Separatism: Democracy and Disintegration by Metta s> Spencer (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS 779 There are relevant questions which might be pursued more deeply. Why did both majoropposition forces, those of Zhirinovskiiand Ziuganov, takeon a nationalist character? While Zhirinovskii was a nationalist from at least I99I, there were alternatives roads for the Communists. The ground had been laid in the I970S, before Devlin's account begins, in the samizdatjournal Veche, for a fusion of Stalinism and Slavophile sobornost'; but might not proreform Communists have taken the party towards the centre? Other Communist groups,such as those of ViktorAnpilov and Nina Andreeva, have been more extreme than Ziuganov in their nationalism or Stalinism. Indeed no masscentre-leftor socialdemocraticpartyhas developed in Russia,despite the number of politicians who have claimed to be social democrats. Rather, the regime of El'tsin and Putin appears to have created a system where it retains power, assisted by its control over the media, and coexists with a Communist opposition which is not allowed to threatenit. School ofSlavonic andEastEuropean Studies PETERJ. S. DUNCAN University College London Spencer, Metta (ed.). Separatism. Democracy and Disintegration. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD, Boulder, CO, New York and Oxford, I998. Viii+ 338 pp. Notes. Bibliography.Index. $62.50; $22.95. METTA SPENCER, a sociologist at the University of Toronto, has compiled an, on the whole, interesting and useful collection of essays devoted to the problems associated with separatism -that is, with movements aiming at secession from, or the disintegrationof, a state. The first three chapters of the book (and also the introduction and conclusion) discuss separatism as a general phenomenon. Following an overview by the editor, Robert K. Schaeffer critically dissects the logical rationale of separatism as 'a solution that creates [new] problems', while Milica Z. Bookman offers a very substantial examination of the economic motives, instrumentalities, and effects of secession. The remaining nine chapters are case studies of separatismin various historicaland geographical contexts: the collapse of the Austro-Hungarianand Ottoman empires (John Bacher and Yildiz Atasoy respectively);the disintegrationof the Soviet Union and of Yugoslavia (Feodor Burlatsky, Metta Spencer); the partition of Czechoslovakia (PetrPithartand Metta Spencer);the secessionistmovements among Chechens in Russia (Victor Kogan Jasnyi and Diana ZissermanBrodsky ),Tamils in Sri Lanka/Ceylon (M. R. R. Hoole), and Quebecois in Canada (Reg Whitaker); and the successful negotiation of autonomy for Tatarstanin Russia (EdwardW. Walker). While most of the information in the book is already available in scattered sources elsewhere, it is useful to have it gathered together in a single volume for comparative purposes. Two particularly valuable essays do, however, present perspectives that were not previously accessible, at least in English: namely, the account of the breakup of Czechoslovakia co-authored by Petr Pithart,who as prime ministerof the Czech Republic in the period leading up to partition was a direct participant in the events described; and Feodor 780 SEER, 79, 4, 2001 Burlatsky'sanalysis of the breakup of the Soviet Union, based on interviews he conducted with the leading politiciansinvolved. As someone without much knowledge of the politics of the countries concerned, I found the last two essayson Ceylon and Canada very illuminating. This is a book with a definite point of view. The editor and almost all the contributorsarevery much againstseparatism above all, as a cause of war, though also of culturalsterility.At the same time they are againstnationalism. Those who suggest an alternative see it in the multi-ethnic state made up of autonomous communities that was advocated by the Austro-Marxists,or a modernized and democratizedversionofthe Ottoman millet system,embodied perhapsin Canada's own emerging multiculturalistmodel. This is a point of view with which I have a great deal of sympathy,but the book might have been improved by the inclusion of an intellectually sophisticated defense of separatism, if only as a stimulus to debate. There is one chapter written in a spiritof sympathy for a separatistcause -namely, Chechen separatism,but unfortunatelyit is the weakest chapter in the book, failing to give a balanced picture of the opposing trends in Chechen politics with respectto relationswith Russia. Some judgements seem to me a little sweeping. 'In our day', we are told, 'nationalists are exclusionary and divisive. Long before the rise of National Socialism in Germany, nationalismhad ceased to be benign' (p...