print

Official discourse of nation-building in the post-Soviet space:
the cases of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus

Avksentyev V.A.,

Federal Research Center Southern Scientific Center of Russian Academy of Sciences, Rostov-on-Don, Russia, avksentievv@rambler.ru

elibrary_id: 77251 | ORCID: 0000-0003-0762-3529 | RESEARCHER_ID: J-4088-2018

Aksyumov B.V.,

Federal Research Center Southern Scientific Center of Russian Academy of Sciences, Rostov-on-Don, Russia; North-Caucasus Federal University, Stavropol, Russia, aksbor@mail.ru

elibrary_id: 256652 | ORCID: 0000-0002-0024-7041 | RESEARCHER_ID: ABF-5892-2020

Article received: 2024.01.17 19:07. Accepted: 2024.04.29 19:08


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2024.04.02
EDN: VAHRAO

Rubric: Theme of the issue: Russia in foreign and domestic political projections

For citation:

Avksentyev V.A., Aksyumov B.V. Official discourse of nation-building in the post-Soviet space: the cases of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus. – Polis. Political Studies. 2024. No. 4. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2024.04.02. EDN: VAHRAO (In Russ.)

The research was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (grant No. 24-28-00512), https://rscf.ru/project/24-28-00512/.

Abstract

The article analyzes the official discourse of nation-building in three post-Soviet states – Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus. The process of “nationalization” of new states is not completed, and the analysis of authority discourse enables to evaluate how national elites, after gaining independence, choose the vector of nation-building and form a nationalist discourse. The purpose of the article is to identify common and specific features in the official discourse of nation-building. The hypothesis is that there is a common discursive base that links the trajectories of this process, as well as a specificity determined by the peculiarities of post-Soviet nation-building in each country. The study had for empirical basis the official messages of the presidents of the states and doctrinal documents in the field of national policy. Six nation-building discourses were identified, four of which – the civic, polyethnic, civilizational and sovereignty discourses – are common, ethnic discourse is present in Kazakhstan and Belarus, neo-imperial discourse – in Russia. The major coincidences are present in civic, polyethnic discourses and the discourse of sovereignty, and this makes it possible to record the presence of a common discursive base, although semantic articulations differ in each state. The most significant differences are observed within the civilizational discourse; in each state, civilizational orientations are determined by attempts to construct an image of its unique history and culture. Ethnic discourses in Kazakhstan and Belarus are not semantically identical, although they are built around the main theme for ethnonationalism – the theme of language. In Kazakhstan, this topic is highly politicized; in Belarus, it is part of a cultural policy, due to which the issue of “indigenous” and “non-indigenous” populations has been moved deeply to the periphery of the socio-political process. The main feature of Russian discourse is in this study the explicit neo-imperial discourse, which, on the one hand, emphasizes the state-imperial character of the Russian people, and on the other, strengthens the discourse of sovereignty.

Keywords

nation-building, nationalist discourse, civic discourse, polyethnic discourse, sovereignty discourse, civilizational discourse, ethnic discourse, neo-imperial discourse, Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus.

 Full Text

Bekus, N. (2023). Reassembling society in a nation-state: history, language, and identity discourses of Belarus. Nationalities Papers, 51(1), 98-113. https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2022.60

Blakkisrud, H. (2023). Russkii as the new Rossiiskii? Nation-building in Russia after 1991. Nationalities Papers, 51(1), 64-79. https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2022.11

Brubaker, R. (2004). Ethncitiy without groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Brubaker, R. (2011). Nationalizing states revisited: projects and processes of nationalization in post-Soviet states. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(11), 1785-1814. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2011.579137

Buhr, R.L., Shadurski, V., & Hoffman, S. (2011). Belarus: an emerging civic nation? Nationalities Papers, 39(3), 425-440. https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2011.565319

Cummings, S.N. (2006). Legitimation and identification in Kazakhstan. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 12(2), 177-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537110600734547

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. London; New York: Longman.

