The transformation of citizenship policies in post-soviet states

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

FEDERAL STATE AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

OF HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

“NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY

“HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS”

Faculty of Social Sciences

THE TRANSFORMATION OF CITIZENSHIP POLICIES IN POST-SOVIET STATES

Graduate qualification work - MASTER THESIS

Field of study 41.04.04 Political Science

Master's program “Applied politics”

Maxim Volkov

Moscow 2018

List of Abbreviations

ASSR - the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic

CPI - the Citizenship Policies Index

EAEU - the Eurasian Economic Union.

EFTA - the European Free Trade Association.

EU - the European Union.

EU-15 - Key EU countries before the 2004 expansion (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom)

IMISCOE - International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion in Europe [Research Project].

NATO - the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

SSR - the Soviet Socialist Republic.

TMR - the Transnistria Moldavian Republic.

USSR - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.



Table of contents

• Introduction
• Chapter 1
• Chapter 2

2.1 Research Design

2.1.1 The Citizenship Policy Index

2.1.2 Models of Acquisition and Loss of Nationality

2.2 Data collection

2.2.1 The Late Soviet Citizenship

2.2.2 Post-Soviet States Citizenship Legislation

2.2.2.1 Armenia

• 2.2.2.2 Azerbaijan
• 2.2.2.3 Belarus
• 2.2.2.4 Estonia
• 2.2.2.5 Georgia
• 2.2.2.6 Kazakhstan
• 2.2.2.7 Kyrgyz Republic
• 2.2.2.8 Latvia
• 2.2.2.9 Lithuania
• 2.2.2.10 Moldova
• 2.2.2.11 Russian Federation
• 2.2.2.12 Tajikistan
• 2.2.2.13 Turkmenista
• 2.2.2.14 Ukraine
• 2.2.2.15 Uzbekista
• 2.3 Findings
• Conclusion

Bibliography

Appendix

Introduction

Topicality

In the modern world ethnic identity is an increasingly important feature that regulates social relations. In this regard, the importance of the mechanisms of ethnic diversity management is also increasing. Citizenship policies form a very important part of these mechanisms. The case of the post-Soviet countries is particularly interesting in this respect, since in the last quarter of a century they have passed through a difficult period of social, economic and political transformations. At the same time, all 15 post-Soviet countries can be compared on the basis of their common starting point of independent development. The case of post-Soviet countries is even more revealing in this respect, since all 15 new countries derived from a single state that had had a highly coherent system of ethnic diversity management (which can be labeled “nationalities policy”). Over the past time one can expect a significant divergence in the trajectories of their development, which can be associated with interesting research problems.

In this paper I analyze citizenship policies based on detailed consideration of the national legislation.

In the existing literature on the problem, there is a visible lack of studies devoted directly to general post-Soviet context. At the same time, there are a vast number of works on particular cases. They make it possible to draw a clear picture of the main trends of institutional changes and the factors that cause them. Along with large body of works on citizenship, in my analysis I can also rely on the studies of nationalism, state and nation-building, language policy, interstate migrations and a number of other aspects.

A great contribution to the study of these transformations was made by researchers of state- and nation building. Here one can note the prominent works of K. Deutsch, I. Bremmer, R. Taras, L. W. Barrington, R. Brubaker, R. Roeder, R. Isaacs, and A. Poles. A huge contribution to this theoretical field was also made by researchers of citizenship. The role of researchers of citizenship in European context is also important here, as that were able to develop a reliable research tools.

The research question of the study is following: what are the main trends of the transformation of the citizenship policies in post-Soviet countries?

The object of the study comprises citizenship policies in post-Soviet states.

The subject of the research includes mechanisms of acquisition and loss of citizenship in post-Soviet states.

The objective of the study is to identify the main trends in the development of citizenship policies in the post-Soviet countries and the key differences between them in this regard.

Achieving stated objective requires the accomplishment of the following tasks: citizenship policy transformation

1. Operationalizing the concept of "citizenship policy".

2. Explaining the specifics of the institutional context of post-Soviet states.

3. Conducting an empirical analysis of the transformation of the citizenship policy.

4. Identifying specific features of post-Soviet models of citizenship policy and the main trends of their transformation.

Methodology

As the institutional divergence of the post-Soviet countries contains an element of inertia in relation to the practices of the Soviet period and (in some cases) the preceding periods of independent development, it is important to show, how the transformation of institutions is limited by existing structural factors. That is why I have chosen historical institutionalism as a methodological framework for this study.

I have also used correlation analysis along with qualitative analysis of legislation as the main method in this research.

