From Democracy to Disorder? Comparative Analysis of Governance Strategies in Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachay-Cherkessia (North Caucasus)

By Alexey Gunya

Two regions, which can be considered as “twins” in terms of the territorial-administrative make-up of the northern Caucasus, Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachai-Cherkessia (Table 1 and map), are examples of different strategies for resolving the widening conflicts of interests. The development in Kabardino-Balkaria is characterized by state power centralization, censorship of media and weak democratic institutions. The level of tension in Kabardino-Balkaria is, at first glance, low, but due to the absence of cadre rotation, the suppression of initiative, criticism etc, there is a very low rate of development and a great dependence on Moscow. Karachai-Cherkessia is more democratic. Liberal modes of governance have brought for Karachay-Cherkessia the growth of social and economic activities. However it is accompanied by conflicts between different parties and strategic groups and open criticism of the regional authorities.

Name of ethnic group	Language	Share of the ethnic group in the republic’s population (%)		Basic form of traditional agriculture
		1989	2002
Kabardinians	Adygian group (Caucasian family)	49	55	Arable farming (foothills/plains)
Cherkessians		9,7	11,3
Balkarians	Tyurskaya group (Altai family)	9,6	11	Mountain stockbreeding
Karatchaevians		31	38,5

Table 1. Characteristics of the titular ethnic groups in Kabardino-Balkaria and Karatchaevo-Tcherkessia

As a mirror of most important (but often latent) processes in the whole region is a local level. Local governance and institutions of land use are characterized by different roles of the governance strategies in Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachay-Cherkessia in terms of different impact on conflicts and development.

There are three types of institutions on the local level:

1) Administration – formally belongs to the official local self-government, but is controlled by the state.

2) Collective farms, changing their names in this period from kolkhozes and sovkhozes to various forms of joint stock companies (KSKhP, АО, ООО, ТОО etc.)

3) Traditional institutions, falling into two groups: those formalised by the state (e.g. council of elders), and those remaining non-formalised (e.g. traditional land use).

Transitions between these types of institutions are blurred. The contemporary local level comprises a cocktail of state, traditional and hybrid institutions. The exit of the state from the local level and the replacement of state institutions by institutions of local self-management is taking place slowly. Local self-management (the village administrations) does not yet dispose of the necessary powers. Formally, local self-management has large powers, but in practice local authorities are greatly dependent on state bodies. This dependence is greater in Kabardino-Balkaria, while in Karatchaevo-Tcherkessia, the level of state oversight over localities is considerably lower.

In Kabardino-Balkaria there is no land privatization because of veto of the president of this republic. Thus, in Kabardino-Balkaria, the state and collective farms as a hybrid (state/traditional) form of institution continue to play a large role. This meant that land remained outside the market process and conflicts between different identity groups have been removed from the agenda. However, conflict between local communities and the state have sharpened. This is most evident in the infringement of the peasants’ rights to land, even traditional lands which they always held.

In Karatchaevo-Tcherkessia, the privatisation of agricultural land is going ahead at full speed. By July 2006, the majority of collective farms should have found an owner. Lands left unappropriated will be transferred to the local state authorities. The privatisation of the land of the former collective farms has brought private owners to the fore, entrepreneurs who create self-governments on diverse bases (predominantly kinship).

In Kabardino-Balkaria, the state has continued the Soviet policy of penetrating right down to the local level, in spite of all the directives passed in Russia in recent years. Municipalities remained essentially part of the state. State structures control land. Peasants were tied to the state by the institution of land leasing. Measures taken on federal level to free localities from excessive state regulation remained only on paper in the republic. The state continues to control the local space. The spirit of federal laws is re-interpreted to the benefit of the regional authorities. Citizens’ initiatives that contradict the decisions of the regional authorities are stalled. Officially these facts are justified by the likelihood of conflicts occurring should land be privatised.

In Karatchaevo-Tcherkessia, the privatisation of agricultural land is proceeding rapidly, but the state still retains a strong hold on the local level. State officials use a variety of refined means to obstruct the development of private land holdings.

What is important for long-term stability - land privatization (Karachay-Cherkessia) or keeping land by state (Kabardino-Balkaria), centralised methods of governance based on formal (state) institutions only (Kabardino-Balkaria) or institutional diversity on the local level consisting of formal and informal (traditional) institutions (Karachay-Cherkessia)? As a matter of fact, the short-term stability in Kabardino-Balkaria which is based on formal institutions and centralised forms of governance leads to economic and social stagnation and, as a consequence, to polarization of different strategic groups and to growing of tension. The violent events of 13-14 October 2005 in Nalchik (capital city of Kabardino-Balkaria), where tens of peolple were killed during the street clashes, have shown that the critical social contradictions did not remain dormant. The occurred violence was a result of defects of the governance strategy accompanied by centralisation of power, weak democracy, censorship of the media, etc. In contrast, the pluralistic and the more democratic environment of Karachay-Cherkessia with a significant role of hybrid institutions (state-traditional, formal-informal) is risky but more adequate to a multiethnic region on the way to the long-term stability.