An Anatomy of Consent: The State and Formerly Deported Peoples in Russia

Abstract

The article considers the decline of the organisations representing formerly deported ethnicities in Russia in the 1990s. Despite the favourable political and legal conditions and the broad national consensus on the need to provide redress to the victims of ethnic deportations in the Stalinist era, these organisations largely ceased or changed their activities without having achieved their goals and without experiencing governmental pressure or intimidation. This paradox will be explained by an examination of the structure of opportunities faced by these organisations and the features of agenda-setting shared by state and non-state actors.

Disclosure statement:

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 I employ the term ‘formerly deported people’—widely accepted in international organisations—throughout the article. ‘Repressed people’ (repressirovannye narody) is the Russian official term normally indicating the ethnicities relocated during Stalin’s rule.

2 For an overview of the relevant institutional structures, see Gorenburg (2003).

3 Until 1954 Crimea was a part of the RSFSR. Since Crimea was legally part of Ukraine during the time period under study, the activities of the Crimean Tatar movement will not be considered in this article.

4 The regime of ‘special resettlement’ included the prohibition to leave the localities of exile and numerous other restrictive and punitive rules; see Polian (2004).

5 For the significance of ethnically specific institutions of the autonomous entities for ethnic mobilisation see Gorenburg (2003).

6 It was also a part of Stavropol Krai.

7 This group did not include those who claimed the right to emigrate to Germany.

8 The RSFSR was renamed the Russian Federation in 1992, but the structure of its legislative and executive bodies remained intact until the end of 1993.

9 Zakon RSFSR ‘O reabilitatsii repressirovannykh narodov’ ot 26.04.1991 N 1107-1, available at: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_7348/, accessed 9 November 2023.

10 For more about the law, see Zdravomyslov (1998, pp. 49–54), Petrov (2005, pp. 220–21) and Fel’dman (2015, pp. 409–11).

11 Zakon ‘O reabilitatsii zhertv politicheskih repressii’ ot 18.10.1991 N 1761-1, available at: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_1619/, accessed 9 November 2023.

12 The meaning of ‘rehabilitation’ in Russian law and in international instruments concerning transitional justice differs; the Russian term is close to ‘reparations’ and embraces what in the UN documents is defined as satisfaction (recognition of wrongdoings), restitution, compensation and rehabilitation in the meaning of social care (see Bobrinsky 2018; also A/RES/60/147, ‘Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law’, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 16 December 2005, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/transitional-justice/reparations, accessed 10 November 2023).

13 From 1993 to 2000, the limits for monetary compensation were defined as 40 official minimal wages (for movable property only) and 100 official minimal wages (if the claim included a dwelling); these sums were worth around US$100 and US$250 respectively. Since August 2000, the sums for the confiscated property have been R4,000 (without the confiscated dwelling) and R10,000 (with the dwelling) (in 2000, equivalent to US$112 and US$278 respectively). Confiscated plots of land are not compensated.

14 Referred to in the Law on the Rehabilitation of Repressed Peoples as a ‘cultural-ethnic community’ and thus equated with ‘peoples’.

15 There were also declarative resolutions of this kind adopted by the government of the Russian Federation with regard to Chechens-Akkins and Ingushs.

16 Additionally, two municipal districts in Siberia were endowed with the symbolic status of ‘German national-territorial entities’ (Wolf 2007, p. 130).

17 Zakon RF ‘Ob ustanovlenii perekhodnogo perioda po gosudarstvenno-territorial'nomu razgranicheniyu v Rossiiskoi Federatsii’ ot 03.07.1992 N 3198-1, available at: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_776/, accessed 9 November 2023.

18 For an overview see Petrov (2005, pp. 218–26), Bougai (2006, pp. 182–74), Akkieva (2011), Sabanchiev (2011), Daduev and Nunuev (2015).

19 For an overview see Akkieva (2011, p. 35).

20 These data have not been made available by the Commission for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repressions under the President of the Russian Federation.

21 There are no full and accurate data on individual regions, and the picture is incomplete. For example, in Kabardino-Balkaria, 54,467 people, mostly Balkars, were registered as repressed persons; 51,663 were rehabilitated. From 1994 to 2007, the regional government paid pecuniary compensation to 12,455 individuals (Orazaeva 2007).

22 The FDP organisations also failed to coordinate their actions. The Confederation of the Repressed Peoples, although it still exists, has been inactive over the last 20 years. The new umbrella organisation of the North Caucasus FDPs—the Union of the Repressed Peoples of Russia (Soyuz repressirovannykh narodov Rossii)—has restricted its activities to a few petitions and seminars; see ‘Soyuz repressirovannykh narodov Rossii vstupilsya za ingushskikh aktivistov’, Kavkazskii uzel, 24 February 2021, available at: https://www.kavkaz-uzel.eu/articles/361105/, accessed 10 November 2023.

23 Opredelenie Konstitutsionnogo Suda RF ot 01.12.2005 N 365-O ‘Po zaprosu Parlamenta Respubliki Severnaya Osetiya—Alaniya o sootvetstvii Konstitutsii Rossiiskoi Federatsii statei 3 i 6 Zakona RSFSR “O reabilitatsii repressirovannykh narodov”’, available at: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_57093/, accessed 9 November 2023.

24 Zakon RF ‘Ob obrazovanii Ingushskoi Respubliki v sostave Rossiiskoi Federatsii’ ot 06.04.1992 N 2927-1, available at: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_15526/, accessed 9 November 2023.

25 See also ‘Osetino-ingushskii konflikt 1992 g.: istoki i razvitie (po mai 2005 goda)’, Kavkazskii uzel, 7 November 2017, available at: https://www.kavkaz-uzel.eu/articles/81949/, accessed 10 November 2023.

26 See also ‘Glavnoe ob Aukhe: chego trebuyut chechentsy ot vlastei Dagestana’, Kavkazskii uzel, 26 February 2021, available at: https://www.kavkaz-uzel.eu/articles/346298/, accessed 10 November 2023.

27 As with other civic society organisations in Russia of the 1990s; see Fish (1995).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Alexander Osipov

Alexander Osipov, International Centre for Ethnic and Linguistic Diversity Studies, Prague, Czech Republic. Email: [email protected]