Author(s): J. W. R. Parsons
Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Oct., 1982), pp. 547-569
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/151907
Accessed: 20/07/2009 09:32
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Soviet Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
SOVIET STUDIES, vol. XXXIV, no. 4, October 1982, pp. 547-569
DESPITEsome differences about how the final end should be achieved and
at what date, the Soviet leadership has always committed itself to the
ultimate merging of the constituent parts of the USSR and to the erosion
of all historical, traditional, legal and linguistic barriersthat might impede
the progression towards that end. Nevertheless, almost sixty years after the
establishment of the USSR, national boundaries persist, and despite all
official rhetoric to the contrary, national self-awareness, in many of the
republics, is as strong, if not stronger, than at any time since the
revolution. I
Since Khrushchev's claim to the XXII Party Congress in 1961 that the
national question had been solved, that national differences were
subsiding, and that under the rapidly approaching period of mature
communism, the merger, or sliyanie of the Soviet nationalities would be
complete, there has been a reappraisal of the national question.2 The
term sliyanie has been dropped from official pronouncements and the
1977 Soviet constitution, while proclaiming the emergence of a 'new
historical community of people, the Soviet people',3 does not do so to the
exclusion of the nationalities. It is now maintained that the existence of a
common Soviet identity and of Soviet patriotism do not preclude the
possibility of continued national differences and national sentiment.4
Thus shortly before the ratification of the new constitution Brezhnev
declared:
The Soviet people's social and politicalunity does not in the least imply the
disappearance of national distinctions . . .
However, in the same speech he noted that there had been proposals
to introduceintothe constitutionthe conceptof one Sovietnation,to abolishthe
unionand autonomousrepublics,or to limitdrasticallythe sovereigntyof union
republicsby deprivingthemof the rightof secessionfromthe USSRand of the
right to enterinto foreignrelations.The proposalto liquidatethe Councilof
Nationalitiesand to establisha one-houseSupremeSovietwouldhavemovedin
the same direction.6
Sources: Pechat' SSSR v 1975g, v 1976g, v 1977g, v 1978g, v 1979g, v 1980g. Narodnoe kho
IN GEORGIA 563
to conserve scarce paper supplies. However, the share of this literature
published in Georgian has been largely unaffected by the recent fall in
output. Throughout the last decade over 80% of books published in the
republic were in the vernacular, and although in 1980 their share of the
total fell to 78 6%0o,this is still well above the representation of Georgians
in the overall population.93 In 1980 81 journals were printed in the
republic, 97 8%oof the circulation of which was in Georgian, and 141
newspapers with an annual circulation of 740 million, 83 9% of which
were in Georgian. 94It is worth noting that over the same period, while the
number and circulation of Russian publications remained either static or
suffered a slight decline, the number and circulation of publications in
other languages increased considerably, reflecting the current policy of
devoting greater attention to the needs of Georgia's national minorities.95
The press plays a not inconsiderable role in concentrating the attention
of the population on the republic and its achievements. The successes, for
instance, of the Rustaveli Theatre, the national dance group and Georgian
football teams sometimes receive full page treatment in the republic's main
Georgian and Russian language daily newspapers, often accompanied with
quotations and cuttings from the foreign press complimenting the vitality
and originality of Georgian culture. The republican radio and television
perform similar functions, and like the press give considerable attention to
familiarizing their audience with Georgia's cultural heritage.
The Church, too, has been granted greater freedom in recent years and
attendance at services appears to be unimpeded.96The close relationship
between the survival of Georgian Orthodoxy and the survival of Georgian
culture and tradition has been consolidated through centuries of struggle,
first against Muslim invasion and, later, against Russification. From the
19th century the Church became associated with the emergence of
Georgian nationalism and in the 1930s, perhaps as a consequence, suffered
severely during the purges.97 More recently Georgians' pride in its
independence and age has been reinforced by the popularity of the present
Catholicos-Patriarch Ilia II (whose prestige has been enhanced by his
appointment as the president of the World Council of Churches)98and by
the lack of appeal of Marxism-Leninism. In the absence of any alternative,
many Georgians have renewed their interest in the Church, although
perhaps more in defence of a specifically Georgian culture and identity
than through religious conviction. The performance of a play by the
republic's leading theatre group, the Rustaveli, in December 1978,
celebrating the life of the first Georgian saint, Shushanek, reflects both the
more liberal atmosphere prevailing in the republic by comparison with
most other parts of the Soviet Union, and the current interest in religious
themes. The importance of the event was underlined by the presence of the
entire hierarchy of the Georgian Church at the premiere.
