The Syrian Turkmen actorness in the framework of a post-imperial nation-state

The article focuses on the issue of minorities political actorness during the current armed conflict in Syria. The author speculates on why a country where the ethno-confessional structure of the population has not changed significantly for decades, suddenly faced an intensive politicization of communal identities. The tested hypothesis is that this has emerged from a long process of the state capacities weakening both in the territorial and functional aspects. In this context, the author studies the community of Syrian Turkmen, the third largest ethnocultural group in the country. The selection of this case was guided not only by a lack of relevant in-depth studies, but also by the group's self-identification as a part of the Turkic (Ottoman) world. The application of “Brubaker's triangle” as an analytical tool made it possible to view the nationalism of such minorities in relation to the policies of the “nationalizing state” and “external national homeland”. The study involves analysis of (a) the system of regulation of socio-cultural pluralism in the Ottoman Empire, (b) the peculiarities of stateand nation-building in Syria and (c) the process of Turkmen community politicization during the civil conflict. It is concluded that its political actorness was formed due to such factors as violation of the “social contract” between the ruling elite and the population during the period of neoliberal reforms, the “external homeland” (Turkey’s) support, as well as the persistence of mechanisms of tribal solidarity and self-government among the Turkmen, which allowed them to partially implement the project of cultural autonomy in Northern Syria. 

1. Ayubi N.N. Over-stating the Arab state: politics and society in the Middle East. London, New York: I.B. Tauris, 2008, 514 p.

2. Barkey K., Hagen M. von (eds). After empire. Multiethnic societies and nationbuilding: the Soviet Union and the Russian, Ottoman, and Habsburg empire. Boulder: Westview press, 1997, 211 p.

3. Barkey K. Empire of difference: the Ottomans in comparative perspective. New York: Cambridge univ. press, 2008, 342 p.

4. Barkey K., Gavrilis G. The Ottoman millet system: non-territorial autonomy and its contemporary legacy. Ethnopolitic. 2016, Vol. 15, N 1, P. 24–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2015.1101845

5. Belhaj S., de Elvira Carrascal L.R. Sectarianism and civil conflict in Syria: reconfigurations of a reluctant issue. In: Kraetzschmar H., Rivetti P. (eds). Islamists and the politics of the Arab uprisings: governance, pluralisation and contention. Edinburgh: Edinburgh univ. press, 2018, P. 322–340.

6. Belokrenitsky V.Y., Naumkin V.Y. (eds). History of the East: Vol. 6: The East in the modern period (1945–2000). Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura, 2008, 1095 p. (In Russ.)

7. Brubaker R. Nationalism reframed. Nationhood and the national question in the New Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge univ. press, 2009, 220 p.

8. Byman D. Sectarianism afflicts the New Middle East. Survival. 2014, Vol. 56, N 1, P. 79–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2014.882157

9. Hinnebusch R. Empire and state formation contrary tangents in Jordan and Syria. In: Cummings S.N., Hinnebusch R. (eds). Sovereignty after empire: comparing the Middle East and Central Asia. Edinburgh: Edinburgh univ. press, 2011, P. 262–280. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9780748643042.003.0012

10. Hinnebusch R. Identity and state formation in multi-sectarian societies: Between nationalism and sectarianism in Syria. Nations and nationalism. 2020, Vol. 26, N 1, P. 138–154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12582

11. Karpat K. The Ottoman ethnic and confessional legacy in the Middle East. In: Esman M.J., Rabinovich I. (eds). Ethnicity, pluralism, and the state in the Middle East. Ithaca, London: Cornell univ. press, 1988, P. 35–53.

12. Karpat K. The politicization of Islam: reconstructing identity, state, faith, and community in the late Ottoman state. New York: Oxford univ. press, 2001, 544 p.

13. Kozintsev A.S. A fight for the state: Syrian crisis through the lens of center-periphery relations. Political science (RU). 2018, N 4, P. 223–240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2018.04.11 (In Russ.)

14. Kudryashova I.V., Kozintsev A.S. Institutional solutions for sectarian conflicts in the Middle East in the context of imperial legacy. Political science (RU). 2021, N 2, P. 140–164. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.31249/poln/2021.02.05 (In Russ.)

15. Kudryashova I.V. Militant sectarianism and the nation-state in the region of the Middle East and North Africa: on the methodology of researching new conflicts. In. Shibanova N.A (ed.). Management of regional conflicts in the context of digitalization of modern society: methodology and implementation practices. Kazan: Kazan univ. publishing house, 2021, P. 223–231. (In Russ.)

16. Kuznetsov V.A. Strengthening of statehood in the Middle East in the context of the theory of the social orders. Vostok (Oriens). 2018, N 3, P. 6–23. DOI 10.7868/S0869190818030019 (In Russ.)

17. Lust E. Institutions and governance. In: Lust E. (ed.). The Middle East. Washington, DC: CQ press, 2011, 12 th edition, P. 143–192.

18. Meleshkina E. Yu. Post-imperial spaces: peculiarities of state and nation-building. Political science (RU). 2013, N 3, P. 10–29. (In Russ.)

19. Naumkin V.V. Right-sizing and right-peopling: the Middle East challenges. Polis. Political studies. 2019, N 6, P. 67–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2019.06.06 (In Russ.)

20. Tilly Ch. How empires end. In: Barkey K., Hagen M. von. (eds). After empire. Multiethnic societies and nation-building: the Soviet Union and the Russian, Ottoman and Habsburg empires. Boulder, CO: Westview press, 1997, P. 1–11.

21. Zvyagelskaya I.D. (ed.). The Middle East: politics and identity. Moscow: Aspect Press, 2020, 336 p. (In Russ.)