In short the results of this study can be formulated as the following list of statements:

· The citizenship policy manifests itself in a set of legislative acts that establish rules for membership in the political community.

· Post-Soviet states are radically different from the Western European ones because of their long history of being a part of one state (the Russian Empire and the USSR), the short experience of independent governance as nation states, and late (and usually unsuccessful) democratization.

· The institutional trajectories of the citizenship policies of post-Soviet countries are quite stable and inertial.

· Trends of the transformation of the citizenship policies of post-Soviet states are manifested in the gradual application of international standards in regulating certain aspects of citizenship, as well as in a certain normalization of the situation: the policy of citizenship of authoritarian states becomes more restrictive, and the policy of democratic states becomes more inclusive.

Chapter 1

Citizenship policies form an important part of ethnic diversity management. Ethnic diversity management is associated with the formal state institutions, which characterize individuals on the basis of their ethnic or national identity. This concept resembles the notion of institutions of nationhood and personal nationality proposed by R. Brubaker, but it has a narrower meaning. Also the state institutions have a significant influence on social life, as they provide a legal framework for human interactions.

The broadest perspective of the study of ethnic diversity management institutions is presented in literature on state- and nation-building. These studies contain lots of evidences about the causal links, which exist within the framework of transformation of new independent states. Nation-building is a very ambiguous concept. K. Deutsch defined nation-building as the process of constructing and structuring a national identity with the use of the power of the state. However, the state is only one agent of nation-building, associated mostly with institutional changes. There are also a number of other possible agents, which include political elite and state bureaucracy (such emphasizes allow researchers to investigate directly the practices and discourses of nation-building), non-state actors, and even common citizens, which can modify the narratives and practices of nation-building imposed on them, or invent their own practices.

It's important to note, that the concepts of nation- and state-building sometimes are used interchangeably. However, state-building generally refers to the construction of state institutions for a functioning state, while nation-building - to the construction of a national identity, also for a functioning state. As we will concentrate on specific institutions, which are linked with the process of the formation of identities, the theoretical focus on nation-building is more important for us. However, the aspect of state-building can be associated with the quality of institutions, political stability, and characteristics of political regime.

The elite-led character of nation-building is widely observed in the literature. As far as in this paper we are focused on institutional transformations of citizenship policies, we will provide a macro-level structural analysis with a small space for agency. However, it is important to note that the accent on everyday nation-building is becoming more popular in the field nowadays. Such emphasis can be associated with the concept of “banal nationalism”, proposed by M. Billig.

It is evident that the character of nation-building can vary depending on the region, political regime characteristics, or the world politics in a specific time period. Thus P. Kolstш defines three waves of nation-building: the emergence of nation-states across Western Europe after 1648, the emergence of post-colonial nation-states, and the emergence of new independent states after the collapse of communism in Europe and the disintegration of the USSR. Eastern European post-communist countries and the former USSR are very interesting in this regard, as the starting points of their independent development were very close. Despite Tajikistan in 1989 was very different from Slovenia in 1989, they shared the common institutional framework - single-party governments with centralized political systems and economies based on state ownership were the rule across the whole region. In case of post-Soviet space this is even more obvious, as the institutional structure of the USSR was centralized and coherent.

Citizenship policies played a central role in the transformation of post-Soviet states, since they set the basic principles of individuals' belonging to a particular state. In the context of this study, the need to conceptualize the citizenship policy plays an important role in order to use this concept as an analytical category and to avoid possible misunderstandings of the scope of application of this concept.

One of the broadest interpretations of the policy of citizenship was presented within the framework of political theory. This section of political science comprises a broad range of studies of the role of citizenship in the development of ideas about a just political structure.

Historically, citizenship has been closely linked to the privileges of membership of a particular kind of political community.This can be seen even in contemporary states where non-citizens are subject to certain restrictions on participation in political life (first of all this refers to the right to vote at national elections). At the same time, all their other rights can be fully respected. Obviously, this is true only for stable democracies. Authoritarian states, on the other hand, demonstrate significant variability in relation to restrictions imposed on residents who do not have citizenship.