Fierman, W. (2009). Identity, symbolism and the politics of language in Central Asia. Europe-Asia Studies, 61(7), 1207-1228. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668130903068731

Freeden, M. (1998). Is nationalism a distinct ideology? Political Studies, 46(4), 748-765. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00165

Kivelson, V.A., & Suny, R.G. (2017). Russia’s empires. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kohn, H. (1944). The idea of nationalism: a study in its origins and background. New York: Macmillan Publishers.

Kolstø, P. (2016). The ethnification of Russian nationalism. In P. Kolstø & H. Blakkisrud (Ed.), The New Russian Nationalism: “Imperialism, Ethnicity, Authoritarianism”, 2000-2015 (pp. 18-45). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9781474410427.003.0002

Linde, F. (2016). The civilizational turn in Russian political discourse: from pan‐Europeanism to civilizational distinctiveness. The Russian Review, 75(4), 604-625. https://doi.org/10.1111/russ.12105

Marples, D.R. (2007). Elections and nation-building in Belarus: a comment on Ioffe. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 48(1), 59-67. https://doi.org/10.2747/1538-7216.48.1.59

O’Beachain, D., & Kevlihan, R. (2013). Threading a needle: Kazakhstan between civic and ethno-nationalist state-building. Nations and Nationalism, 19(2), 337-356. https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12022

Rutland, P. (2023). Thirty years of nation-building in the post-Soviet states. Nationalities Papers, 51(1), 14-32. https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2021.94

Shevel, O. (2011). Russian nation-building from Yel’tsin to Medvedev: ethnic, civic or purposefully ambiguous? Europe-Asia Studies, 63(2), 179-202. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2011.547693

Verkhovskii, A., & Pain, E. (2012). Civilizational nationalism. Russian Politics and Law, 50(5), 52-86. https://doi.org/10.2753/RUP1061-1940500503

Wimmer, A. (2018). Nation building: why some countries come together while others fall apart. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Alimdzhanov, A.A. (2023). The notion of “Independence” in the official speeches of Central Asia presidents. Polis. Political Studies, 3, 70-85. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2023.03.06

Buev, A.L., & Bukhovec, O.G. (2018). State bilingualism. Conditions of Russians and Russian-speaking in the Republic of Belarus. Contemporary Europe, 3, 71-82. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15211/soveurope320187182

Chernichkin, D.A. (2022). Language policy of the republic of Kazakhstan as a mechanism for the construction of a new national identity. South-Russian Journal of Social Sciences, 23(2), 106-128. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31429/26190567-23-2-106-128

Drobizheva L.M. (2019). The policy of integrating a multi-ethnic Russian society into doctrinal documents, political discourse and mass consciousness. Social Sciences and Contemporary World, 4, 134-146. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S086904990005821-5

Kacheyev, D.A., & Samarkin, S.V. (2022). Kazakhstan model of public consent and national unity in a changing world. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University, 8, 21-25. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.47475/1994-2796-2022-10803

Kolbachayeva, J.Y. (2019). Regional, national and confessional factors of formation of national identity of Kazakhstan. Post-Soviet Issues, 6(4), 398-408. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24975/2313-8920-2019-6-4-398-408

Pantin, V.I., & Lapkin, V.V. (2015). Ethnopolitical and ethnosocial processes in Post-Soviet countries (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine cases). Polis. Political Studies, 5, 75-93. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2015.05.07

Semenenko, I.S., Lapkin, V.V., Bardin, A.L., & Pantin, V.I. (2017). Between the State and the Nation: dilemmas of identity politics in post-Soviet societies. Polis. Political Studies, 5, 54-78. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.05.05

Tishkov, V.A. (2018). Changing concepts of ethno-politics in Russia (from Gorbachev to Putin). VestnikRossiiskoi natsii, 6, 9-30. (In Russ.)

See also: