Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:37:06.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “Pugachev Rebellion” in the Context of Post-Soviet Kazakh Nationalization*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Michele E. Commercio
Michele E. Commercio*
Affiliation:
Political Science Department, University of Pennsylvania, USA, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Freedom from the Soviet empire created an opportunity for elites of each former Soviet Socialist Republic to “nationalize” their newly independent state. Most observers of contemporary Kazakh politics would agree that Kazakhstan has taken advantage of this historic opportunity, and can thus be classified as a nationalizing state. For Rogers Brubaker, a nationalizing state is perceived by its elites as a nation-state of and for a particular nation, but simultaneously as an “incomplete” or “unrealized” nation-state. To resolve this problem of incompleteness and to counteract perceived discrimination, Brubaker argues, “nationalizing elites urge and undertake action to promote the language, culture, demographic preponderance, economic flourishing, or political hegemony of the core ethnocultural nation.” While the foundation of any Soviet successor state's nationalization program is a cluster of implemented formal policies that privilege the titular nation, these policies are often reinforced by informal practices, primarily discriminatory personnel practices, with the same function. Much has been written about Kazakhstan's nationalization strategy, and not surprisingly scholars rely on what they know about formal policies and informal practices to characterize that strategy. Little has been written, however, about the “Pugachev Rebellion” in Ust'-Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan, and nothing has been written about the relationship between the official Kazakh reaction to what I call the “Pugachev incident,” and Kazakhstan's nationalization strategy in general. This article sorts out confusing events surrounding the Pugachev incident, and offers an interpretation of the official Kazakh reaction, which is best understood when situated in the broader context of Kazakh nationalization, to the incident.

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , March 2004 , pp. 87 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 Association for the Study of Nationalities 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Rogers Brubaker, Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. See, for example, Ian Bremmer, “Nazarbaev and the North: State-Building and Ethnic Relations in Kazakhstan,” Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 17, No. 4, 1994, pp. 619–635; Anatoly M. Khazanov, “The Ethnic Problems of Contemporary Kazakhstan,” Central Asian Survey, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1995, pp. 243–264; Neil Melvin, Russians beyond Russia: The Politics of National Identity (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1995); Robert Kaiser and Jeff Chinn, “Russian-Kazakh Relations in Kazakhstan,” Post-Soviet Geography, Vol. 36, No. 5, 1995, pp. 257–273; Rogers Brubaker, Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); Martha Brill Olcott, “Kazakhstan: Pushing for Eurasia,” in Ian Bremmer and Ray Taras, eds, New States, New Politics: Building the Post-Soviet Nations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 547–570; and Sue Davis and Steven O. Sabol, “The Importance of Being Ethnic: Minorities in Post-Soviet States—The Case of Russians in Kazakstan,” Nationalities Papers, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1998, pp. 473^91.Google Scholar

3. Unfortunately Olcott's discussion of the Pugachev incident is brief. Martha Brill Olcott, Kazakhstan: Unfulfilled Promise (Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2002), p. 79.Google Scholar

4. Pauline Jones Loung, Institutional Change and Political Continuity in Post-Soviet Central Asia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Kratkie Itogi Perepisi Naseleniia 1999 Goda v Respublike Kazakhstan (Almaty: Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan for Statistics, 1999), p. 103.Google Scholar

6. In comparison, of the 742,765 Kazakhs who reside in East Kazakhstan, 86% speak Russian. Natsional'nyi Sostav Naseleniia Respubliki Kazakhstan, 2 Tom: Itogi Perepisi Naseleniia 1999 Goda v Respublike Kazakhstan (Almaty: Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan for Statistics, 2000), p. 86.Google Scholar

7. In 1920 the Kirgiz Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was part of Russia. Personal interview with Aleksandr Alekseenko Nikolaevich, Director of the Scientific Research Institute of Demography at the East Kazakhstan State University, 18 July 2000.Google Scholar

8. Ingvar Svanberg, “Kazakhs,” in Graham Smith, ed., The Nationalities Question in the Soviet Union (London: Longman, 1990), p. 202; Martha Brill Olcott, The Kazakhs (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1997), p. 302.Google Scholar

9. Ian Murray Matley, “The Population and the Land,” in Edward Allworth, ed., Central Asia: 130 Years of Russian Dominance, A Historical Overview (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1994), p. 107.Google Scholar

10. The Kazakh census provides population statistics for each oblast, but not for cities within each oblast. Population and migration statistics were obtained from the Informational-Statistical Center of East Kazakhstan in Ust'-Kamenogorsk.Google Scholar

