Filling the Void: Ethnic Politics and Nationalities Policy in Post-Conflict Georgia Laurence Broers Introduction Of all the post-Soviet states, the challenge of managing ethnic diversity has perhaps been the most problematic in Georgia. Following the secessions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the early 1990s, Georgia has recent experience not only of the radi- calization of ethnic relations but also of defeat in violent ethnic conflict. Current debates surrounding the conceptualization and management of ethnic diversity are thus inseparable from urgent questions concerning the future of the Georgian state, and explanations of the conflicts and questions of power and domination. Perceptions of the issue are further overshadowed by memories of the chauvinist rhetoric and illib- eral policies of the early phase of sovereignty under President Zviad Gamsakhurdia. Abroad, perceptions of Georgia as a “micro-empire” continue to be fuelled by refer- ences to the Gamsakhurdia era, above all in the Russian press, and short-sighted recourse in Western sources to theories of “ancient hatreds.” Defeat also means that contrary to demographic evidence of a proportional expansion of the ethnic Georgian population, independence has not imparted to the Georgian majority a sense of secur- ity associated with majority status. As a result of Georgia’s apparent inability to influ- ence outcomes in either the peace processes or internal developments in the seceded territories, and the decline in the Georgian population in real terms, the attainment of sovereignty has not allayed Georgian fears of either permanent territorial fragmentation or ethnic “degradation.” Georgians consequently approach issues of majority – minority relations from a position of perceived weakness, coupled with as yet unfulfilled “post-colonial” desires for Georgianization. The fragmented nature of the ethnic issue is made more complicated by the fact that the policy-making environment over the first decade of independence was less coher- ent than in many other post-Soviet republics. Ethnic policy must be simultaneously compatible with interethnic relations within the rump Georgian state, the predominant current concern, and with any reintegration of “lost” territories, a problem for the future. The fact that these two realms are defined by different conditions and local realities is a major obstacle to the formulation of a unified or coherent policy. As a Laurence Broers, independent scholar, UK. Email: laurencebroers@btinternet.com Nationalities Papers, Vol. 36, No. 2, May 2008 ISSN 0090-5992 print; ISSN 1465-3923 online/08/020275-30 # 2008 Association for the Study of Nationalities DOI: 10.1080/00905990801934363