English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Most of Russia’s national republics established titular and Russian as co-official state languages in their constitutions of the early 1990s. There is no consensus on the reasons and consequences of this act, whether it should be seen as a mere symbolic gesture, a measure to ensure a language revival, an instrument in political debate or an ethnic institution. From an institutional and comparative perspective, this study explores the constitutional systems of the Finno-Ugric republics and demonstrates that across the republics, the official status of the state languages was among the few references to ethnicity built into their constitutions. However, only in the case of language requirements for the top officials, its inclusion could be interpreted as an attempt at instrumen tally using ethnicity for political ends. Otherwise, constitutional recognition of the state languages should be rather understood as an element of institutionalized ethnicity that remains a potential resource for political mobilization. This latter circumstance might clarify why federal authorities could see an obstacle for their Russian nation-building agenda in the official status of languages. The period of social transformations of the late 1980s and early 1990s in Eastern Europe was characterized by countries’ transition from the communist administrative−command systems towards the representative democracy and market economy. One important driving force of change in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was the rise of popular movements out of national resentment and dissatisfaction with the state-of-the-art in the sphere of inter-ethnic relations. Ethnic mobilization led to the formation of national movements in its Union and Autonomous Republics that accumulated popular appeal concerning the problem of a language shift to the Russian language and ethnic assimilation of non-Russians and sought a higher political status for their titular peoples and titular republics (each republic was titled after “its own” ethnic group that was referred to as titular people and its language as a titular language). Activities of national movements contributed to dissolution of the USSR and resulted in the emergence of new independent states on the basis of the Union Republics (SSRs). The centrifugal processes extended to the further layers of the Soviet matreska-like federal system and took the form of regional separatism in the Autonomous Republics (ASSRs) of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). The leadership of national movements both in SSRs and ASSRs envisaged a national revival as a solution for national problems. On the peak of the popular involvement in public affairs in the late 1980s, one after another the SSRs started to

Finno-Ugric Republics and Their State Languages: Balancing Powers in Constitutional Order in the Early 1990s