11. In 1989 Russians comprised 37.4% of Kazakhstan's total population. The 7.4% decrease in the size of Kazakhstan's Russian population is due primarily to emigration. Kratkie Itogi Perepisi Naseleniia 1999 Goda v Respublike Kazakhstan (Almaty: Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan for Statistics, 1999), p. 11.Google Scholar

12. In the fall of 1773, during the reign of Catherine the Great, a Cossack by the name of Emelian Pugachev led aggrieved Ural Cossacks in a rebellion against tsarist authorities. Pugachev's movement spread beyond the Urals, and eventually became a mass rebellion that encompassed workers, serfs, and other minority groups. The rebellion ended in late 1774 with the defeat of Pugachev's troops, and Pugachev's escape to the Urals. Ultimately Pugachev was handed over to the authorities, then tried and executed in Moscow. Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, A History of Russia (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), pp. 260–261.Google Scholar

13. V. Vologodskii, “Ust'-Kamenogorsk Putchit,” Ustinika, 26 November 1999, p. 5.Google Scholar

14. Tat'iana Bendz', “Perevorot—Khronika Ust'-Kamenogorskova Dela,” Ekspress K, 8 December 1999, p. 3.Google Scholar

15. Unless otherwise noted, all translations are mine. Dmitrii Vinnik, “Ispoved’ Russkikh Terroristov,” Ustinika, 26 November 1999, p. 4.Google Scholar

16. Tat'iana Bendz', “Perevorot—Khronika Ust'-Kamenogorskova Dela,” Ekspress K, 8 December 1999, p. 3.Google Scholar

17. Vikroriia Shevchenko, “Podrobnosti v Poiskakh Gerostratovoi Slavy, Pribil v Ust'-Kamenogorsk Terrorist Kazimirchuk-Pugachev,” Kazakhstanskaia Pravda, 27 January 2000, p. 4.Google Scholar

18. Mira Alipinova, “Pugachev Zadumal Miatezh, Chtoby Proslavit'sia,” Rudnyi Altai, 29 January 2000, p. 2.Google Scholar

19. Personal interview, 19 July 2000.Google Scholar

20. Most likely Pugachev and a few recruits initially came to Ust'-Kamenogorsk in April or May 1998. It is reported that Pugachev talked openly about secession during this visit, which was a year and a half before the November 1999 arrest. Valentina Dudkova, “Razboinik Byl v BKO eshche Poltora Goda Nazad,” Ekspress K, 30 November 1999, p. 2; Nikolai Ivanov, “Nikoai Ivanov: Pugachev—Eto Stoprotsentnyi Provokator,” Ustinka, 3 December 1999, p. 4. Kazakhstan's Committee on National Security claims that Kazimirchuk and his comrades visited East Kazakhstan at least three times before the arrest. Tat'iana Bendz', “Perevorot—Khronika Ust'-Kamenogorskova Dela,” Ekspress K, 8 December 1999, p. 3.Google Scholar

21. Dmitrii Vinnik, “Ispoved’ Russkikh Terroristov,” Ustinika, 26 November 1999, p. 4.Google Scholar

22. Vladimir Bogovitskii, “Zaderzhana Groupa Rossiian, Gotovivshikhsia Sozdat’ v BKO Avtonomiiu ‘Russkii Altai,'” Panorama, 26 November 1999, p. 6.Google Scholar

23. Andrei Kratenko, “K Pugachevu Shli, v Tom Chisle po Lybvi …” Ekspress K, 27 January 2000, p. 1.Google Scholar

24. O. Ushakova, “Pugachev Sbril Borodu po Premeru Radueva,” Ustinka, 24 March 2000, p. 4; Mira Alipinova, “Sud Nad Pugachevym Budet Otkrytym,” Rudnyi Altai, 25 March 2000, p. 3.Google Scholar

25. Viktoriia Shevchenko, “Perevorot ne Sostoialsia,” Rudnyi Altai, 23 November 1999, p. 1.Google Scholar

26. Andrei Kratenko, “Pugachev—Eto Tol'ko Klichka,” Ekspress K, 24 November 1999, p.1.Google Scholar

27. “Politicheskaia Stabil'nost’ Pod Ugrozoi?” Nashe Delo, 25 November 1999, p. 5; Mira Alipinova, “Chas Iks Dlia Pugacheva Probil Ran'she,” Rudnyi Altai, 25 November 1999, p. 1.Google Scholar

