The Czechoslovak Orient: Carpathian Ruthenia as an Imagined Colonial Space

<p>In 1919 the territory of Subcarpathian Ruthenia joined the new state of Czechoslovakia under the terms set by the Treaty of Saint Germain. During the following twenty years a relationship developed between Czechs and Ruthenia’s Rusyn inhabitants which this study considers as an example of imperialism and colonialism. The Czech media applied a colonial framework in its portrayals of Ruthenia, encouraging the Czech public to see the poor and undeveloped territory as a colony ruled from Prague. Rusyns also used colonial terminology as a means of criticizing the Czech officials who ruled them. The colonial discourse occurred despite a shared Slavic ethnic background and even as representatives of both nations expressed brotherhood and solidarity towards one another. Some Czech officials sent to Ruthenia adopted imperialist attitudes and practices in an environment of minimal bureaucratic oversight, leading to friction with the Rusyn intelligentsia. Faced with the threat of Czechization, Rusyns struggled to achieve autonomy and an anti-imperialist movement supporting Rusyn rights developed among Czech Communists. The Prague government sought to defend its actions in Ruthenia against accusations of mistreatment by the Hungarian revisionist movement. The existing Anglophone and Czech-language historiography on interwar Ruthenia generally portrays Czech rule as kindly and beneficial for the Rusyn population, focusing on Slavic kinship. Aiming to provide a fresh and detailed analysis of the Czechoslovak administration and the cultural forces at work in forming a colonial discourse, this study draws on an extensive range of government documents, newspapers and archival materials collected in Prague and Brno. By applying the theories of Edward Said, Jürgen Osterhammel, Maria Todorova and Kristin Kopp, the relationship is assessed through the terminology of discursive and material colonialism, together with Orientalism, liberal imperialism and internal colonialism. Three different areas of scholarly interest are the focus of this study: symbolic geography and colonial discourses in European contexts, political and social developments in Ruthenia, and treatment of national minorities in interwar Czechoslovakia. The study includes eight chapters which alternate between viewing the relationship from the Czech perspective and the Rusyn perspective. The opening chapter analyzes the Czech role as Slavic leaders and benefactors in the new republic and how a Czech humanitarian mission became a mission civilisatrice. The second chapter focuses on the shift in thinking among Rusyns from jubilation after joining the republic to growing disillusionment over denial of political autonomy. Chapters three and four describe the formation of a discursive colonial relationship; the third chapter presents how Czechs imagined Rusyns in the mold of colonial stereotypes, while the fourth chapter analyzes how Czechs and Rusyns imagined their relationship through comparisons to other colonial regions such as Africa, the Orient and Siberia. Chapter five focuses on the experiences of Czech officials working in Ruthenia, highlighting the shift in Rusyn perceptions of these administrators from Slavic brothers to imperialists. The role played by Czech official and publisher František Svojše as a symbol of Czech chauvinism receives special attention in the analysis. The sixth chapter covers the Czech anti-colonial movement among Communists and left-wing authors such as Ivan Olbracht who condemned the imperialist character of the Czech administration in Ruthenia. Chapter seven outlines the Rusyn struggle for autonomy and resistance of Czechization until the achievement of an independent parliament in 1938. The final chapter describes the Czech fear of imperial loss, analyzing how Czech media and politicians defended Czechoslovak rule in Ruthenia against international criticism and the Hungarian revisionist movement.</p>

