The collapse of the Soviet Union provides several situations where the presence of Russian-speaking minorities produces a potential challenge to the consolidation of former Soviet Republics as independent democracies. My dissertation examines ethnic relations in two former Soviet Republics: Ukraine and Kazakhstan. The goal of this dissertation is to answer the question of how different degrees of institutionalization of ethnically defined territorial minorities--i.e. when provided with institutions of political and cultural autonomy--create stimulus for elites to engage in ethno-political mobilization. My research question is the following: What explains variation in the degree of ethno-political mobilization by Russian-speaking minorities, in newly emerged states that were once former Soviet republics, especially Ukraine and Kazakhstan? My dependent variable, consequently, is a qualitatively evaluated degree of ethnopolitical mobilization by Russian minorities. I hypothesize that if an ethnic minority is a regional majority in an ethno-federal or autonomous territorial unit, the institutional and ethno-demographic structure of this situation will create a stimulus for elites and political entrepreneurs (regional government officials, labor unions leaders, etc.) to present ethno-political claims--as opposed to non-ethnic, civic, socio-economic appeals for support--that are both electoral and non-electoral. This hypothesis is narrowed to the conditions of the nationalizing newly emerged states, and the following case studies are proposed to be tested in the dissertation: the Crimea and the Donbas region in Ukraine (two similar regions where different levels of ethnic mobilization of Russian-speakers took place during the early 1990s), and the Qaraghandy in Northern Kazakhstan, the region where Russian-speakers were successfully integrated into the dominant Kazakh nation. The dissertation, after examining these three mentioned case studies, will test a hypothesis that the institutionalization of ethnically defined territorial structures and the provision of minorities with autonomous institutions may intensify ethnic mobilization under certain conditions and produce conditions leading to ethnic mobilization. This hypothesis is consistent with already existing institutionalist theories, arguing that demographic factors determine the ability to use institutions of autonomy as mobilizing tools. Consequently, ethno-demographic differences between Russian-speakers in the three cases within two different former Soviet Republics are defined by their institutions' different types and arrangements. This theoretical argument, if proved, will also have a practical meaning: once the conditions under which autonomy produces ethnic mobilization are identified, it will be suggested not to implement autonomy in such cases where the potential for ethnic mobilization exists.

This book offers an unprecedented account of the Serb Democratic Party’s origins and its political machinations that culminated in Europe’s bloodiest conflict since World War II. Within the first two years of its existence, the nationalist movement led by the infamous genocide convict Radovan Karadzic, radically transformed Bosnian society. It politically homogenized Serbs of Bosnia-Herzegovina, mobilized them for the Bosnian War, and violently carved out a new geopolitical unit, known today as Republika Srpska. Through innovative and in-depth analysis of the Party’s discourse that makes use of the recent literature on affective cognition, the book argues that the movement’s production of existential fears, nationalist pride, and animosities towards non-Serbs were crucial for creating Serbs as a palpable group primed for violence. By exposing this nationalist agency, the book challenges a commonplace image of ethnic conflicts as clashes of long-standing ethnic nations.

With the upsurge of nationalist sentiment in post-communist societies, the problem of political rights for ethnic minorities became a dangerous flashpoint. The introduction of electoral competition, the rewriting of constitutions, the breakup of federations, the weakness of civic institutions, and the social and economic dislocations associated with marketization have all contributed to the salience of majority-minority relations. This collection systematically analyzes different models of minority politics in Eastern Europe, in an effort to understand why tensions are manageable in some contexts, uncontainable in others. Anchoring the volume are essays by Carlos Flores Juberias on electoral systems, and Janusz Bugajski on national minority parties. Six case studies examine the interaction of different types of institutional arrangements (which structure political participation) and different demographic conditions (ethnic balances and territorial concentrations) in Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, and Romania. Framing these studies are overviews by the editors and by Jack Snyder.

This book tests a new approach to understanding ethnic mobilization and considers the interplay of global forces, national-level variation in inequality and repression, and political mobilization of ethnicity. It advances the claim that economic and political integration among the world's states increases the influence of ethnic identity in political movements. Drawing on a 100-country dataset analyzing ethnic events and rebellions from 1965 to 1998, Olzak shows that to the degree in which a country participates in international social movement organizations, ethnic identities in that country become more salient. International organizations spread principles of human rights, anti-discrimination, sovereignty, and self-determination. At the local level, poverty and restrictions on political rights then channel group demands into ethnic mobilization. This study will be of great importance to scholars and policy makers seeking new and powerful explanations for understanding why some conflicts turn violent while others do not.

This book explains how state institutions affect ethnic mobilization. It focuses on how ethno-nationalist movements emerge on the political arena, develop organizational structures, frame demands, and attract followers. It does so in the context of examining the widespread surge of nationalist sentiment that occurred through the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It shows that even during this period of institutional upheaval, pre-existing ethnic institutions affected the tactics of the movement leaders. It challenges the widely held perception that governing elites can kindle latent ethnic grievances virtually at will to maintain power. It argues that nationalist leaders can't always mobilize widespread popular support and that their success in doing so depends on the extent to which ethnicity is institutionalized by state structures. It shifts the study of ethnic mobilization from the whys of its emergence to the hows of its development as a political force.

The Soviet Union encompassed dozens of nationalities and ethnicities, and in the wake of its collapse, the politics of ethnicity within its former borders and throughout Eastern Europe have undergone tremendous changes. In this book, Zoltan Barany and Robert G. Moser bring together eminent scholars whose theoretically diverse and empirically rich research examines various facets of ethnicity in postcommunist Europe and Eurasia: ethnic identity and culture, mobilization, parties and voting, conflict, and ethnic migration. The contributors consider how ethnic forces have influenced political outcomes that range from voting to violence and protest mobilization to language acquisition. Conversely, each chapter demonstrates that political behavior itself has an impact on the forms and strength of ethnic identity. Thus, ethnicity is deemed to be a contested, malleable, and constructed force rather than a static characteristic inherent in the attributes of groups and individuals with a common religion, race, or national origin.