A significant contribution to the theory of citizenship was made in the second half of the XX century. One of the fundamental works in this respect was the study of the British sociologist Thomas Humphrey Marshall Citizenship and Social Class (1949). According to Marshall, citizenship is primarily defined as the status through which individuals are recognized as the members of a certain political community. This status implies that individuals have a certain set of rights and obligations that are established within the existing institutional structure. In Marshall's theory there is a visible opposition of the system of social classes inherent in modern capitalist society, which is characterized by significant inequality, and the principle of citizenship, single and universal for all its owners. The important vector of research within the framework of the theory of citizenship is the need to explain how the transformation of citizenship can transform liberal democracies, turning them into more egalitarian and just societies. Moreover, in the Marshall concept, citizenship, while contributing to some mitigation of the forms of interclass inequality under capitalism, ultimately serves to legitimize them and make them acceptable to the lower classes. Speaking about the structure of rights, Marshall introduces a triad of basic human rights in liberal states: civil, political and social rights. These rights are associated with the successive stages of development of the modern European state: state building, nation building, and the development of capitalism. Marshall also identifies three groups of factors that contribute to the transformation of social rights in the long run:

1. The scale of income distribution.

2. The great extension of the area of common culture and common experience.

3. The enrichment of the universal status of citizenship with more diverse rights granted to its holders.

In this case, the first two factors largely influence the third.

The Marshall concept gave rise to a longstanding debate on citizenship and democracy, which continued with varying degrees of intensity for more than half a century. In different time periods, the original concept was subjected to significant criticism and revision, which led to a deepening of the understanding of citizenship and a shift in emphasis from understanding citizenship as a status to the need to realize the importance of identity and group rights. Thus citizenship can be viewed not only as a legal status, defined by a set of rights and responsibilities. It is also an identity, an expression of one's membership in a political community. Marshall, as well, saw citizenship as a shared identity that would integrate previously excluded groups and provide a source of national unity in British society.

Marshall was criticized for the following issues:

· His exceptional emphasis on the emerging middle class in Western liberal democracies.

· Omission of differences in the trajectories of the institutional development of nation-states (due to the focus on the British experience. In contrast to Britain the formation of different types of rights took place practically simultaneously in many post-colonial countries).

· Ignoring non-economic structural sources of inequality.

· Failure to consider the existence of gender, ethnic and racial status hierarchies.

The concept of citizenship rights was introduced, first of all, in order to conduct sociological analysis of the results of political struggle regarding economic inequality. However, in addition to the economic hierarchy, there is also a hierarchy of statuses (closely interconnected with economic hierarchy), to which Marshall paid less attention. This hierarchy of statuses manifests itself in affirming the greater value of certain distinctive features (ethnicity, religion, education, sexual orientation, etc.) of some groups in relation to other groups. It first of all manifests itself in discriminatory measures in relation to certain groups or even individuals. However, such measures may not necessarily be legislated (formal discrimination may even be prohibited by law, but it can be reproduced in routine human interactions). Hence the problem of the irreducibility of this hierarchy to the economic one occurs. This relation between two hierarchies was developed by Marxist theorists, but in remains very controversial. Even in the times of economic growth groups or individuals can be symbolically marginalized, and their way of life can be denied.

Turning to the problem of the existence of two levels of hierarchies, the political philosopher Nancy Fraser identifies two interrelated but clearly separated groups of measures aimed at the reproduction and/or transformation of such hierarchies: a redistribution policy and a recognition policy. If the redistribution policy is aimed at more egalitarian distribution of income and social wealth, the recognition policy is aimed at creating a “difference-friendly world, where assimilation to majority or dominant cultural norms is no longer the price of equal respect”.

A logical requirement resulting from the policy of recognition is the need to introduce differentiated citizenship, which can allow recognizing the difference between groups and giving them a different set of rights, to equalize their opportunities for group representation in a nation-wide political community. In this respect, a number of theoreticians favored increasing attention to group rights. For example, philosophers such as Iris M. Young and Jane Mansbridge have pointed out that individuals tend to be dependent on a number of the structural contexts in which they are found, and their identities are largely constituted by the social groups to which they belong. In accordance with this theoretical position Mansbridge put forward the concept of "descriptive representation", which is opposed to the classical model of formal representation. If formal representation implies delegating authority from the group people to their representatives, descriptive representation as an additional condition also presupposes a unity of experience and identity between such group and its representative. According to these theorists, such approach should raise the level of representation of minority interests.

At the same time, it is impossible not to identify the existence of tension between the principles of group requirements (descriptive representation) and the principle of methodological individualism. The potential danger of descriptive representation lies in the possible essential perception of social reality: the imposition of a limited set of characteristics as immanently inherent to all members of a particular group.