564 NATIONAL INTEGRA TION
The official ideology is regarded with little enthusiasm by much of the
intelligentsia, not least because corruption, as in Poland, has destroyed its
credibility, a factor which helps to explain the survival of the nation as the
chief focus of loyalty. National sentiment, as well as expressing itself in
literature, theatre and art has found an outlet in an attachment to a tradi-
tionalism which seeks to keep intact a distinctive Georgian identity. This is
evident even in the choice of vocabulary. Thus the form of address batono,
equivalent to the use of gospodin in pre-revolutionary Russia, is, outside
party committee meetings, preferred to the word amkhanago, or
comrade.99 Tradition emerges particularly in the relations between the
sexes. Despite advances made by women their position in the household
and society in general is governed by the rules and mores of an often
idealized version of Georgia's past. Women are expected to conform to an
ideal, summed up in the word mandilosani, 00 which has more relevance to
the pages of Shot'a Rust'aveli's celebrated mediaeval epic poem, The
Knight in the Tiger's Skin, than to the present day. Though it is primarily
women who suffer from the survival of old attitudes, they are themselves
often reluctant to criticize something which they perceive as helping to
preserve a distinctive Georgian culture. 101
Conclusion
National sentiment, although denied political outlets, is undoubtedly
strong and widespread, but official responses to its various manifestations
are no longer as clumsy or brutal as in 1956.102Moscow is aware that
repression can have exactly the opposite effect to the one desired. Some
feel that is gives the republics considerable power as pressure groups. In
Tbilisi, for instance, rumour suggested that Shevardnadze realized that
dropping Georgian as the state language would provoke an angry reaction,
and calculated that by provoking such a reaction he would have greater
bargaining power in his future dealings with the centre by arguing the need
to avoid provoking a nationalist backlash. That the Georgian First Party
Secretary is quite as devious as this seems unlikely, but the suggestion
nevertheless gives some impression of the influence that national groups,
and particularly the republics may have. The nationality-based federal
structure of the USSR has provided the indigenous elites with the means
for the articulation and protection of national interests at the centre.
The decision to back down and restore the status of the Georgian
language in 1978 shows a pragmatic approach to nationality affairs which
has received recent confirmation with the reinstatement of a professor at
Tbilisi University following a demonstration by students on his behalf.103
Thus the state remains committed to the acculturation of the Georgian
population, but is not prepared to risk direct confrontations with national
IN GEORGIA 565
feeling. When strong opposition has been met, as over the status of the
Georgian language, the central authorities have backed down. It is
understood that nationalism is a potential threat to stability in the
republic, but that so long as the population does not feel its national iden-
tity is threatened, it will stay dormant. On the other hand, when there have
been attempts to stimulate an oppositional nationalism, such as in the
mid-1970s with the founding of the samizdat journal Ok'ros Satsmisi (The
Golden Fleece), and the setting up of a Human Rights Defence Group in
Tbilisi by Zviad Gamsakhurdia and Merab Kostava in 1974, the
authorities have shown a willingness to use force. 104
It would appear, therefore, that despite the depth of national sentiment
in Georgia, the party leadership is not unduly worried, believing that by
granting minor privileges which have little effect on the structure of power
but assuage national feeling, the situation can be contained. However,
whilst it has demonstrated its ability to suppress individual manifestations
of nationalism without provoking any serious response in the republic as a
whole, it seems quite unable to weaken the residual sense of attachment to
all the symbols of nationhood. The events of April 1978, while demon-
strating that Moscow remains committed to the removal of obstacles to the
acculturation of the Georgian population, effectively show the nature of
the dilemma confronting it. Whilst seeking to eliminate all impediments to
the emergence of an integrated Soviet people, it risks the possibility of
arousing national sensitivity and thereby strengtheningnational sentiment.
Moscow's reluctance to face such confrontations head on and the
awareness that open opposition will be dealt with severely suggest that the
prevailing stalemate will continue, and that the best that Soviet policy can
hope for is containment.
University of Glasgow
1 The
present article can touch upon only some aspects of the Soviet nationality question;
for a fuller discussion, see H. Carrere d'Encausse, The Decline of an Empire (New York,
1979), Z. Katz (ed.), Handbook of Major Soviet Nationalities (New York, 1975), R.
Conquest, Soviet Nationalities Policy in Practice (London, 1967), E. Allworth, Soviet
Nationality Problems (New York, 1971), Sovremennye etnicheskieprotsessy v SSSR, 2nd ed.
(Moscow, 1977). For the historicalbackgroundto the national questionin Georgia, see W. E. D.
Allen, A History of the Georgian People (London, 1932), D. M. Lang, A Modern History of
Georgia (London, 1962).
2 Teresa Rakowska-Harmstone, 'The Dialectics of Nationalism', Problems of
Communism, vol. XXIII, no. 3 (May-June 1974), p. 18.
3 W. B. Simmons (ed.), The Constitutions of the Communist World (Netherlands:
Alphen aan den Rijn, 1980), p. 353.
