Lessons and Many More Questions about Nationalism and Self-Determination

By Roeder, Philip G. | Demokratizatsiya, Spring 2012 | Go to article overview

Lessons and Many More Questions about Nationalism and Self-Determination


Roeder, Philip G., Demokratizatsiya


Abstract: This article briefly summarizes what the post-Soviet experience teaches us about nationalism, understood here as claims that a population constitutes a people that should have a sovereign state of its own.

The creation of fifteen independent countries from the Soviet Union provided us a rare opportunity to observe processes of nation-state formation, for at no other time have so many new nation-states been created by secession. The Soviet successor states constitute about half of the thirty new states created between 1941 and 2011, and most of these were created following growing secessionist movements. The break-up of the Soviet Union in December 1991 occurred when its three founding members chose to withdraw from the union. The European and Caucasian states that had not already been recognized as independent chose this occasion to make good on previous attempts to secede. Only in the Central Asian states were there few significant political actors seeking independence until it was thrust upon them by the dissolution of the union. The experience of the Soviet Union and the successor states offers lessons that challenge some of our well-established views or provide us opportunities to refine these views on the consequences of secessionism and self-determination. (1) I will focus on some of these lessons and venture several questions for further inquiry where we may speak not only to one another, but also to our colleagues who study other parts of the world.

1. Granting independence to secessionists is not that bad an option after all.

The prevailing approach in policy circles prior to 1991 was to discourage or resist secessionists' demands for independence. Indeed, as late as August 1991, in his Chicken Kiev speech, the American president warned Ukrainians against "suicidal nationalism" and reaffirmed the American commitment to the Soviet federation. The usual policy argument against granting independence is that it makes democracy less likely, increases the likelihood of ethnic oppression, turns domestic conflicts into international conflicts, and serves as inspiration for a proliferation of demands in neighboring states.

The transition from the Soviet Union should have dispelled many of these fears. What may be most remarkable about the transition to new nation-states is how few of the maladies attached to the labels "partition" and "secession" have actually been manifest in the Soviet successor states. Moreover, it is precisely in the republics that were most secessionist prior to December 1991 that independence has produced the most positive results. First, unlike the transition in Yugoslavia, there have been few wars among the successor states and these were far more localized and limited in their mayhem. The primary post-Soviet exception was the Karabakh war. The Abkhazian and South Ossetian wars and the Transdniestrian altercation were far more limited. The peacefulness of this transition is not fully appreciated and certainly not well explained by the prevailing literature of the social sciences. Second, democracy has flourished in some successor states precisely because they have been permitted to develop independently. We cannot know with any certainty what the Soviet government would have looked like if it had held together after August 1991, but any government that sought to hold together the union would face an up-hill battle in democratizing the Soviet Union. We can observe, however, that the more political distance a successor state has established from Moscow, the greater its likelihood of democratizing. Third, the independence of fifteen new states did not unleash a herd of copy-cats in the neighborhood; the contagion was largely limited to the Soviet space itself.

This should not lead us to champion secessionist causes everywhere but to ask whether and how the Soviet experience should inform our responses to current secessionist conflicts--not only in the intractable, frozen conflicts in the successor states, but also around the world: Under what conditions should we be more supportive of the demands of secessionists in the future?

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Lessons and Many More Questions about Nationalism and Self-Determination
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.