Since the early Modernity there is a close association between citizenship and the nation state. According to Rogers Brubaker, the French Revolution replaced the indirect relationship between the individual and the supreme power by direct relations between the citizen and the state, or between citizenship and nationality. In this respect, national identity plays an important role in understanding the phenomenon of citizenship. In particular, it allows us to identify the indirect connection between the form of the nation's imagination and citizenship as a result of state- and nation-building processes. Citizenship was put in the given cultural context, closely connected with the development of institutions. In the modern context, nationality becomes the defining principle for citizenship, as it could bring together disparate groups into a single political community. However, representatives of different groups of national minorities, from indigenous peoples to refugees, do not have the opportunity to political representation and recognition of their way of life. Thus, the division of the concepts of demos and ethnos was carried out, the first of which was related to the entire national community.Nation states largely codified elements of common citizenship, turning them into elements of socialization through the education system, and in tests and ceremonies for the acquisition of citizenship.

Strengthening movements for minority rights has become a major challenge to the above-mentioned relationship of citizenship and ethnic homogenization. However, there is also a connection with the political regime. Authoritarian regimes are clearly less inclined to promote ethno-cultural diversity and include measures to support various minorities into their national legislation. In democracies, we can see the wide dissemination of various territorial and non-territorial mechanisms of ethnic and cultural diversity management that make citizenship more inclusive, creating feelings of belonging to a single political community among members of completely different groups.

It is very promising to check how such patterns manifest themselves in the post-Soviet context, where we have already witnessed lots of ethnically framed conflicts and acts of violence coming to ethnic cleansing, and the national composition of most of the post-Soviet states has changed dramatically in a quarter of a century since the collapse of the USSR.

A significant increase in researchers' interest in the problem of citizenship occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s. During this period of global political transformations (the end of the Cold War, the growth of nationalism in Eastern Europe and in the USSR, the strengthening of the cultural diversity of Western societies, etc.) the theoretical considerations of citizenship have again re-emerged, fueled by the aspiration to overcome the opposition between liberal individualism and communitarianism, as well as between the demands of liberal justice and community membership. As discussed, the dual nature of citizenship as a mechanism for the realization of human rights and the conditions for membership in the political community are well suited for such synthesis. Political theorists who adhere to different political views and methodological positions criticized the passive model of citizenship as a set of rights arising from social status, recognizing the importance of the associated status of identity and active manifestations of civic responsibility. After the formation of a close connection between the theory of citizenship and the concept of a deliberative democracy the possession of citizenship becomes a prerequisite for participation in a decision-making process through dialogue. Attention is being paid to the procedure for political participation by the electoral right to a reasonable dialogue and the deliberation of public problems.

However, such theoretical constructions are not very relevant for the post-Soviet space. In this case, the democratic transit turned out to be very unsuccessful and most of the post-Soviet countries switched to authoritarianism. Integration processes in the post-Soviet space that could lead to the formation of transnational standards of citizenship were also not successful.

Summing up the lengthy debate on citizenship within the framework of political theory, I can distinguish three components of citizenship, all of which combine in different ways to establish a condition of civic equality:

· membership of a democratic political community,

· the collective benefits and rights associated with this membership,

· and participation in the community's political, economic, and social processes (at least an opportunity, or active participation).

The main emphasis in my analysis I make on the first component - membership and/or belonging to the political community; the legal norms that determine who can and who cannot be considered a citizen of particular state. The main emphasis will be placed on formal mechanisms enshrined in national legislation. In this regard, I emphasize the inclusions and exclusions of individuals within the framework of post-Soviet citizenship policies. The issues of inclusions and exclusions of the whole groups (based on the principle of gender, mental conditions, etc.) are not considered in this paper. The only exception I make for ethnic groups, since the study of citizenship is necessary for me to understand the functioning of the mechanisms of ethnic diversity management.

Thus, the focus of my consideration is not a policy of citizenship in a broad sense, but the mechanisms for categorizing representatives of various ethnic groups as citizens [of the post-Soviet states]. In other words, I identify the amount of requirements that are required to acquire and lose this status. I focus on legal citizenship, rather than on a broader concept of social citizenship. This understanding of citizenship is a purely formal aspect, reflected in the legislation of the post-Soviet states (adjusted for particular features of law enforcement practice).

Citizenship is conceptualized as a legal status, which is designed to categorize individuals. At the same time, the normative ideal of active political participation forming the republican ideal of the political community is not taken into consideration here. Although the legislation may prescribe certain requirements for the status of citizens (mainly concerning the conditions of naturalization), they are legal fictions that only partially correspond with normative ideals of citizenship, reflecting the real development of the public sphere.

This approach allows me to analyze the citizenship policy as part of the government policy in the field of state and nation-building through which post-Soviet states provide their principles of ethnic diversity management.

However, this approach has a number of drawbacks that need to be outlined. They include the following issues:

· The main emphasizes is made on structure instead of agency.

· Lack of emphasis on the status of minorities.