F
566 NATIONAL INTEGRATION
4 P. N. Fedoseyev (ed.), Leninism and the National Question (Moscow, 1977), p. 330. See
too a number of articles on the national question that appeared in Voprosy istorii, nos. 1, 4, 6,
9, 1966 and in no. 2, 1967.
5 Ronald G.
Suny, 'Georgia and Soviet Nationalities Policy', in S. F. Cohen, A.
Rabinowitch, R. Sharlets (eds.), The Soviet Union Since Stalin (London, 1980), p. 203.
6 Izvestiya, 5 October 1977; translation in E. Bagramov, 'A Factual Survey of Soviet
Nationalities Policy', Reprintsfrom the Soviet Press, 15 September 1978, p. 49.
7 Ralph S. Clem, 'The Ethnic Dimension in the Soviet Union', in J. G. Pankhurst and
M. P. Sacks, Contemporary Soviet Society (New York, 1980), p. 23.
8 Vestnik statistiki, no. 1, 1981,
p. 66.
9 Jaan Pennar, 'Demonstrations and Dissidents in Estonia', Radio Liberty Research
Bulletin, 24 October 1980, no. 43 (hereafter all references to Radio Liberty are designated
RL).
'1 H. Carrere d'Encausse, op. cit., p. 107.
1 Vestnik statistiki, no. 1, 1981, p. 63.
12 Ibid.
13 Narodnoe khozyaistvo Gruzinskoi SSR v 1977 (Tbilisi, 1977), p. 9. Vestnikstatistiki, no.
1, 1981, p. 63. In fact the urban population of Georgia had declined to 423,000 by 1917 and
only surpassed the 1913 total of 666,000 between 1926 and 1940.
14 Vestnik statistiki, no. 1, 1981, p. 67.
15Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17A. Nove and J. A. Newth, The Soviet Middle East: A Communist Model for
Development? (London, 1967), p. 40.
18 R. B. Dobson, 'Georgia and the Georgians', in Z. Katz (ed.), op. cit., p. 10.
19 Komunisti, 12 February 1981, 'Dasakhuli Kursit" (Along the
planned course).
Komunisti, 26 February 1981, 'Amkhanag E. A. Shevardnadzis Sitqva' (Comrade E. A.
Shevardnadze's speech at the XXVI Party Congress). RL 26 February 1981 mistakenly
reported that 'average annual agriculturaloutput rose by 34%0o during the 10th five-year plan'.
20 It has also been suggested that this is an indication of the extent of private dealings, not
reflected in the official statistics.
21 Komunisti, 26 February 1981, op. cit.
22 Ibid.
23 Ramaz Klimiashvili, K'alak' T'bilisis demograp'iuli protsesebis sotsialuri p'aktorebi
(Tbilisi, 1974), p. 38. (Social Factors in the Demographic Processes of the City of T'bilisi.)
24 H. Carrere d'Encausse, op. cit., p. 99.
25 Ibid.,
pp. 100-01.
26 R. Lewis, R. Rowland and R. Clem, 'Modernisation, Population Change and
Nationality in Soviet Central Asia and Kazakhstan', Canadian Slavonic Papers, vol. XVII,
1975, p. 295. Russians comprised 70 3%0of the population of Alma-Ata, 66 1o0 of Frunze,
42-7%oof Ashkhabad, 42 1%lo of Dushanbe and 40- 8%oof Tashkent.
27 D. M.
Lang, op. cit., pp. 254-57. Boris Pasternak, Letters to Georgian Friends
(London, 1971).
28 R.
Klimiashvili, op. cit., p. 32.
29 Ibid.
30 Vestnik
statistiki, no. 10, 1980, p. 67.
31 Ibid.
32 Brian Silver, 'The Impact of Urbanisation and Geographical Dispersion on the
Linguistic Russification of Soviet Nationalities ', Demography, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 89-103.
Cited in R. Clem, 'The Ethnic Dimension, pt. 2', in ContemporarySoviet Society, op. cit., p. 50.
33 G. E. Smith, The Latvian Nation-A Study in the Geography of Political Integration
(Ph.D. dissertation, University of Glasgow, 1978), p. 390. In 1970 Russians (42.9%),
Belorussians and Ukrainians comprised 50-3% of Riga's population. Latvians made up
40-9%.
34 R. Klimiashvili, op. cit., p. 38.
35
Ibid.
36 Ann Sheehy, 'Georgian Language holds its Own in Georgia', RL 396/81, 5 October
1981, p. 9.
37 Ann Sheehy, 'Data from the Soviet Census of 1979 on the Georgians and the Georgian
SSR', RL 162/80, 2 May 1981. 'Migratsiis zogiert'i amzhamindeli t'aviseburebis gamo
IN GEORGIA 567