Contested national identities and weak state structures in Eurasia

Since their very inception, many of the Soviet successor states have been beset by ethnic violence, crime, trafficking – in arms, drugs and people – terrorism, poverty, pollution and migration.1 Most have also faced deeper problems of legitimacy and ideological drift. To a significant extent these pathologies can be traced back to the delegitimisation of the entire Soviet world view, and the lack of any viable replacement. The existence of an institutional vacuum in the post-Soviet geopolitical space has both contributed to such problems and impeded their successful resolution. The post-Soviet states have been forced to rebuild themselves by establishing basic institutions of governance and administration. At the same time the massive legitimacy problems they face call for nation building, along either inclusive/ civic or exclusive/ethnic lines. Moreover, the post-Soviet transition is further complicated by its taking place in the context of globalisation and as such is marked by heightened economic interdependence, technology development and diffusion. A critical question, then, is how the state – understood here in traditional Weberian terms – responds to such challenges, and what the results are for its ability to achieve developmental and political goals while consolidating its own sovereignty. The literature on globalisation and the state has generally addressed this question from a functional standpoint, considering the competence of centralised states to manage their responsibilities alone. Recent works in this vein have analysed the complex pattern of ‘bargains’, ‘reconfigurations’ and ‘delegations’ of sovereign authority as part of the state’s response to globalisation. Less attention has been paid to the role of the state in promoting and defending the reproduction of a favoured national identity. This analytical indifference is puzzling, inasmuch as constructions of national identity are crucial for internal organisation and cohesion as well as for relations with external actors. Consequently the ongoing reproduction of identity is essential for maintaining group boundaries, or the ‘self-Other nexus’ in Fredrik