The authors analyse the trajectories of the past years from the perspective of transitology and through the lens of post-structuralist discourse theory.

How could an undemocratic regime manage to stabilise Russia? What is Putin's success formula? What are the symbolic and discursive underpinnings of Russia's new stability? Many outside observers of Russia regarded the authoritarian tendencies during the Putin presidency as a retreat from, or even the end of, democratisation. Rather than attempting to explain why Russia did not follow the trajectory of democratic transformation, this book aims to attain an understanding of the stabilisation process during Putin's tenure as president. Proceeding from the assumption that the stability created under Putin is multi-layered, the authors attempt to uncover the underpinnings of the new equilibrium, inquiring especially about the changes and fixations that occurred in the discourses on political and national identity. In doing so, the authors analyse the trajectories of the past years from the traditional perspective of transitology as well as through the lens of post-structuralist discourse theory. The two approaches are seen as complementary, with the latter focusing less on the end point of transition than on the nature of the mechanisms that stabilise the current regime. The book therefore focuses on how nationalism became an increasingly important tool in political discourse and how it affected political identity. Sovereign democracy is seen by many contributors as the most explicit manifestation of a newfound post-Soviet identity drawing on nationalist ideas, while simultaneously appeasing most sectors of the Russian political spectrum.

Autorentext

The editors: Philipp Casula studied political sociology at the Free University of Berlin and is currently a research fellow and doctoral candidate at the University of Basel. Among his latest publications are contributions to the edited volumes "Revolutions: Reframed, Revisited, Revised" (Peter Lang 2007) and "Nationalism and Democracy" (Routledge 2009). Dr. Jeronim Perovic studied history, political science and Russian literature at the University of Zurich. He is currently a senior researcher with the Institute of History at the University of Basel and visiting scholar at the Center for Security Studies at the ETH Zurich. He is a co-editor of "Energy and the Transformation of International Relations" (OUP 2009), "Russian Energy Power" (Routledge 2009) and "Russian Business Power" (Routledge 2009) as well as the author of, among other studies, "Die Regionen Russlands als neue politische Kraft" (Peter Lang 2001). The author of the foreword: Dr. Heiko Haumann is Professor of East European and Contemporary History at the University of Basel.

Klappentext

How could an undemocratic regime manage to stabilise Russia? What is Putin s success formula? What are the symbolic and discursive underpinnings of Russiäs new stability? Many outside observers of Russia regarded the authoritarian tendencies during the Putin presidency as a retreat from, or even the end of, democratisation. Rather than attempting to explain why Russia did not follow the trajectory of democratic transformation, this book aims to attain an understanding of the stabilisation process during Putin s tenure as president. Proceeding from the assumption that the stability created under Putin is multi-layered, the authors attempt to uncover the underpinnings of the new equilibrium, inquiring especially about the changes and fixations that occurred in the discourses on political and national identity. In doing so, the authors analyse the trajectories of the past years from the traditional perspective of transitology as well as through the lens of post-structuralist discourse theory. The two approaches are seen as complementary, with the latter focusing less on the end point of transition than on the nature of the mechanisms that stabilise the current regime. The book therefore focuses on how nationalism became an increasingly important tool in political discourse and how it affected political identity. Sovereign democracy is seen by many contributors as the most explicit manifestation of a newfound post-Soviet identity drawing on nationalist ideas, while simultaneously appeasing most sectors of the Russian political spectrum.