Paper Short Abstract:

This paper reconsiders the state identity using the case of the Republic of Sakha, Russia. The paper argues that the state identity does not require some internationally recognised institutes when it is compensated with other means and ideas about sovereignty.

Paper Abstract:

The Republic of Sakha is one of the 22 ethnic republics of the Russian Federation. It declared its sovereignty in 1991 and is the biggest territorial unit inside the Russian Federation. This paper examines two parallel policies applied in Sakha – the attempt of Moscow to centrally control the region, and the attempt of the republic to maintain its version of sovereignty. Then the failures of the centre to exercise unconditional control over the region are analysed to support the argument that the failure is caused by the federal policy, which appoints a person loyal to Moscow as the head of the region and grants them almost unlimited freedom to pursue their goals.

As a result, the republic has turned to an ethnocracy where one clan controls all key positions. In order to control the population, the heads of the republic have always used national identity, reinforcing the idea of a state within the state. The policy of expressing regional patriotism and identity has been successful in manipulating the loyalty of the population. Meanwhile, the head of the republic has gained control over federal institutions like police or security service by using different economic and political means. Political narratives, national myths, and a monopoly of power have made the republic a quasi-state. This case demonstrates that state identity does not require instruments like foreign policy when it is compensated with other means and ideas about sovereignty.