Why do Authoritarian Leaders do Regionalism? Ontological Security and Eurasian Regional Cooperation

Abstract

Collective ontological security refers to the psychological human need to be part of a stable collective identity. Populations expect leaders to help meet these ontological needs and support those that do. In the Eurasian region, Russian and Kazakh presidents have used regional cooperation efforts as, among other objectives, an elite-led strategy of ontological security building and reinforcement. This is especially important as national identities were contested and weak after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Focusing on ontological security presents a novel research perspective on Eurasian regionalism and offers a new (but complementary) explanation for both autocratic regional cooperation and conflict.

Keywords:

• Eurasian Economic Union
• regionalism
• ontological security
• Russia
• Kazakhstan

Acknowledgements

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the IR Research Colloquium (3 March 2016, University of Oxford) as well as at the II Workshop on “Regionalism and Identities in the Post-Soviet Areas: Actors and Processes after the Ukrainian Crisis” (26-27 October 2017, Sciences Po Bordeaux). We would like to thank the organisers and participants of both events for the constructive discussions. We are also grateful to Neil MacFarlane, Fuadi Pitsuwan, Caroline Dufy, Daniel Bach, Babatunde Fagbayibo, Angela Crack and Elin Hellquist for their comments.

Notes

¹ Buzan and Wæver, Regions and Powers, 3; Börzel, Comparative Regionalism, 8; Fawcett and Gandois, “Regionalism in Africa”.

² Collins, “Economic and Security Regionalism” 250; Kirschner and Stapel, “Does Regime Type Matter?”, 147.

³ Allison, “Virtual Regionalism, Regional Structures”, 185; Söderbaum, ”With a Little Help”, 7; Collins, Economic and Security Regionalism”, 250; Bohr, “Regionalism in Central Asia”, 486-7.

⁴ Kinnvall, “Globalization and Religious Nationalism”; Mitzen, “Ontological Security in World Politics”; Steele, Ontological Security in International Relations; Croft, “Constructing Ontological Insecurity”; Darwich, The Ontological (In)security of Similarity.

⁵ The importance of personal ontological security is well established in the literatures on psychology and psychiatry. See for example Padgett, “There’s no place like (a) home”.

⁶ Mitzen, “Ontological Security in World Politics”.

⁷ Following a rather different path, the link between the membership to certain regional organisations and the resilience or consolidation of the authoritarian regimes of their respective members has been studied not in terms of causality (membership strengthens autocracies) but rather of precondition: “the clustering of non-democracies within certain organisations may result from the fact that […] autocracies should find it easier to cooperate with each other than with other regimes […] or that authoritarian countries are less frequently admitted into international organisations created by democracies”. Libman, “Supranational Organisations”, 133-4.

⁸ Allison, “Virtual Regionalism, Regional Structures”, 185.

⁹ Söderbaum, ”With a Little Help”, 6; and “Modes of Regional Governance in Africa”.

¹⁰ Söderbaum, ”With a Little Help”, 7.

¹¹ Libman instead refers to five mechanisms of regime-boosting through regional organisations, namely legitimacy provision, economic support, governance transfer, mutual learning of the regimes and impact of private business interests. These mechanisms can be ascribed to either democracy promotion, or democracy diffusion, or a mix of the two. Libman, “Supranational Organisations”, 134-5.

¹² See Russo, “A ‘Potemkin Village’?”.

¹³ Cited in Fawn, “Battle over the Box”, 1144.

¹⁴ Cooley, Great Games, Local Rules.

¹⁵ SCO, Declaration on the Fifth Anniversary of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, Shanghai, 2006, http://eng.sectsco.org/load/197680/.

¹⁶ Jackson, “The role of external factors”.

¹⁷ Yom, “Authoritarian Monarchies”, 60.

¹⁸ Piras and Russo, “Democratic Diffusion Failures”.

¹⁹ It is worth noting that, while a key example, the Eurasian region and Eurasian regionalism is by no means unique in this regard. Regional authoritarian ‘regime boosting’ can be seen in numerous regions across the world.

²⁰ See, for example, Libman and Obydenkova, “Informal governance and participation”.

²¹ See, for example, Kubicek, “The Commonwealth of Independent States”.

²² Russo, Regions in Transition.

²³ Libman and Vinokurov, “Holding-Together Regionalism”.

²⁴ Mitzen, “Ontological Security in World Politics”, 342.

²⁵ Ibid., 352.

²⁶ Wendt, “Collective Identity Formation”, 385; Ibid., 351-2.

²⁷ Steele, “Ontological Security in International Relations”, 4-5.

²⁸ Mitzen, “Ontological Security in World Politics”, 352.