The Czechoslovak Orient: Carpathian Ruthenia as an Imagined Colonial Space

<p>In 1919 the territory of Subcarpathian Ruthenia joined the new state of Czechoslovakia under the terms set by the Treaty of Saint Germain. During the following twenty years a relationship developed between Czechs and Ruthenia’s Rusyn inhabitants which this study considers as an example of imperialism and colonialism. The Czech media applied a colonial framework in its portrayals of Ruthenia, encouraging the Czech public to see the poor and undeveloped territory as a colony ruled from Prague. Rusyns also used colonial terminology as a means of criticizing the Czech officials who ruled them. The colonial discourse occurred despite a shared Slavic ethnic background and even as representatives of both nations expressed brotherhood and solidarity towards one another. Some Czech officials sent to Ruthenia adopted imperialist attitudes and practices in an environment of minimal bureaucratic oversight, leading to friction with the Rusyn intelligentsia. Faced with the threat of Czechization, Rusyns struggled to achieve autonomy and an anti-imperialist movement supporting Rusyn rights developed among Czech Communists. The Prague government sought to defend its actions in Ruthenia against accusations of mistreatment by the Hungarian revisionist movement. The existing Anglophone and Czech-language historiography on interwar Ruthenia generally portrays Czech rule as kindly and beneficial for the Rusyn population, focusing on Slavic kinship. Aiming to provide a fresh and detailed analysis of the Czechoslovak administration and the cultural forces at work in forming a colonial discourse, this study draws on an extensive range of government documents, newspapers and archival materials collected in Prague and Brno. By applying the theories of Edward Said, Jürgen Osterhammel, Maria Todorova and Kristin Kopp, the relationship is assessed through the terminology of discursive and material colonialism, together with Orientalism, liberal imperialism and internal colonialism. Three different areas of scholarly interest are the focus of this study: symbolic geography and colonial discourses in European contexts, political and social developments in Ruthenia, and treatment of national minorities in interwar Czechoslovakia. The study includes eight chapters which alternate between viewing the relationship from the Czech perspective and the Rusyn perspective. The opening chapter analyzes the Czech role as Slavic leaders and benefactors in the new republic and how a Czech humanitarian mission became a mission civilisatrice. The second chapter focuses on the shift in thinking among Rusyns from jubilation after joining the republic to growing disillusionment over denial of political autonomy. Chapters three and four describe the formation of a discursive colonial relationship; the third chapter presents how Czechs imagined Rusyns in the mold of colonial stereotypes, while the fourth chapter analyzes how Czechs and Rusyns imagined their relationship through comparisons to other colonial regions such as Africa, the Orient and Siberia. Chapter five focuses on the experiences of Czech officials working in Ruthenia, highlighting the shift in Rusyn perceptions of these administrators from Slavic brothers to imperialists. The role played by Czech official and publisher František Svojše as a symbol of Czech chauvinism receives special attention in the analysis. The sixth chapter covers the Czech anti-colonial movement among Communists and left-wing authors such as Ivan Olbracht who condemned the imperialist character of the Czech administration in Ruthenia. Chapter seven outlines the Rusyn struggle for autonomy and resistance of Czechization until the achievement of an independent parliament in 1938. The final chapter describes the Czech fear of imperial loss, analyzing how Czech media and politicians defended Czechoslovak rule in Ruthenia against international criticism and the Hungarian revisionist movement.</p>

Reviewing Procedure vs. Judging Substance: How Increasing Bureaucratic Oversight Can Reduce Bureaucratic Accountability

How does the scope of review affect bureaucratic policymaking? To explore this question, I consider a policymaking environment in which an expert agency develops policy that is upheld or overturned by an overseer who may have different policy goals. The agency can affect the quality of implementation through effort investments in addition to choosing the substantive content of policy. Under procedural review the overseer only reviews the agency’s effort, which allows the agency to fully utilize its expertise. Substantive review also tasks the overseer with judging agencies’ substantive policy choices, which can lead the agency to disregard its superior information and obfuscate to avoid reversal. Depending on the policy environment, this dynamic can either benefit or harm the overseer. In some cases the overseer can be made better off by having less transparent review institutions; that is, institutions that direct the overseer to only review procedure and preclude judging substance.

Administrative Justice in Authoritarian States

This chapter studies the institutions of administrative justice—administrative procedure, judicial review of administrative action, and administrative redress—in contemporary non-liberal democracies. It reviews the theoretical literature pertaining to administrative justice, with special emphasis on the principal-agent model. It examines two case studies of administrative justice, one national and one local, both from the People’s Republic of China, the world’s most populous authoritarian state: Mainland China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. It reveals that authoritarian administrative justice is, at the end of the day, deeply paradoxical. Autonomous bureaucratic oversight mechanisms empower autocratic rulers to resolve agency problems through discovering information of maladministration, but remain permanently under the temptation to compromise the autonomy of administrative justice, so that the latter would never evolve into a threat to regime security.

Who Polices the Administrative State?

Scholarship on oversight of the bureaucracy typically conceives of legislatures as unitary actors. But most oversight is conducted by individual legislators who contact agencies directly. I acquire the correspondence logs of 16 bureaucratic agencies and re-evaluate the conventional proposition that ideological disagreement drives oversight. I identify the effect of this disagreement by exploiting the transition from George Bush to Barack Obama, which shifted the ideological orientation of agencies through turnover in agency personnel. Contrary to existing research, I find ideological conflict has a negligible effect on oversight, whereas committee roles and narrow district interests are primary drivers. The findings may indicate that absent incentives induced by public auditing, legislator behavior is driven by policy valence concerns rather than ideology. The results further suggest collective action in Congress may pose greater obstacles to bureaucratic oversight than previously thought.

Ambiguity and Scientific Authority

The molecularization of race thesis suggests geneticists are gaining greater authority to define human populations and differences, and they are doing so by increasingly defining them in terms of U.S. racial categories. Using a mixed methodology of a content analysis of articles published in Nature Genetics (in 1993, 2001, and 2009) and interviews, we explore geneticists’ population labeling practices. Geneticists use eight classification systems that follow racial, geographic, and ethnic logics of definition. We find limited support for racialization of classification. Use of quasi-racial “continental” terms has grown over time, but more surprising is the persistent and indiscriminate blending of classification schemes at the field level, the article level, and within-population labels. This blending has led the practical definition of “population” to become more ambiguous rather than standardized over time. Classificatory ambiguity serves several functions: it helps geneticists negotiate collaborations among researchers with competing demands, resist bureaucratic oversight, and build accountability with study populations. Far from being dysfunctional, we show the ambiguity of population definition is linked to geneticists’ efforts to build scientific authority. Our findings revise the long-standing theoretical link between scientific authority and standardization and social order. We find that scientific ambiguity can function to produce scientific authority.