· Prevailing description of the special legal reality.

· National legislation does not allow making direct conclusions about hidden status hierarchies.

The common problem of comparative research in the field of citizenship policy is the predominance of a single case analysis or the studies of a limited number of cases. The use of the case studies method in this case allows one to understand the dynamics of the development of citizenship policy in specific countries, but does not allow tracing the variation across a number of countries.

To date, a comparative analysis of the policy of citizenship in the post-Soviet context has not received wide coverage in the literature. Most of the studies are largely concentrated on the total number of post-communist states (including former Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia), or certain aspects of citizenship policy (for example, forced migrations). The study of S. Makaryan (2009) can be mentioned in this regard. In her study the author was able to identify the potential factors that predetermine the transformation of the citizenship policy in the post-Soviet states until 2005. In the article of B. Herzog (2012) the mechanisms of loss of citizenship in post-communist countries were analyzed. It is concluded that most post-communist countries adhere to the traditional conception of citizenship that sees dual citizenship as a violation of the exclusiveness of the national political membership.

At the same time, with regard to the countries of Western Europe, there are much more comparative studies of the citizenship policies. These studies identify the long-term patterns of the transformation of citizenship policy, the predictors of the formation of certain models of citizenship policy, the existence of path dependency, etc. These studies have shown the existence of significant differences between Western European countries in the field of citizenship policy, due to the specifics of their historical development.

Among these studies an important research project of the International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion (IMISCOE) research group can be mentioned. This study was devoted to the mechanisms of acquisition and loss of nationality in the 15 key European states (up to EU enlargements in 2004 and 2007). Another important example is the study of M. Howard The Politics of Citizenship in Europe (2009).

The general conclusion of these studies is that the unified standards of citizenship developed in the course of European integration and the emergence of a multi-level citizenship regime do not have a strong influence on the variablility of national citizenship policies. Some European countries like Sweden or France tend to set much more inclusive rules for the naturalization of immigrants than, for example, Austria or Italy. What is more, the differences between these policies are distributed over a long period of time.

In Howard's study, in particular, some important predictors of the formation of more liberal models of citizenship policy have been singled out. These predictors are clearly identifiable cultural and historical factors, shaping path dependency. They include the early democratization of the respective states (prior to WWI) and the existence of a prolonged colonial experience (with the loss of colonies after WWII). According to Howard, the joint implementation of these conditions leads to the formation of a more liberal model of citizenship policy. For instance, Belgium, France, and the United Kingdom, which correspond to the presence of these factors, tend to have liberal citizenship policies. A different situation is observed in Germany and Italy (which were colonial powers only for a short period of time), or Spain and Portugal (which lost their most important colonies before WWI). At the same time, we can't talk about direct causal relationship, as there are some intermediate cases. However, Howard's study shows that in each case there is a group of factors that determine the degree of openness of the citizenship policy.

Howard introduced The Citizenship Policy Index, based on a series of comparative studies and expert surveys. He identifies three key factors that determine the policy of citizenship, and associates index's components with these factors (which are estimated on a scale from zero to two points). This allows us to get an approximate picture of the state of citizenship policy for a specific country. These factors include:

· Jus Soli (whether individuals receive citizenship if they are born on the territory of the country automatically or after a certain period of residence). Despite the separation of the concepts jus soli and jus sanguinis in the literature within the context of the different ways of imagining the nation, it should be noted that in contemporary states these principles can coexist. Nevertheless, jus sanguinis is the most common basis for granting citizenship by birth (accepted in almost all countries of the world), which makes the presence of jus soli a reliable predictor of a more inclusive model of citizenship policy. However, to date a very small number of countries (including the United States and Canada) is ready to grant citizenship on the basis of jus soli.

· The minimal period of residence for naturalization. This criterion is the main requirement for naturalization in the general order. However, under certain conditions, additional requirements may be imposed for this period. It may be also increase or canceled (for example, in the case of naturalization of an individual having special achievements before a given country). Additional conditions may include knowledge of the country's language and history, good character, the absence of a criminal record, political loyalty etc.

· Multiple citizenship for naturalization of immigrants. It is important that Howard considers the dual citizenship of immigrants, as this factor is directly linked with the requirements for the new citizens.

