No abstract

The collapse of the socialist system prompted the former USSR countries to “re-invent” their stateness. The paper focuses on factors that impede or smooth stateness transformations in post-Soviet countries. First, the paper examines internal and external factors of state formation in selected countries. Next, it introduces empirical research tools and empirical findings that present alternative patterns of stateness and outcomes of state formation. The paper concludes with a detailed review of certain cases that may be considered prototypes of state formation for post-Soviet countries.

The article is devoted to the study of the specificities of the use of the Soviet past in the rhetoric of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the United Russia. Based on the analysis of the texts of the leaders and functionaries of these parties, the authors reveal the goals of addressing the Soviet heritage, the distinguishing features of its interpretation, the invoked discursive strategies and macrosemantic structures. The authors show how interpreting the Soviet past and establishing its connection with the present and future of Russia serve the tasks of political identification of the party and legitimization of its position. According to the authors’ conclusion, the specifics of the studied parties’ appeal to the Soviet legacy is largely determined by the position they occupy in the country’s political system, as well as the history of their creation and development. With the help of the references to the USSR and certain aspects of its existence, representatives of the United Russia are trying to legitimize the current political course. By focusing on the achievements of the Soviet period, they demonstrate the historical continuity of the current political regime and its orientation towards stability; while by noting the shortcomings of the Soviet system, they highlight how current regime is different and emphasize its successes. Representatives of the United Russia use analogies with political organizations of the past to self-identify as a force that supports and largely ensures the course towards strengthening the Russian state, as well as to present the non-systemic opposition and external players as forces that undermine its stability. The main purpose of referring to the Soviet past in the texts of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is to demonstrate the continuity of the party in relation to the Soviet period, with the latter being interpreted mostly positively. At the same time, the appeal to certain events of the past allows communists to criticize the current domestic political course, present themselves as an opposition force and support the actions of the Russian government in the international arena.

Divisions over recognition of Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia’s independence put in focus policies towards ethnic minorities, structuring and legitimization of power in newly-formed multi-ethnic states. In most cases state-building requires the homogenization of population, i.e. “nationalizing” policies of both exclusion and inclusion. The relevant European experience has been conceptualized by political scientists examining the key parameters of “nationalizing” policies used in respect of ethnic minorities as well as the influence of centre-periphery polarity and different ways of political control maintenance on the process of state- and nation-building. Applying these approaches to the post-Soviet realities the authors offer a theoretical framework for analyzing grounds, forms and consequences of the politicization of ethnicity and evaluation of possible stability/instability, including secessions, bringing a realistic perspective to bear on what is happening and what can be done.

No abstract