Search results

Abstract. This article pursues two aims. On the empirical level, it challenges the view of Belarus as a 'denationalised', or 'failed' nation, and exposes the country as an area of intensive nation‐building. The article demonstrates that, unlike most post‐communist states, two versions of national identity have been advanced in Belarus since 1989, with divergent results for their proponents. On the theoretical level, such an atypical experience places qualifications on the instrumentalist approach, that regards nation‐building as a political tool. The analysis of identity creation in Belarus suggests that nation‐building as a political strategy may be limited by the existing attitudes in the society in question, the socio‐economic structures, as well as by the influence of foreign actors.

This article pursues two aims. On the empirical level, it challenges the view of Belarus as a 'denationalised', or 'failed' nation, and exposes the country as an area of intensive nation-building. The article demonstrates that, unlike most post-communist states, two versions of national identity have been advanced in Belarus since 1989, with divergent results for their proponents. On the theoretical level, such an atypical experience places qualifications on the instrumentalist approach, that regards nation-building as a political tool. The analysis of identity creation in Belarus suggests that nation-building as a political strategy may be limited by the existing attitudes in the society in question, the socio-economic structures, as well as by the influence of foreign actors. (Nations and Nationalism,ECMI)