An important part of the literature on citizenship is related to the theoretical discussion about the cultural conditioning of citizenship policies. As mentioned above, empirical research allows one to identify a certain set of predictors, which determine the variability of the institution of citizenship. In this respect, it is also important to mention the theoretical debates between American sociologist R. Brubaker and French historian P. Weil. These debates are based on the contradiction between the assumption of the cultural conditioning of the citizenship policies, and the assumptions that legal changes are caused by pragmatic factors (such as response to increased mass migrations, adoption of legislative innovations from neighboring states, etc.). R. Brubaker suggested that there is a significant inertia of legal traditions that constitute both the institution of citizenship and migration regimes in a number of European states (his analysis was based on cases of France and Germany). At the same time, his analysis was closely linked to identification of the opposition between the principles of jus sanguinis and jus soli in national legislation. His opponent the French historian P. Weil believed that one cannot identify a clear path dependency in this case. Instead government policy in the field of migration and legal regulation of citizenship are subjected to pragmatic logic.

In general, it can be noted that these theories are not fully mutually exclusive. Although the analysis of Brubaker is based on individual cases, the existence of the historical conditionality of citizenship is confirmed by other studies. Key problem here is linked with the identification of particular causal mechanisms, which may be very diverse, in comparison to coherent conceptions of Brubaker and Weil.

As I have shown in this chapter a large body of literature on citizenship policies allows me to establish a valid research strategy to analyze the trends of post-Soviet states' development.

Chapter 2

2.1 Research Design

The goal of this study is to identify the main trends in the development of citizenship policy in post-Soviet countries and the key differences between them in this regard.

It is important to note that when studying national legislation, we are dealing with a special kind of "legal reality", only partly correlated with the actual state of affairs. A number of practices related to citizenship may not be fully regulated by national legislation. This issue should be considered as one of the potential limitations of my structural analysis.

In this study, I formulate three hypotheses that are subject to verification.

H1: Unique institutional trajectory of post-Soviet states in comparison with Western European countries should lead to a different character of the models of citizenship policy in the post-Soviet space.

Features of Western European countries:

· Long experience of independent statehood.

· Relatively early democratization.

· Many countries had the experience of colonialism.

· Sustainability of legal systems.

Features of the post-Soviet countries:

· Long period of being a part of one state (Russia Empire, USSR).

· The experience of independent statehood (as nation-states) is very short (mainly during the period of the Civil War in Russia), or completely absent (Central Asia).

· Democratization fully occurred only during the "third wave" of democratization (in connection with the authoritarian backlash of the Baltic states in the 1930s), but in most cases democratic transition wasn't successful.

H2: There is an association between a democratic political regime and a more inclusive citizenship policy.

H3: There is an association between ethnic homogeneity and a more inclusive citizenship policy.

In this study, I use the methodology of the studies of Baubцck et al. (2005) and Howard (2009) for the EU-15. In my case, I will use the approach of the authors of these studies to analyze 15 post-Soviet countries. The methodology of this study will be aimed at describing the logic of the transformation of the citizenship policy and identifying the main trends within the entire post-Soviet space. Individual cases will not be investigated, but national legislation will be evaluated to identify key features, similarities and differences between countries.

In this respect, I am going to combine Howard's Citizenship Policy Index and the methodology for studying legislation on the acquisition and loss of citizenship provided by the IMISCOE.

However, due to a number of limitations, I will introduce into the initial methodology a number of changes, which are described below.

2.1.1 The Citizenship Policy Index

The index consists of the sum of the adjusted indicators of the three above-mentioned components. Each indicator can get a value from 0 to 2 points. Thus, the maximum value of the index is 6 points. Detailed coding of the index variables can be found in Appendix I.

· Jus Soli (js_cpi). This indicator reflects the presence of the possibility of obtaining citizenship to persons born on the territory of a given country. This right can be granted both automatically after the birth of the individual, and after a certain period of time. In connection with this, the indicator is collected from two separate elements: jus soli at birth and jus soli after birth. Jus soli at birth can take values ??from 0 (absence of this right) to 2 (full implementation of this right without additional requirement). An intermediate value of 1 point may be associated with the so-called double jus soli, which assumes the birth of one of the parents of the individual on the territory of the country. Jus soli after birth allows an individual born on the territory of a given country to obtain citizenship after reaching a certain age (for example, the age of majority). This can happen automatically, or it may be necessary to submit an application to the competent government agencies. If the country grants this right, it receives 2 points for this indicator. Otherwise, it gets 0 points. The final score is the averaged scores of jus soli at birth and jus soli after birth.

