Indigeneity and Sovereignty in Russia

In the 1990s, a “parade of sovereignties” swept through Russia in the form of bilateral treaties between various republics and Moscow authorities. Some Russian nationalists and centralization advocates, fearful of genuine negotiated federalism, discussed the dangers of Russia falling apart the way the Soviet Union had. But these fears were mostly exaggerated, and in some cases later were used by Moscow officials to advocate abrogating the treaties. The late ethnosociologist Leokadia Drobizheva often sagely warned that “separatism starts from central policies, not from the regions.” The concepts of sovereignty and indigeneity in Russia are slippery and often debated. Thinking about them together enhances understanding of the changing interrelationships among ethnic and place names, and identity politics. Legal definitions of indigeneity differ in the “Federation of Russia” (multiethnic Rossiia) from recommended practices and policies in other parts of the world, as defined by the United Nations. This political anthropology theme issue explores various ways indigeneity and sovereignty have developed in Russia, especially in the post-Soviet period, using four strategic examples. The cases differ from each other, though all feature republics within Russia named for and at least in principle guided by “titular nonRussian people.” I have chosen the cases for their geographical dispersion, interethnic complexities, and fascinating histories of diverse relationships with central authorities in Moscow. No one case is a model for the others, despite efforts by Moscow bureaucrats to centralize and standardize republic policies. None of the chosen cases represent secessionist bids for independence, although such attempts were made during the 1990s in Chechnya, and violently suppressed. Rather, readers should keep in mind the felicitous term “nested sovereignty” to understand the ways “ethnic-based” republics fit into the larger framework of Russia and its regions. That framework has been changing, as identity politics have become increasing fraught during each successive administration of President Putin. By 2020, the framework was formalized with adaptations to Russia’s 1993 Constitution. A nontransparent referendum validated the dominance of the Russian ANTHROPOLOGY & ARCHEOLOGY OF EURASIA 2020, VOL. 59, NO. 1, 1–7 https://doi.org/10.1080/10611959.2020.1918946