28. “Bunt Pugachevu ne Udalsia,” Na Strazhe, 25 November 1999, p. 1; “Zagovor, Kotorova ne Bylo,” Novoe Pokalenie, 26 November 1999, p. 1.Google Scholar

29. V. Mette is the Akim, or governor, of East Kazakhstan. See the Akim's short speech, “Uvazhaemue Vostochnokazakhstantsy!” Rudnyi Altai, 25 November 1999, p. 1.Google Scholar

30. Ugolovnyi Kodeks Respubliki Kazakhstan (Almaty: Iurist, 2000), Article 168, p. 60.Google Scholar

31. Viktoriia Shevchenko, “Podrobnosti v Poiskakh Gerostratovoi Slavy, Pribil v Ust'-Kamenogorsk Terrorist Kazimirchuk-Pugachev,” Kazakhstanskaia Pravda, 27 January 2000, p. 4. Ugolovnyi Kodeks Respubliki Kazakhstan (Almaty: Iurist, 2000), Article 170, p. 61, Article 251, p. 91.Google Scholar

32. Mira Alipinova, “Chas Iks Dlia Pugacheva Probil Ran'she,” Rudnyi Altai, 25 November 1999, p. 1. Ugolovnyi Kodeks Respubliki Kazakhstan (Almaty: Iurist, 2000), Article 235, p. 86.Google Scholar

33. O. Ushakova, “Pugachev Sbril Borodu po Premeru Radueva,” Ustinka, 24 March 2000, p. 4.Google Scholar

34. I was unable to find information on Judge's Margarita Kislova's background.Google Scholar

35. Mira Alipinova, “Sud Nad Pugachevym Budet Otkrytym,” Rudnyi Altai, 25 March 2000, p. 3.Google Scholar

36. Sergei Vasil'ev, “Otkrytyi Sud v Krytom Tsentrale,” Ustinka, 14 April 2000, p. 3.Google Scholar

37. Andrei Kratenko, “K Pugachevu Shli, v Tom Chisle po Lybvi …” Ekspress K, 27 January 2000, p. 1.Google Scholar

38. Sergei Vasil'ev, “Konets ‘Pugachevshchiny,'” Ustinka, 26 May 2000, p. 5; personal interview with Kazimirchuk's defense attorney, Sergei Mikhailovich Suprun, 19 July 2000.Google Scholar

39. Vasil'ev, “Konets ‘Pugachevshchiny,'” p. 5.Google Scholar

40. Mira Alipinova, “Vynecen Prigovor,” Rudnyi Altai, 10 June 2000, p. 1. Given that there were 143 tenge to the U.S. dollar in early 2000, Pugachev's fine is equivalent to roughly U.S.$2,535.Google Scholar

41. Sergei Vasil'ev, “Protsess Zavershen,” Ustinka, 16 June 2000, p. 3.Google Scholar

42. Kazakhstan's legal system is based on three levels of authority: the district court, the oblast court, and the supreme court, which is located in Astana. The oblast court verifies the legality of the district trial, serving primarily as a supervisory court, and has the right to change a decision of a district trial only in favor of the convicted. Personal interview, Sergei Mikhailovich Suprun, 19 July 2000.Google Scholar

43. G. Vologodskaia, “Vostochno-Kazakhstanskii Sud Peresmotrel Sroki ‘Pugachevtsam,'” Ustinka, 14 July 2000, p. 3.Google Scholar

44. Vladimir Sergeev, “Pugachevtsy Otmotaiut Srok v Kazakhstane,” Novoe Pokolenie, 28 January 2000, p. 1. Although President Putin occasionally appealed to President Nazarbaev on behalf of the accused, he did not interfere with the legal proceedings.Google Scholar

45. Although I do not have data on the effect of informal nationalization practices on Russians in Ust'-Kamenogorsk, extensive research I conducted in Almaty indicates that Russians are highly dissatisfied with Kazakh nationalization, and in particular with informal discriminatory personnel practices. Interview data suggest that informal personnel practices greatly disadvantage Russians, and thus create a widespread sense of perceived ethnic discrimination among Almaty Russians.Google Scholar

46. Zakon Respubliki Kazakhstan o Grazhdanstve Respubliki Kazakhstan, 20 December 1991, Article 3.Google Scholar

47. The right to hold dual citizenship is denied in the Law on Citizenship (Article 3), and all three Constitutions: 1993, Article 4; 1995, Article 10; 1998, Article 10.Google Scholar