· Naturalization Requirements (nt_cpi). This indicator reflects the complexity of the naturalization process for obtaining citizenship. The basic element constituting this indicator is the minimum duration of the term of permanent residence in the country, necessary for obtaining citizenship. This period is calculated for an immigrant wishing to obtain citizenship of the country, and for an individuals in marital relations with a citizen of the country (in the second case, usually, the term of permanent residence is reduced). The indicator for immigrants takes value of 0 points, if the period of permanent residence is 10 years or more; 1 point, if this period is from 4 to 9 years; and 2 points, if this period is 3 years or less. In case of spousal naturalization, countries receive 0 points if the duration of permanent residence is 7 years and more; 0,5 points, if 6 years; 1 point if 5 years; 1.5 points, if 4 years; and 2 points, if 3 years or less. These indicators should also be adjusted due to the possible presence in the legislation of additional conditions for naturalization associated with "civic integration" (compulsory knowledge of language and history, citizenship tests, the absence of a criminal record, etc.). The indicators of immigrant naturalization and spousal naturalization are treated separately here, since the requirements of civic integration can be entered separately for these categories of immigrants. If such conditions are sufficiently restrictive, the corresponding indicator is reduced by 0.5 points. If the conditions are present, but are not extremely restrictive, the score is reduced by 0.25 points. If, after correction, the corresponding indicator is negative, it is considered to be equal to zero. After the correction, the final indicator of naturalization requirements is calculated, which is the average of the two adjusted intermediate indicators.

· Multiple Citizenship for Immigrants (mult_cpi). The multiple citizenship for immigrants has long been considered unacceptable, since it could produce "loyalty conflicts" between different jurisdictions. However, over time, the situation began to change, and now this practice is frequent. At the same time, the poor quality of institutions can facilitate the possibility of immigrants retaining their previous citizenship, not because the absence of restrictions, but due to the absence of reliable mechanisms for monitoring the status of a citizen. In the post-Soviet context, the practice of non-recognition of multiple citizenship has become widespread, when immigrants are not required to renounce their former citizenship, but its presence does not matter to the state authorities. If the multiple citizenship for immigrants is banned, the country receives 0 points for this indicator. If such a prohibition is present, but there may be some exceptions (for example, when acquiring citizenship because of special achievements, or imperfection of control mechanisms), the country receives 0.5 points. If the country does not recognize the existence of multiple citizenship, but this fact does not play any role in existing legal relations, the country receives from 1 to 1.5 points (depending on the prevalence of such cases). Finally, if the state allows multiple citizenship for immigrants, it receives 2 points for this indicator. For correction, the total score is multiplied by 0.5 so that its weight does not exceed the weights of other index indicators.

The original methodology assumed the use of the naturalization rate, which is the ratio of the number of naturalizations for a given year to the number of residents (foreigners and stateless) residing in the territory of a given country in the same year. Unlike the EU-15, where the Eurostat data collected since 2007 is available, most post-Soviet countries do not collect any reliable data on the naturalization rate. Therefore, to correct the last indicator, I multiplied it by 0.5.

This does not allow me to compare post-Soviet countries and EU-15 (because the scales of indexes are different). However, this task was not initially set.

Calculation of the CPI allows me to trace the dynamics of the transformation of the most important provisions of national legislation related to the citizenship policies.

2.1.2 Models of Acquisition and Loss of Nationality

In the context of this study, I view membership as a key characteristic of citizenship. To be a citizen means to belong to a certain political community, an exact nation state. In this regard, the main emphasis I make on the definition of the legal status of the citizen, namely, the requirements for acquisition and loss of citizenship that regulate this legal status. In this case, the government determines the criteria that allow individuals to fully participate in the political process.

Therefore, another part of the methodology that I am going to use is based on the findings of a collective study conducted by Baubцck et al. (2005). As I pointed out in the previous chapter, in this study, the authors singled out 27 modes for obtaining citizenship and 15 modes for the loss of citizenship and carried out an analysis of the citizenship policy in the EU-15, including with reference to these modes.

In this section I will elaborate their research strategy that I will use to classify the policy of citizenship of the post-Soviet countries. Each country can combine a certain number of these modes (ideally all of them (27 + 15), but such a case is almost impossible).

Modes for the acquisition of citizenship are divided into 2 groups (acquisition of citizenship at birth and acquisition of citizenship after birth) and 7 sub-groups, which are listed below.

· Jus Sanguinis at birth.

· Jus Soli at birth.

· Birthright based models (jus sanguinis / jus soli after birth).

· Basic residence based models (naturalization after a basic period of residence).

· Family relation based models.

· Affinity based models (special ethnicity/religion, compatriots, etc.).

· Other targeted models (refuges, stateless persons, persons with special achievements, etc.).

Modes of loss of citizenship are divided into three groups:

· Renunciation of nationality.

· Loss of citizenship due to legal relations with a foreign country on its territory.

· Deprivation of citizenship due to legal relations with a foreign state, regardless of location.

