Quasi-citizenship as a category of practice: analyzing engagement with Russia’s Compatriot policy in Crimea

Abstract

This article analyzes engagement with Russia’s Compatriot policy, as an example of ethnizenship-type of quasi-citizenship, in Crimea, as the most likely case of Compatriot engagement. The article focuses on unpacking the lived experience of Compatriot identification and engagement and the rationale for this engagement. The article finds a narrow and niche engagement with the Compatriot policy in Crimea where only the most politicized and discriminated individuals, alongside beneficiaries of the Compatriot policy, identify as Compatriots. However, the article also finds dissatisfaction with the Compatriot policy because it fails to offer the kind of status, and rights and benefits, of ‘full’ citizenship. Thus, while citizenship might be becoming fractured, via quasi-citizenship policies, citizenship remains the key point of entry to the kin-state. Focusing on the lived experience of quasi-citizenship, and examining quasi-citizenship as a category of practice, is crucial for developing understanding of the social and political impacts of quasi-citizenship policies.

Keywords:

• Quasi citizenship
• ethnizenship
• Compatriot policy
• Russia
• Ukraine
• Crimea
• bottom-up

Notes

1. This distinction is made by Brubaker and Cooper (2000) and is elaborated below.

2. The Duma Committee was led by Konstantin Zatulin, a prominent figure in Compatriot relations, but controversial in Ukraine where he was subject to a travel ban during Yushchenko’s presidency because of his threats to Ukrainian territorial integrity (Kuzio 2010).

3. Significantly, Grigas (2016) notes how this demonstrates a shift away from Russia’s previous tolerance of dual citizenship and towards a preference for single citizenship, as a way of ensuring loyalty to the regime and Russia’s efforts to secure territory where they reside.

4. These cases are considered as de facto states, after Lynch (2004), because of their long term separatist status and lack of recognition by the international community.

5. In labelling Discriminated Russians, I have chosen to highlight what I conceive as a meaningful combination of a strong pro-Russian identification and marginalization, as expressed by respondents themselves as a category of practice. The labelling of the category should not be taken as an endorsement of the realities of discrimination of ethnic Russians within Crimea, in particular since this was a minority of respondents.