The conventional approach to describing ethno-cultural relations in a particular nation-state is in terms of the majority/minority dichotomy, that is, a representation of a society as consisting of the core nation and a minority or number of minorities alongside it. The minorities are usually of different ethnic origin, possess distinct linguistic-cultural characteristics and tend to be represented as groups that, owing to their minority status, are discriminated against. This approach has been adopted in Ukraine where in official discourse and state documents the core nation co-exists with national minorities. Ethno-cultural diversity is addressed by policy makers and the academic community, most often in terms of “national minorities,” “protection of minority rights,” “provision of schooling for minorities” and so forth. Ukrainian scholars and policy makers tend to use the same concepts as their counterparts in the West, albeit often modifying them to Ukrainian circumstances. However, as will be argued, this dichotomous treatment of the titular majority and the minority is ill-suited to Ukraine's circumstances as even the very concept of “minority” is unclear owing to the blurred sense of identity amongst many Ukrainians and Russians.

To many in both the East and the West it seemed axiomatic that the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was due to “nationality reasons,” which were viewed as a natural process in the last empire's decline. Then, during the democratic reform of a totalitarian state, ethnic minority rights were first spoken of, and the growth of national self-awareness appeared to be an integral part of society's liberalization. Time has since shown that liberal changes in the economy and in the political and social spheres are not always accompanied by the establishment of social justice; indeed, it has frequently been minorities who are among the most unfortunate and marginalized groups in society. Defending the rights of minorities and combating ethnic and racial discrimination remains one of the most relevant issues in practically all post-socialist countries of the former Soviet Union and Eastern and Central Europe.

For all its geographical, cultural and political uniqueness, the definition of the Caucasus as a region is problematic. Geographers, geologists, political scientists, anthropologists and historians—all have disagreements between themselves and each other about such issues as what constitutes its borders, and what are the features of both its homogeneity and heterogeneity. Often, the use by representatives of one discipline of the conclusions and terminology from other disciplines in order to substantiate their positions complicates the problem even further. In any case, in general geographical terms the Caucasus is the territory between the Black, Azov and Caspian Seas, extending from the Kuma-Manych depression in the north to Georgia's and Armenia's borders with Turkey, and Azerbaijan's borders with Iran in the south. In physical-geological terms the Caucasus is predominantly a mountainous region which is shaped by the trajectories of the two mountain ranges, namely the Greater and Lesser Caucasus. The trajectory of the Greater Caucasus represents a diagonal stretching from the north-west to the southeast, while the trajectory of the Lesser Caucasus forms an ellipsoidal bow. At the Suram Passage the Lesser and Greater Caucasus practically merge. The Caucasus mountain range is divided lengthwise into the western Caucasus which stretches to Elbrus; the central Caucasus, which is between the Elbrus and Kazbek mountains; and the eastern Caucasus, which is to the east of the Kazbek.

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 radicalization 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 illiberal policies of the early phase of sovereignty under President Zviad Gamsakhurdia. Abroad, perceptions of Georgia as a “micro-empire” continue to be fuelled by references 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 security associated with majority status. As a result of Georgia's apparent inability to influence 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 question of ethnic and national identity has dominated post-Soviet life in Abkhazia, which is situated on the Black Sea coast, in the north-west corner of the South Caucasus. Formerly an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic within the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic, its status is now contested. Following violent armed conflict with Georgia over a period of 13 months in 1992/1993, Abkhazia became de facto independent. However, while not now under Georgian control, Abkhazia remains de jure part of the Republic of Georgia, which considers Abkhazia an integral component of its state. Abkhazia declared independence in 1999, a status that remains unrecognized by the international community.

This article examines the application of the concepts of minority rights, racism and multiculturalism to the case of Bulgaria. It explores how—if at all—these concepts have been accommodated within the domestic discourse on ethnic relations. Overall, it will be seen that Bulgaria has been slow to face up to its multi-ethnic reality: apart from the cessation of communist assimilation campaigns, hardly any positive minority rights were adopted after 1989. There were, however, clear changes in the discourse on ethnic relations, in particular regarding the notion of the “Bulgarian ethnic model,” which now figures prominently in the discourse of most political parties.