesis is dedicated to my lovely grandmothers who brought me up. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS PLAGIARISM ........................................................................................................... III ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... IV ÖZ ............................................................................................................................... VI DEDICATION ........................................................................................................ VIII ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................... IX LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. XIV LIST OF GRAPHS................................................................................................... XV LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................. XVI CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 1.1. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TATARSTAN CASE ............................................................ 7 1.2. MAIN ARGUMENT AND METHODOLOGY OF THE THESIS ................................... 12 1.3. NOTES ON AREA STUDY ................................................................................... 19 1.4. STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS ............................................................................... 20 2. CONCEPTUALIZING ETHNICITY AND SOVEREIGNTY WITHIN THE EURASIAN CONTEXT ............................................................................................ 23 2.1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................. 24 2.1.1. Conceptualizing Ethnicity as a Political Resource (Political Social Construction) ....................................................................................................... 25 2.1.2. Theories of Ethnic Mobilization in the Eurasian Context ........................ 27 2.1.2.1. Historical-Institutional Arguments ..................................................... 27 2.1.2.2. The Arguments of Demography and Settlement ................................ 30 2.1.2.3. The Arguments of Economic Interests ............................................... 31 2.1.2.4. Cultural Arguments ............................................................................ 33 2.1.3. Understanding Ethnicity as the Political Construction of Elite Discourses ............................................................................................................................. 35 2.1.4. Conceptualizing Sovereignty