48. Konstitutsiia Respubliki Kazakhstan, 28 January 1993, Article 4.Google Scholar

49. Zakon Kazkhskoi Sovetskoi Sotsialisticheskoi Respubliki o Iazykakh v Kazakhskoi SSR, 22 September 1989, Article 1.Google Scholar

50. Ibid., Article 2.Google Scholar

51. Ibid., Articles 8, 10, 13, 16.Google Scholar

52. Postanovlenie Kabineta Ministrov Respubliki Kazakhstan o Khode Realizatsii Gosudarstvennoi Programmy Razvitiia Kazakhskogo Iazyka i Drugikh Natsional'hykh Iazykov v Respublike Kazakhstan na Period do 2000 goda, 21 January 1992, point 2.Google Scholar

53. This research was conducted by the Informational-Analytical Center of Parliament, and the State Committee for National Policies. M. M. Arenov and S. Kalmykov, “Sovremennaia Iazykovaia Situatsiia v Respublike Kazakhstan,” Saiasat, No. 1, 1997, p. 22.Google Scholar

54. By contrast, 75% of Kazakhs in Kazakhstan claim knowledge of two or more languages. Itogi Perepisi Naseleniia 1999 goda v Respublike Kazakshtan: Naseleniia Respubliki Kazakhstan po Natsional'nostiam i Vladeniiu Iazykami (Almaty: Agency for Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2000), p. 6.Google Scholar

55. Konstitutsiia Respubliki Kazakhstan, 28 January 1993, eighth point of the section entitled “Bases of Constitutional Formation.”Google Scholar

56. Konstitutsiia Respubliki Kazakhstan, 30 August 1995, Article 7; Konstitutsiia Respubliki Kazakhstan, 7 October 1998, Article 7.Google Scholar

57. The Kazakh Constitution does not, however, demand that parliamentary deputies be fluent in the state language. Ibid., Articles 41, 51, 58.Google Scholar

58. Italics mine. Rasporiazhenie Prezidenta Respubliki Kazakhstan o Kontseptsii Iazykovoi Politiki Respubliki Kazakhstan, 4 November 1996, p. 1.Google Scholar

59. When necessary, Russian may be used on an equal basis with Kazakh in state organs, agencies of local administration, official documentation, responses to citizen appeals, and legal proceedings. Ibid., Article 5.Google Scholar

60. Ibid., Article 23.Google Scholar

61. Zakon Respubliki Kazakhstan o Iazykakh v Respublike Kazakhstan, 11 July 1997, Article 4.Google Scholar

62. Ibid. Google Scholar

63. Postanovlenie Pravitel'stva o Gosudarstvennoi Terminologicheskoi Komissiii Pre Pravitel'stve Respubliki Kazakhstan, 21 April 1998.Google Scholar

64. Postanovlenie Pravitel'stva o Rasshirenii Sfery Upotrebleniia Gosudarstvennogo Iazyka v Gosudarstvennykh Organakh, 14 August 1998.Google Scholar

65. Ukaz Prezidenta Respubliki Kazakhstan o Gosudarstvennaia Programma Funktsionirovaniia i Razvitiia lakykov, 5 October 1998.Google Scholar

66. It should be noted that linguistic nationalization has not penetrated Kazakhstan's educational system. Since 1989 formal policy has permitted Kazakh and Russian instruction in institutes of education. An analysis of informal practices, however, may reveal a different story.Google Scholar

67. Ian Bremmer and Cory Welt, “Kazakhstan's Quandary,” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1995, p. 142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

68. Taras Kuzio, “History, Memory and Nation Building in the Post-Soviet Colonial Space,” Nationalities Papers, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2002, p. 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69. Ian Bremmer, “Nazarbaev and the North: State-Building and Ethnic Relations in Kazakhstan,” Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 17, No. 4, 1994, pp. 619–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

70. Elena Brusilovskaia, “Poligon Dlia Demokratii,” Argumenti i Fakti, No. 4, 2000, p. 3.Google Scholar

71. Pal Kolsto, Political Construction Sites: Nation-Building in Russia and the Post-Soviet States (Boulder: Westview Press, 2000), p. 131.Google Scholar

72. “Problemy Pereselentsev—Problemy Gosudarstva,” Kazakhstanskaia Pravda, 27 May, 1998, p. 1.Google Scholar

73. Bremmer, “Nazarbaev and the North.”Google Scholar

74. Roughly 500,000 Kazakhs abandoned their homeland in reaction to the 1916 uprising, 1917 revolution and civil war, early 1920s famine, and 1930s forced collectivization and denomadization. Anatoly M. Khazanov, “Ethnic Problems of Contemporary Kazakhstan,” Central Asian Survey, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1995, p. 246.Google Scholar