²⁹ “In the new EEC press center, experts in communication discussed the specifics of information support of international projects”, 27 November 2014, http://www.eurasiancommission.org/en/nae/news/Pages/356890890.aspx.

³⁰ Kortunov, The Fate of Russia; Light, “In search of an identity”.

³¹ Light, Ibid., 44.

³² Ibid.

³³ Ibid., 45.

³⁴ Cf. Huskey, “National identity from scratch”.

³⁵ Anceschi, “Regime-building, identity-making and foreign policy”.

³⁶ Ó Beacháin and Kevlihan, “State-building, Identity and Nationalism”, 4.

³⁷ Ibid., 10.

³⁸ Popescu, Eurasian Union, 19.

³⁹ Sakwa, “Russia’s Identity”, 957.

⁴⁰ Tsygankov, “Mastering space in Eurasia”, 102.

⁴¹ Putin, A new integration project.

⁴² Duncan, “Contemporary Russian Identity”, 282.

⁴³ Anceschi, “Regime-building, identity-making and foreign policy”, 738.

⁴⁴ All quotes in this section up to here from Urazova, “Nazarbayev Speaks About Launching”.

⁴⁵ As described by Söderbaum, ”With a Little Help”.

⁴⁶ Urazova, “Nazarbayev Speaks About Launching”.

⁴⁷ Mayor’s Office of Astana, History of Astana,2016, http://astana.gov.kz/en/modules/material/42

⁴⁸ Congress of the Leaders of World and Traditional Religions, http://www.religions-congress.org/content/blogcategory/18/32/lang,english/.

⁴⁹ Nurbekov, “Eurasian economic integration ‘will continue’”.

⁵⁰ Putin, “New integration project for Eurasia”.

⁵¹ Putin, Press Statements Following the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council Meeting, Astana, 29 May 2014, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/45790.

⁵² Putin, Opening Remarks at the Summit of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council, Minsk, 10 October 2014, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/46767.

⁵³ Laruelle, “Russian World”, 2015.

⁵⁴ Putin, Meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council, Novo-Ogaryovo, 5 March 2014, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20377 .

⁵⁵ Nazarbayev, Press Statements Following the Meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council, Astana, 29 May 2014.

⁵⁶ Ibid.

⁵⁷ Ibid.

⁵⁸ Ibid.

⁵⁹ Alexander Wendt defines identification with the ‘other’ as “a continuum from negative to positive – from conceiving the other as anathema to the self to conceiving it as an extension of the self”. (Wendt, “Collective Identity Formation”, 386). See also Neumann, “Self and Other in International Relations”; Reinke de Buitrago, “Introduction: Othering in International Relations”, xxvii.

⁶⁰ On 1 February 2016, Armenia’s former Prime Minister, Tigran Sargsyan, took the Chair.

⁶¹ Khristenko, “Decisions taken by Commission”.

⁶² Khristenko, “The efficiency of integration”.

⁶³ Putin, Press Conference Following the Meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council, Minsk, 24 October 2013, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/19485.

⁶⁴ “Astana’s history already includes bright pages in international events. These include the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions, the OSCE summit, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit, meetings of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and other international organisations. We are preparing to host the Expo 2017 World Exhibition here.” (Press Statements Following the Meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council, Astana, 29 May 2014).

⁶⁵ Press Statements Following the Meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council, Astana, 29 May 2014.

⁶⁶ “We are therefore very cautious in our approach to taking in new members. The working group first needs to study the economic level in the prospective member country, the level of reforms that have been carried out, and how well suited our economies are to each other in integration terms.” (Press Conference Following the Meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council, Minsk, 24 October 2013).

⁶⁷ “Depth is similar to roots. No leaves will grow without them. A blow of wind will crush the tree! Large-scale expansion of the union requires a considerable depth of integration.” (Khristenko, “The efficiency of integration”); “Currently, overleaping certain stages or incomplete achievement of the goals, which have already been set, and passing to new goals would be dangerous. The EU experience shows that rush can result in great problems at a later stage.” (Slepnyov, “The New Eurasian Economic Union”); “We are moving step by step. In order to avoid that the integration building is swept away by the first hurricane, we need depth, we need a solid foundation.” (Khristenko, “Interview with Viktor Khristenko”).

⁶⁸ See also the interview with Andrei Slepnyov, in which he states that “the Presidents agreed to […] personally address all road forks of integration, because integration, as can be seen from the experience of our EU neighbors, requires ongoing attention and political decisions by the leaders. The bureaucratic machines are largely inclined to protect their own interests, thus decelerating integration; hence, political will is needed to keep the process running at the required pace.” (Slepnyov, “The New Eurasian Economic Union”).

⁶⁹ Khristenko, “Decisions taken by the Commission”.

⁷⁰ Khristenko, “Interview with Viktor Khristenko”.