Nationalism and the Drive for Sovereignty in Tatarstan, 1988-92: Origins and Development by Sergei s> Kondrashov (review)

Abstract

370 SEER, 79, 2, 200 I rote;they are not encouraged to put questionsduringlecturesor seminars tutorials are extremely rare and most of the examinations in the arts -though not the sciences are oral, not written. During the summer months of his universitylife Roman worked as a tour guide for the Romanian National TouristOffice and thus found a loophole in the authorities'officialdiscouragementof contactsby Romanianswithvisitors from the West. It was through this activity that he made friends who subsequentlysenthim dictionariesand foreignliterature.He also receivedoffprintsof scientificpublicationswhich enabled him to keep abreastof the latest developments in his field and provided him with an academic platformfrom which to embark on his professional career once he managed to get to the West. Persistenceand ingenuity allowed him to overcome Romanian bureaucracy and to obtain a passportat the age of twenty-sevenin order to take up an invitation from Newcastle University to attend a palaeomagnetic conference. Roman succeeded through various stratagems in extending his visit. Adaptation to life in Western Europe posed a challenge in itself to East Europeans, but coping with the singularways of the British added an extra dimension. It is in thispartof the book that Roman is at his best. What struck him most on the professional level was the willingness of scientists, first at Newcastle, and later at Cambridge where he completed a Ph.D. to involve him in their research and to suggest funding opportunities.This was in stark contrast to his Romanian experience. Eventually, with the help of Lord Goodman, the eminent lawyer, Roman was able to obtain permanent residencyin thiscountryat the age of thirty-twoand, afterleavingCambridge, he set up his own oil consultancybusiness. Roman's storyisone of success,unlikethatof thousandsof hiscontemporaries in Romania whose lives were sadly constrainedby the severe restrictions placed on personal freedom by the Communist regime. His account is inspirational,and at a time when many young Romanians stilltend to expect the state to map out their lives for them, it is an example of what individual iniltlative can achieve in a free-marketeconomy. School ofSlavonic andEastEuropean Studies DENNIS DELETANT LTniversitjv College London Kondrashov, Sergei. Nationalismand the Drivefor Sovereignty in Tatarstan, i988-92.- Origins andDevelopment. Macmillan, Basingstoke and London, and St Martin's Press, New York, 2000. Xiii + 238 pp. Notes. Map. Tables. Figures.Glossary.Bibliography.Index. ?42.50. SERGEI KONDRASHOV' Spublication of his revised doctoral thesis represents a valuable contribution to the studies of Tatar nationalism. Dr Kondrashov's book is highlywelcome in that it gives a thoroughaccount of the dramaticrise of nationalism and the drive for sovereignty in Tatarstanbetween I988 and 1992. In this book, Kondrashov seeks the reasons why and how nationalism grew so strong amongst the Tatars who were believed to be successfully assimilatedinto Russiansociety underthe Soviet regime. REVIEWS 371 In the firsttwo chapters, Kondrashov examines the process of modernization of the Tatar nation under the Soviet regime and the attitudesof Tatars and Russianstowardseach otheron the eve ofperestroika. Having exploredthe process of uneven economic and social modernization in the USSR, Kondrashov identifiesthe roots of post-Soviet Tatarnationalismin the Soviet ethnic stratificationsystem. Although, up to a point, the Soviet system was successfulin eroding the boundaries of ethnic, class and territorialgroups in Soviet Tataria, Kondrashov maintains that the Tatarscontinued to perceive theirstatusas being 'inferior'to that of the Russians(p.50). ChaptersThree to Five,inwhich Kondrashovdevelopshisown explanation for the rise of post-Soviet Tatar nationalism, are particularly important. According to him, the sudden rise of nationalism is linked to the legitimacy crisis of the Soviet-era socio-cultural order. Kondrashov argues that the systemic crisis of legitimacy made the Tatar people much more receptive to the niationalistdiscourse developed by the Tatar-speaking intelligentsia. Nevertheless, he is careful in differentiating the orientation of the Tatar ruling elite from that of the nationalists towards Tatar nationalism. According to Kondrashov, the Tatar ruling elite as a whole pushed for Tatarstan's sovereignty for reasons other than those of nationalism. He also points out that 'the Tatarstan political establishment promoted a version of political nationalism against the Tatar nationalists' drive for Tatar ethnic nationalism' (p.I Io). The remaining chapters of the book give an analysis of the political struggle within the Tatar nationalist movement. Kondrashov identifies the ruling...