Thesis (Ph. D.)--State University of New York at Binghamton, Department of Sociology, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references.

This thesis provides an institutional explanation for the peaceful solution of the conflict between the Moldovan state and its small Gagauz minority in the period from 1988 to 1995. The central argument is that different institutional arrangements during this time had a direct effect on the Moldovan state’s capacity to bring about autonomy for the Gagauz. I show how Gagauz leaders, conditioned by the territorial-based structures of the Soviet Union, mobilized a political movement to push for the creation of an autonomous republic, and how this preference for autonomy remained the consistent demand of the Gagauz throughout the early years of post-communist transition. This finding supports the contention that Gagauz preferences cannot be used to explain the rich variation in political outcomes during this period. I assert that the critical changes were essentially institutional: new electoral laws; revised parliamentary rules and procedures; and a complete rewriting of Moldova’s constitution. These innovations were crucial in enabling the inclusive-minded majority in the Moldovan parliament to overcome the power of nationalist veto players by increasing the majority’s control of the legislative agenda. The importance of these institutional factors is examined by careful analysis of the different stages of the Moldovan parliament’s accommodation of the Gagauz: from separatism and stalemate to compromise. Furthermore, I reassert the central role of institutional arrangements by discounting the external influence of Turkey as a patron state on the successful negotiations between Moldova and the Gagauz. Using previously unresearched archival material, unstructured interviews with many of the key actors, and local media reporting, this thesis challenges existing accounts of the Gagauz conflict in Moldova. These accounts assert that either the Gagauz reaction to titular nationalism or the shifting preferences of strategic-thinking elites was the key causal factor of the political outcomes observed during this period. In contrast, this thesis shows that institutional design played a decisive role in the resolution of this conflict. The findings of this research offer useful lessons for other ethnically-divided states with mobilized minorities.

The Republic of Moldova was one of fifteen states to emerge from the dissolution of the Soviet Union. With weak historical legacy of statehood, deteriorating economy and serious national divisions, the young state lacked many of the prerequisites deemed necessary for successful democratization. From the very beginning of independence, Moldova became the battleground of Romanianists, propagating for the Romanian character of Moldova’s majority population, and Moldovanists, who viewed the people as a separate nation. In the literature on democracy and democratization, a divided nation is singled out as a serious threat to statehood and democratization efforts alike. Without a nation in place it is generally understood that democracy cannot take root. Nevertheless, Moldova in a few years time managed to make considerable progress on its path towards democracy. A main theme of the dissertation is thus the issue of national division and how it has affected political developments in general and democracy in specific. This picture is then further expanded by including close analysis of political support. The dissertation contributes to discussions about how nation and democracy goes together in transitional states with no legacy of either of them. The analysis shows that national division in Moldova works on different levels. While political actors often seek support from the electorate according to their positions on the nation, national identity by itself does not suffice to explain differences in political support. Instead other aspects, such as generational values, degree of urbanity and level of education, play a much larger role. Democracy, as a platform where different political ideas and ambitions may form, can both complicate transitions since it provides opportunities for conflicts, but democracy also holds the prospects to find ways to resolve disagreements. In the long run, this carries the seed of consolidation of both democracy and nation alike.