In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

CHAPTER 1 Nation-Formation Strategies in Contemporary Nation-Studies One of the problems of the studies of Belarusian post-communism transformation scenarios is the fact that the majority of them is based on several “basic truths” which, the longer they are used the more self-evident they become. One of these axiomatic truths of Belarusian post-communism implies lack of Belarusian national identity, which gave a stimulus to the rise of the Belarusian authoritarian regime. One of the obvious indications of this fundamental imperfection of the Belarusian nation is the destiny of political forces of its nationalism: downfall of their popularity in the 1990s, their candidates’ failure in the 1994 presidential elections—the only elections held in accordance with international standards, followed by their ousting to the outskirts of political scene. Even still, the political forces of nationalism are viewed as the sole legitimate carrier—representative and proponent of the Belarusian national idea. The weakness of the Belarusian national self-awareness is considered to be the reason for the defeat of political nationalist forces and for the failure of democratization in the 1990s. There is a certain logic behind this rhetoric. First, it implies that “the nation” comes out as a reality that exists behind the political scene and predetermines the outcome of the events on it. As the Belarusian political scientist Leonid Zlotnikov once noted, “The Belarusian People Front1 adheres to the mystical point of view on the nation’s existence. Nationalists consider a nation as some timeless abstract category.”2 An appeal of the nationalism’s political force to the national consciousness of Belarusians implies that the nation does exist, albeit in a sleeping, unarticulated state. Second, the Belarusian nationalist forces interpret the nation’s awakening and sometimes reduce it to reorientation of public consciousness from socialist values to liberal and democratic ones. This idea proceeds from the conviction that nationalism, liberalism, and democracy are essentially interrelated . However, the question whether a nation exists prior to national 1 Major representative of the Belarusian political nationalism in present-day Belarus. 2 “Demokratiia i natsionalism kak alfa i omega politicheskogo protsessa,” Adkrytaie gramadstva no. 2 (11) (2001), http://data.minsk.by/opensociety/2.01/5.html. movements or, on the contrary, nations are “produced” by these movements has no single answer in the theories of nation. The linkage between the nationalism and democratic liberalization is also often considered as questionable. Public discourses of nationalism and liberalism both promote societal cohesion, but they do so by different means and in the names of the different political objectives. The general logic in interrelation of these phenomena lies in the fact that a common awareness of belonging to a national unit seems to be a prerequisite for democratization. Precisely in this sense nationalism had to be conducive to democratization in the socialist countries. In this case nationalism turns out to be one of the attributes and instruments of democratization and liberalization of society. Following this logic, the fact of failed democratization in Belarus seems to serve as an argument that proves the Belarusian identity’s weakness. Acknowledgement of anti-Belarusian nature of the current Belarusian state derives logically from this assumption. The idea of the Republic of Belarus (governed by A. G. Lukashenka) as an antinational political formation , and an ideology, formulated by the official political discourse as anti-Belarusian is yet another “basic truth” of the Belarusian political opposition, which gained wide following among the Western researchers. The data presented by independent polls is a true paradox to this interpretation of Belarusian reality. It shows that the majority (a little more than a half to be precise) of the society supports the existing regime. This means that alongside the political authorities these Belarusians support, the majority of the people are excluded from the framework of “Belarusian nation,” as defined in oppositional political discourse. Meanwhile, it has to be admitted that Belarusian authorities draw up the project of their legitimacy based on the national idea, postulating it as their project for the Belarusian nation. It is logical to presume that Belarusians, voting in favor of the existing regime, find themselves in the descriptions of Belarusianness that are offered by the official discourse. At the same time, the disposition of political forces where nationalist parties find themselves in hard ideological confrontation with the country ’s authorities can be seen as a direct confrontation of the “nation” (as Belarusian nationalists understand it) and the state. Some theorists, however (e.g., E. Gellner...

Share