75. For example, the quota in 1993 was 10,000 families, in 1994 it was 7,000 families, in 1995 it was 5,000 families, in 1996 it was 4,000 families, in 1997 it was 2,180 families, and in 1998 it was 3,000 families. The 1993–1996 figures are from Erlan Karin and Andrei Chebatarev, “The Policy of Kazakhization in State and Government Institutions in Kazakhstan,” in The Nationalities Question in Post-Soviet Kazakhstan (Chiba, Japan: Institute of Developing Economies, 2002), pp. 95. The 1997 and 1998 figures are from presidential decrees issued in 1997 and 1998, respectively. Ukaz Prezidenta Respubliki Kazakhstan o Kvote Immigratsii na 1997 god, 27 March 1997, and Ukaz Prezidenta Respubliki Kazakhstan o Kvote Immigratsii na 1998 god, 3 April 1997.Google Scholar

76. Elena Iur'evna Sadovskaia, “Vneshniaia Migratsiia v Respublike Kazakkhstan v 1990-e gody: Prichiny, Posledstviia, Prognoz,” Tsentral'naia Aziia iKul'tura Mira, No. 1, 1998, p. 57.Google Scholar

77. Postonavlenie Kabineta Ministrov Respubliki Kazakhstan o Merakh po Realizatsii Postonovleniia Verkhovhogo Soveta Respubliki Kazakhstan “O Vvedenii v Deistvie Zakona Respubliki Kazakhstan ‘Ob Immigratsii,'” 15 December 1992, see Polozhenie o Departmente po Migratsii Naseleniia, point 4.Google Scholar

78. Postonavlenie Kabineta Ministrov Respubliki Kazakhstan ob Utverzhdenii Poriadka Sozdaniia Immigratsionnogo Zemel'nogo Fonda, 2 August 1994, point 2.Google Scholar

79. Ukaz Prezidenta Respubliki Kazakhstan ob Osnovnykh Napravleniiakh Migratsionnoi Politiki do 2000 goda, 19 March 1997.Google Scholar

80. Zakon Respubliki Kazakhstan o Migratsii Naseleniia, 13 December 1997, Article 29.Google Scholar

81. It should be noted that, despite state assistance, immigrant Kazakhs confront numerous problems in Kazakhstan. Many immigrants are unable to secure homes and jobs, partly because they do not speak Russian or Kazakh. For example, in 1998, 4,700 families who had returned to Kazakhstan lacked housing, and 54% of the immigrants that year were unable to find a job. Interview with Zautbek Turisbekov, Chairman of the Agency for Migration and Demography, Argumenty i Fakty, No. 46, 1998, p. 3. In addition, many returning Kazakhs lack Kazakh citizenship, despite the fact that the law on citizenship grants them the right to obtain citizenship. The problem is the complex process required for immigrant Kazakhs to obtain Kazakh citizenship—a total of 18 documents must be filled out and processed. Immigrant Kazakhs often give up prior citizenship because many countries, such as Mongolia, do not permit dual citizenship; they arrive in Kazakhstan without citizenship and remain in Kazakhstan without citizenship for at least two years. These immigrants have trouble finding work, and are denied unemployment benefits because they are not citizens of Kazakhstan. For more information, see Tulegen Izdibaev, “Zakon o Migratsii v Kazakhstane Fakticheski ne Ispolnizetsia,” Panorama, 24 December 1999, p. 4; Antynshash Dzhaganova, “Vernost Otchei Zemle,” Kazakhstanskaia Pravda, 23 October 1999, p. 2.Google Scholar

82. Natsuko Oka, “Nationalities Policy in Kazakhstan: Interviewing Political and Cultural Elites,” in The Nationalities Question in Post-Soviet Kazakhstan (Chiba, Japan: Institute of Developing Economies, 2002), p. 111.Google Scholar

83. These are registered oralmans. The total number of oralmans is higher, but of course unknown. Martha Brill Olcott, Kazakhstan: Unfulfilled Promise (Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2002), p. 176. A local source claims that between 1991 and 1997 about 38,000 Kazakh families, or 164,000 Kazakhs, returned to Kazakhstan. See “Problemy Pereselentsev—Problemy Gosudarstva,” Kazakhstanskaia Pravda, 27 May 1998, p. 1.Google Scholar

