In Russia the term ‘nationalism’ is commonly used negatively and is associated with ethnic intolerance. Meanwhile, many scholars believe that nationalism was conducive to the emergence of civil societies in the industrially developed countries of Europe. Such ‘civic’ nationalism is obviously missing in Russia. What, then, can we expect in Russia, where the growth of nationalism is not accompanied by a political mobilization of the nation?
Nationalism and Racism in Russia
Russia’s Distinctive Brand of Nationalism
Lev Gudkov and Boris Dubin
The authors trace the evolution of Russian nationalism in the Soviet and post-Soviet periods. The fundamental distinction between Russian nationalism and its various European counterparts (mainly early forms of nationalism affected by the Enlightenment and the romanticism of nation-state building) is the former’s inability to set new political objectives and define conceptual ideals to serve as benchmarks and aims for a social movement. Such aims have been missing, regardless of “genre”: whether it be the strengthening or deployment of modernization processes (outside the narrow framework of the forced militarized industrialization that Russia’s “leaps” in socioeconomic development have usually boiled down to) or the adoption of modern legal, civil, economic and democratic practices improving the quality of human life (health care, social security, the accumulation and refinement of human resources and so forth).
Nationalist Discourse and Network Culture
Galina Zvereva
The author analyzes the phenomenon of Russian ethnic nationalism, mainly from the angle of discourse, examining the cultural meaning of basic verbal concepts that make up current expressions and statements on this subject. The study was conducted on the basis of texts produced and circulating in Russian society — in public politics, mass media, social science and the humanities and education. In the late Soviet period, ethnic awareness was marginal in comparison to the official doctrine of internationalism; today, however, it is increasingly making its way into the ideological mainstream. The rise of ethnic nationalism during the perestroika period in the Soviet republics, and after the collapse of the USSR in Russia’s autonomous regions, has served as an impetus for reawakening ethno-centrist sentiment among people identifying themselves as Russians.
Racism Yesterday and Today
Viktor Shnirelman
Being successful in the fight against racism requires a clear understanding of the very concepts of race and racism. Modern “antiracism” often tends to perceive its opponents in a distorted way. And there are reasons for that: In recent decades, the term “racism” has lost part of its traditional meaning and become more vague. The definition of racism that was used by its opponents in the past implied that human races were an objective reality. Even in our day, some liberally minded intellectuals and even human rights advocates believe that models of human behavior and distinctive features of people’s mentality are predefined by ethnic, if not by racial, background. This article provides a wide overview of both modern scholarly ideas of racism and the ideas and concepts circulating in Russia’s academic, political and intellectual circles. The author concludes that the historical transformation of the late 20th century has painfully affected the Russian intellectual elite, having made it too susceptible to parascientific ideas of race and ethnicity.
The Case of Standard Oil and the Case of YUKOS
Vadim Volkov
The case of Standard Oil and the Yukos case are two examples of the state destroying major oil companies. The author analyzes these two events, separated by nearly a hundred years and taking place in absolutely different historical and cultural situations, in the context of early capitalism. Comparing them makes it possible to regard early capitalism as a socio-historical formation in which individual players are stronger than institutions. In these conditions, institutions (whether concrete administrative and legal ones, or less tangible ethical traditions) do not possess enough strength either to rein in the players’ desire to attain their goals or to limit the range of means at the players’ disposal. The individual players, on the contrary, can use the institutions, create and modify them and bend them to their own interests.
Transitions from Postcommunism
Michael McFaul
The democratic breakthroughs in Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine in the past five years have revealed a number of peculiar features that distinguish them from other democratic transformations and revolutions. First, in all three cases, the spark for regime change was a fraudulent national election, not a war, an economic crisis, a split between ruling elites, an external shock or international factor, or the death of a dictator. Second, the democratic challengers deployed extraconstitutional means solely to defend the existing, democratic constitution rather than to achieve a fundamental rewriting of the rules of the political game. Third, each country for a time witnessed challengers and incumbents making competing and simultaneous claims to hold sovereign authority—one of the hallmarks of a revolutionary situation. Fourth, all of these revolutionary situations ended without mass violence. The challengers often consciously embraced nonviolence on principle, using occasionally extraconstitutional but almost always peaceful tactics. The author discusses the general factors that have promoted success in the described cases, which, in his opinion, can help forecast democratic breakthroughs in this and other regions.