Search Results

This chapter focuses on the emergence of opposition nationalist movements in Russia's republics. It first compares the level of mass support for nationalism in each of Russia's sixteen republics, with particular emphasis on mass demonstrations and ethnic violence. It then considers mass attitudes regarding republican declarations of sovereignty and the right of the republics to secede from Russia. It also discusses the explanations of nationalist mobilization in the post-Soviet politics literature on secessionism in terms of both their logic and their empirical predictions. These arguments are analyzed against evidence from Russia to determine whether they offer sufficient explanations for the emergence of nationalist mobilization or its variance across the republics.

This chapter develops a framework for understanding the management of antiforeign protests in authoritarian regimes. As authoritarian leaders weigh the domestic benefits and risks of nationalist protest, they also calculate the international consequences. Nationalist mobilization, if sincere, can be a diplomatic boon to authoritarian states like China. When allowed, nationalist protests give unelected leaders a way to point to public opinion and credibly claim that diplomatic concessions would be too costly at home. By allowing antiforeign protests, autocrats can signal their resolve to stand firm, demonstrate the extent of public anger, and justify an unyielding bargaining stance. When repressed, nationalist mobilization enables authoritarian leaders to play “good cop” to the hawkish voices in society that might undermine cooperation and destabilize the status quo if given free rein. By stifling antiforeign protests, autocrats can signal reassurance and their commitment to a cooperative, flexible diplomatic stance.

This chapter introduces the analytical approach used in the subsequent chapters to understand Muslim separatism in Cotabato, arguing against the regnant view that nationalist mobilization is accomplished mainly through the hegemonic effect of nationalist ideas. It criticizes the core concept guiding cultural hegemony and explains that the hegemony concept fails to capture the dynamic and imaginative responses to power made by Cotabato residents.

This chapter provides background on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict as it unfolded in 1988-1994. Rather than a chronological narrative, the chapter tells the story of these events through the prism of four categories of explanation (structural vulnerabilities, transitional factors, leadership and culture). This situates the conflict against the backdrop of the Soviet collapse, equips the reader with basic facts, and distils the main findings of the existing literature on the conflict.

This chapter introduces the empirical puzzle and argument of the book concerning nationalist protest in China and other authoritarian regimes. After identifying the domestic risks and international consequences of repressing or allowing nationalist protest, the chapter presents the research design, empirical approach, and the plan of the book, including summaries of the following chapters.

This chapter focuses on the secessionist campaigns launched by Russia's republics in the early 1990s. More specifically, it examines why some republics made strong demands on Moscow for increased autonomy, sovereignty, or even independence while others did not. After describing republican campaigns for sovereignty, the chapter codes republican secessionism based on actions initiated by the republics as well as their responses to policies initiated by Moscow. It then considers how democratization at the center produced a shift in political accountability and how mass nationalist mobilization influenced republican separatist campaigns. It also presents evidence showing how secessionism relates to ethnic mass demonstrations and ethnic violence. It concludes with a discussion of how mass nationalism affected the secessionist campaigns of three republics: Tuva, Yakutia, and Mari El.

This chapter considers the continuing struggle for credibility amid China’s evolving management of nationalist protests. The increasingly viral mobilization of protests and local variation in the government’s response has made it more difficult for outside observers to interpret the government’s intentions. After discussing the obstacles to crediblity posed by censorship and self-censorship, the chapter reflects on the prospects for nationalist spillover to democratic dissent, highlighting the connections between anti-Japanese protest and pro-democracy movements in the 1980s and considering whether a more democratic and developed China would be more or less nationalistic. The chapter concludes by discussing the role of nationalist sentiment in other policy areas, including the South China Sea, Taiwan, and Tibet, and in other authoritarian regimes.

This chapter examines the level of nationalist mobilization in a Tatarstan city, Naberezhnye Chelny. The majority of the residents of Naberezhnye Chelny were employed by a single state enterprise: the Kamskii Automobile Works (KamAZ). In the city's labor market, many Tatars were disadvantaged compared with Russians, but they also experienced significant social mobility due to Soviet development and ethnic affirmative action policies. Tatar nationalists downplayed this social mobility and chose to emphasize blocked opportunity and ethnic economic inequality at KamAZ. This chapter first provides an overview of the ethnicity of the KamAZ workforce before discussing how the people of Naberezhnye Chelny came to support nationalism in their city.