ECPR

Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

ECPR

Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

Historical memories and State of Exception in the North Caucasus: the Comparative Case of Republics Kabardino-Balkaria and Chechnya

Europe (Central and Eastern)
Conflict
Governance
Institutions
Memory
Power

Abstract

Despite the fact that the North Caucasus recently has been described as relatively save and stable region (Hoffmann, 2014), this security is rather shaky (Bifolchi, 2018; Wilhelmsen, 2019), since repressive violence and coercion – the source of stability – has deeply penetrated regional politics and governance (Koehler at al. 2016). Direct, armed violence has given way to structural violence, which is expressed in significant restrictions on freedom of speech, political and civic participation, local self-government, and ‘unwelcome’ historical memories (Shogenov at al. 2018). Neverthe-less, the intensity of structural violence varies in the North Caucasus republics, as do governance strategies in the degree of power centralization (Gunya at al. 2016). Kabardino-Balkarian Republic is an example of post-conflict violence-informed governance with a strong 'power vertical'. However, capabilities of structural violence are for several reasons rela-tively low, especially compared to Chechnya. Based on Galtung’s ‘triangle of violenceconcept (Galtung, 1969; Galtung, 1990) this paper traces the impact of violence over the last two decades. It shows, how direct violence within a state of emergency in the North Caucasian republics of Kabardino-Balkaria and Chechnya became a basis for declaring the state of exception (Agamben, 2005; Foucault, 1999; Alekseenkova/Sergeev, 2008) and was then transformed into structural violence built-in to the state and social fabric. This was also reflected in patterns ofcultural violence, such as repression of collective historical memo-ries in the name of security and stability. The paper as well identifies institutional and other obsta-cles to structural violence by looking at actors involved, resources used by the actors, and institu-tions shaping and constraining the actors' choices in conflicts based on an institution centred con-flict research approach (Koehler, 2016; Koehler/Gunya 2014).