84. Nurbulat Masanov, “Perceptions of Ethnic and All-National Identity in Kazakhstan,” in The Nationalities Question in Post-Soviet Kazakhstan (Chiba: Institute of Developing Economies, 2002), p. 56.Google Scholar

85. Ibid. Google Scholar

86. Ian Bremmer and Cory Welt, “Kazakhstan's Quandary,” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1995, p. 144.Google Scholar

87. Taras Kuzio, “History, Memory and Nation Building in the Post-Soviet Colonial Space,” Nationalities Papers, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2002, pp. 241–264.Google Scholar

88. Henry R. Huttenbach, “Whither Kazakhstan? Changing Capitals: From Almaty to Aqmola/Astana,” Nationalities Papers, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1998, p. 584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

89. Richard L. Wolfel, “North to Astana: Nationalistic Motives for the Movement of the Kazakh(stani) Capital,” Nationalities Papers, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2002, p. 502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

90. Robert Kaiser and Jeff Chinn, “Russian-Kazakh Relations in Kazakhstan,” Post-Soviet Geography, Vol. 36, No. 5, 1996, p. 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

91. For example, Lad and Russian Community have fought for years, without success, for the creation of a Russian University in Kazakhstan similar to the Slavic University in Kyrgyzstan. Personal interviews with Iurii Zakharovich Bunakov, Chairman of Russian Community, Almaty, 23 May 2000, and Mikhailov Viktor Petrovich, Chairman of Lad, Astana, 14 April 2000.Google Scholar

92. I hired BRIF, a social and market research agency in Almaty, to conduct a public opinion survey of 200 Russian residents of Ust'-Kamenogorsk in December 2000. BRIF conducted face-to-face interviews with respondents who comprised a sample that corresponded in gender and age to the demographic parameters of the Ust'-Kamenogorsk population, according to the 1999 census.Google Scholar

93. “Bunt Pugachevu ne Udalsia,” Na Strazhe, 25 November 1999, p. 1.Google Scholar

94. Personal interview, Sergei Suprun Mikhailovich, 19 July 2000.Google Scholar

95. Personal interview, Aleksandr Shushanikov Pavlovich, 19 July 2000.Google Scholar

96. A. Shushanikov, “Ust'-Kamenogorskoe Delo,” Lad, No. 5, 2000, p. 12.Google Scholar

97. No details of this survey were provided in the newspaper article that discusses various interpretations of the Pugachev incident. Ina “Politon,” “Kommentarii k Sobytiiam v Ust'-Kamenogorske,” Nashe Delo, 6 January 2000, p. 2.Google Scholar

98. Personal interview, 19 July 2000.Google Scholar

99. Personal interview, 17 July 2000.Google Scholar

100. Personal interview, 19 July 2000.Google Scholar

101. Ibid. Google Scholar

102. Valentina Dudkova, “Razboinik Byl v BKO eshche Poltora Goda Nazad,” Ekspress K, 30 November 1999, p. 2; Nikolai Ivanov, “Nikoai Ivanov: Pugachev—Eto Stoprotsentnyi Provokator,” Ustinka, 3 December 1999, p. 4.Google Scholar

103. Tat'iana Bendz', “Perevorot—Khronika Ust'-Kamenogorskova Dela,” Ekspress K, 8 December 1999, p. 3.Google Scholar

104. Valentina Dudkova, “Razboinik Byl v BKO eshche Poltora Goda Nazad,” Ekspress K, 30 November 1999, p. 2.Google Scholar

105. Personal interview, 19 July 2000.Google Scholar

106. Personal interview, 17 July 2000.Google Scholar

107. “Sud Strogo Nakazal Uchastnikov Neudachnogo Zagovora,” Panorama, No. 24, 2000, p. 5.Google Scholar

108. Personal interview, 19 July 2000.Google Scholar

109. Personal interview, 17 July 2000.Google Scholar

110. Personal interview, 19 July 2000.Google Scholar

111. Personal interview, 17 July 2000.Google Scholar

112. Personal interview, 19 July 2000.Google Scholar

113. A. Shushanikov, “Ust'-Kamenogorskoe Delo,” Lad, No. 5, 2000, p. 12.Google Scholar

114. This referendum highlighted the difference in Kazakh and Russian views on secession: while Kazakh deputies voted unanimously against secession, Slav deputies who were willing to make their view public voted in favor of secession. Ian Bremmer, “Nazarbaev and the North: State-Building and Ethnic Relations in Kazakhstan,” Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 17, No. 4, 1994, p. 626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar