Clientelism and Nationality in an Early Soviet Fiefdom: The Trials of Nestor Lakoba by Timothy K. Blauvelt
2022; Maney Publishing; Volume: 100; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1353/see.2022.0030
ISSN2222-4327
Autores Tópico(s)European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies
ResumoReviewed by: Clientelism and Nationality in an Early Soviet Fiefdom: The Trials of Nestor Lakoba by Timothy K. Blauvelt B. G. Hewitt Blauvelt, Timothy K. Clientelism and Nationality in an Early Soviet Fiefdom: The Trials of Nestor Lakoba. Imperial Transformations –Russian, Soviet and Post-Soviet History. Routledge, Abingdon and New York, 2021. xv + 248 pp. Map. Illustration. Notes. Bibliography. Index. £120.00; £33.29 (e-book). In 2007 Timothy Blauvelt published an article entitled ‘Abkhazia: Patronage and Power in the Stalin Era’ in the journal Nationalities Papers (35, 2, pp. 203–32). This book essentially elaborates the themes of that article, which is mentioned only in the footnotes, being omitted from the bibliography. The focus here is on the career of leading Abkhazian Bolshevik Nestor Lakoba (1893–1936), especially during his over-lordship in his native, multi-ethnic republic of Abkhazia (nestling between sea and mountains in north-west Transcaucasia) from the establishment locally of Soviet power (1921) through to his death/murder in 1936. Examining the effect on Lakoba’s operational capacity of the shift from Moscow’s initial support for local minorities (e.g. [End Page 381] Abkhazians under the 1920s’ korenizatsija ‘local rooting’) to its allotting preferential powers to Union-Republics’ titular nations (e.g. Georgians) in the 1930s against a permanent backdrop of personal and/or ethnic rivalries both inside demographically manipulated Abkhazia and beyond would always provide ingredients for an intriguing study. Sukhum’s divided power-relations — vertically with Moscow (sc. Georgian Stalin) and horizontally with Tbilisi, seat of both the Georgian government (power-base for Abkhazia-born Mingrelian Lavrenti Beria) and the administrative head-quarters for the Transcaucasian Federation (ZSFSR) — add spicy complication/?opportunity. Initially a Union-Republic (1921) with its own constitution and flag (1925), Abkhazia became a Treaty-Republic with Georgia, entering the ZSFSR with the latter in 1922, until formal demotion to an Autonomous Republic within it (1931). Series-editor Ronald Suny’s Foreword establishes the tone, describing earlier accounts as probably ‘misremembered’ or possibly ‘avoided’. Blauvelt then goes for his target, citing copious extracts mined from the archives of the myriad accusations (e.g. nepotism, protecting kin/clients, favouring ethnic Abkhazians, extortion, bribery, even collusion in, or concealment of, murder) levelled (sometimes repeatedly) against Lakoba over the years by possibly disgruntled or envious individuals and/or commissions of inquiry sent to Sukhum, or formed in Tbilisi, to examine them, these being the ‘trials’ in the title. Blauvelt’s verdict on the resulting exonerations? — ‘A routine whitewash’ (pp. 134–41) or ‘Sturua commission whitewash’ (pp. 163–76) — i.e. ‘guilty’. One ‘whitewasher’ when collectivization was being implemented unenthusiastically was Stalin himself, who urged in 1929 that ‘the specific particularities of the Abkhazian situation’ be remembered and that ‘trying to mechanically transfer Russian models of socialist construction to Abkhazian soil’ would be a mistake (pp. 161–62). Perhaps he had in mind the traditional code of apswara, which regulates so much of Abkhazian behaviour (including deference to elders), or the kinship-forming practice of nobles entrusting sons to peasant-families for fostering (on this Atalychestvo see Shalva Ina-Ipa’s article at ). Nevertheless, Stalin’s reservation about Lakoba ‘finding support in all layers of the Abkhazian population’ eventually served posthumously to undermine his inviolability (p. 209), implying sympathy with élites/kulaks. If his thesis is correct, how does Blauvelt explain Lakoba’s lasting popularity? He ascribes it to those who idealize Abkhazia under his tenure, singling out today’s leading Abkhazian historian, Stanislav Lakoba (re-christened ‘Svyatislav’, p. 162) for particular disparagement, alleging that his political writings often rely ‘more on “popular memory” and aspirational imagination than on documentable sources’ (p. 234). One example of such ‘myth-making [End Page 382] intended (consciously or unconsciously) to embellish the historical importance of Lakoba’ is his claim that Stalin offered Nestor the post of NKVD-chief, which was declined. This is an odd charge, since Blauvelt himself asserted the very same (with source) on p. 215 of his 2007 article. Is it unreasonable to suggest that Stalin, thus spurned, allowed Beria the following year to liquidate his envied Transcaucasian rival (and later...
Referência(s)