Identification of these modes allows me to trace specific features of citizenship policies in each country and find out a number of trends in their development.

2.2 Data collection

Following the research studies of Baubцck et al. (2005) and Howard (2009) I collected data on citizenship policies in post-Soviet states. For a dynamic analysis of the transformation of the citizenship policy of 15 post-Soviet countries, I examined in detail the legislation of these countries for three time periods. I took the following time points: December 31, 1995; December 31, 2005; and May 1, 2018. Such choice of the first time point can be explained by the adoption of systematic national legislation on citizenship in all post-Soviet countries to the present period (the last countries to systematize their regulation of this aspect, were Estonia and Armenia). The choice of the second time point is explained by its median position for the entire post-Soviet history of the newly independent states, as well as the adoption of amendments to a number of citizenship laws in 2005. The last time point reflects the current state of affairs.

In total, I analyzed 41 documents, including constitutions, citizenship laws and laws on the status of foreigners, for the existence of provisions on citizenship policies. These provisions were subsequently coded according to the procedures detailed in Appendices I, V and VI.

Finally, I calculated CPI values for three periods, and also profiles of acquisition and loss of citizenship for each of these periods. A detailed description of these indicators is reflected in Appendices I-VIII.

I also calculated CPI for late Soviet citizenship (1990) and considered this case during the identification of the modes of acquiring and losing citizenship.

The following sections detail the specifics of analyzed legislation by country (including the late Soviet citizenship).

2.2.1 The Late Soviet Citizenship

Soviet citizenship is regulated by the provisions of the USSR Constitution of 1977 and the citizenship law. The last edition of the law was adopted on May 23, 1991 . In accordance with the Constitution and the Citizenship Law, allied citizenship was established in the USSR. Every citizen of a union republic is also a citizen of the USSR. Every citizen of an autonomous republic was also a citizen of a union republic, which includes an autonomous republic, and a citizen of the USSR. Thus, the multi-stage system of Soviet federalism was reflected in the policy of citizenship. The Soviet system was well characterized by R. Brubaker as a model of "institutionalized multinationality". This model combined the institutionalization of both territorial nationhood and ethno-cultural nationality as basic cognitive and social categories. The bondage of ethnic groups ("nationalities") to a certain territory on which they had national autonomy (SSRs and ASSRs) led to the emergence of separate citizenships in these republics. The citizenship of the union republics was determined by the citizenship laws of the union republic. However, since this republics had no real sovereignty, such citizenship played a nominal role.

As for the union-level citizenship, by the time of the breakup of the Soviet Union it was already quite inclusive. The value of CPI is two points, mainly due to the inclusive conditions of citizenship acquisition, without a large number of additional conditions, as well as the necessary period of residence in the country. Such inclusiveness is a feature of the Soviet state, which declared its adherence to the values of social equality.

Here the above mentioned contradiction arises between legal documents and law enforcement practice. Actually, the mechanisms of expatriation of politically unreliable individuals and certain ethnic groups (for example, Jews) were widely used. Admission to citizenship also involved checking potential candidates for their allegiance.

2.2.2 Post-Soviet States Citizenship Legislation

Anyway, due to the specificity of Soviet citizenship, it found little reflection in the development of the citizenship of the post-Soviet states, which are coding for state-and nation-building processes. The post-Soviet states took a course either to create a new legislation of citizenship, or to restore state continuity with some previous legal norms in this field. At the same time, the key feature of the laws of the early 1990s was the inclusion of provisions on defining people who can be considered citizens of these states (for example, by the presence of a residence permit, by the right of registration, by ethnicity ("nationality"), etc.) . There were even contradictions between the legislations of some countries, because they could recognize the same persons as their citizens. But at the same time, the need to provide ethnic homogenization through creating privileges for representatives of certain ethnic groups and creating incentives for squeezing out the representatives of other ethnic groups became more frequent. The most obvious example of such a policy is the emergence of a category of "non-citizens" in Latvia and Estonia.

In later laws, the initial principles of recognition of citizenship of certain categories of individuals were excluded, but in several countries these principles are still preserved.

2.2.2.1 Armenia

The emergence of contemporary independent Armenia was accompanied by the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, which is currently not resolved and is in somewhat “frozen” condition. Contemporary Armenian society can be described in terms of transition to “postnationalist” politics. This issue can be related to fact that contemporary Armenia is one of the ethnically homogeneous nation-states in the world. After significant demographic changes of the times of the Soviet collapse, accompanied by ethnic tensions and conflict, Armenia provides a civic version of nation-building, trying to smooth out the existing ethnic and cultural cleavages.