Suchergebnisse

Le 24 août 2019, l'Ukraine a fêté le 28 e anniversaire de son indépendance sous les auspices d'une nouvelle présidence. Le pays n'échappe pas au scénario du « dégagisme » observé ailleurs avec la victoire de l'acteur Volodymyr Zelensky. Ce choix est un nouveau soubresaut dans la vie politique ukrainienne. Il annonce des changements au niveau des élites destinés à mettre fin à la corruption tant dénoncée lors de la révolution de la Dignité (2013-2014) et trop faiblement combattue sous la présidence de Petro Porochenko (2014-2019). Le nouveau président peut-il relever ce défi en s'affranchissant des clans oligarchiques ? En aura-t-il les moyens sachant que le pays est en guerre et dans une situation économique fragile ?

The memory of WWII always played an important role in Belarus, which was characterized as a "Partisan Republic" during the Soviet time. Soviet historiography and memorial narrative emphasized the heroics of the resistance to fascism and allowed only a description of the crimes of the Nazis. New ways of looking at war events appeared during the perestroika and after the independence of the country. But after Alexander Lukashenko came to power as president in 1994, a neo-Soviet version of the past was adopted and spread. The Great Patriotic War (GPW) has become an increasingly publicized event in the official memorial narrative as the culminating moment in Belarusian history. Since the mid-2000s, this narrative tends to be nationalized in order to testify that the Belarusian people's suffering and resistance behavior were among the highest ones during WWII. Political and academic dissenting voices to the Belarusian authoritarian regime try to downplay this official narrative by pointing out that the Belarusians were also victims of the Stalinist repression, and their attitude towards the Nazi occupation was more than ambivalent. Behind the memorial discourses, two competitive versions of Belarusian national identity can be distinguished. According to the official version, Belarusian identity is based on the East-Slavic identity that incorporates the Soviet history in its contemporary development. According to the opposition, it is based on a national memory that discards the Soviet past as a positive one. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright the American Council of Learned Societies.]

The memory of WWII always played an important role in Belarus, which was characterized as a "Partisan Republic" during the Soviet time. Soviet historiography and memorial narrative emphasized the heroics of the resistance to fascism and allowed only a description of the crimes of the Nazis. New ways of looking at war events appeared during the perestroika and after the independence of the country. But after Alexander Lukashenko came to power as president in 1994, a neo-Soviet version of the past was adopted and spread. The Great Patriotic War (GPW) has become an increasingly publicized event in the official memorial narrative as the culminating moment in Belarusian history. Since the mid-2000s, this narrative tends to be nationalized in order to testify that the Belarusian people's suffering and resistance behavior were among the highest ones during WWII. Political and academic dissenting voices to the Belarusian authoritarian regime try to downplay this official narrative by pointing out that the Belarusians were also victims of the Stalinist repression, and their attitude towards the Nazi occupation was more than ambivalent. Behind the memorial discourses, two competitive versions of Belarusian national identity can be distinguished. According to the official version, Belarusian identity is based on the East-Slavic identity that incorporates the Soviet history in its contemporary development. According to the opposition, it is based on a national memory that discards the Soviet past as a positive one.

Valery Tishkov has been director of the Institute of Ethnology & Anthropology at the Russian Academy of Sciences since 1989. A specialist in the indigenous peoples of northern Canada, Tishkov is labeled a constructivist for his critique of the theory of etnos, a dominant concept in Soviet anthropology from the 1960s. But he is also a practitioner: appointed Minister of Nationalities in 1992, Tishkov has been instrumental in making the Ethnology Institute a center of expertise for the Russian authorities to draw on. Since the turn of the millennium he has joined the camp of those who uphold the idea of a normalized, post-conflict situation in Chechnya and, consequently, back Vladimir Putin's policy in the region. In an interview granted to Raisons politiques, Tishkov discusses the relationship between anthropology & politics in his country, revealing the rift between conceptual modernity & political liberalism in contemporary Russia. Adapted from the source document.

L'étude de l'élaboration de la politique européenne de voisinage confirme les évolutions politiques et institutionnelles de l'UE constatées dans le cadre de la politique de l'élargissement comme le renforcement du leadership de la Commission européenne en matière de relations extérieures. Elle met, ensuite, en lumière en quoi la PEV propose une nouvelle forme d'européanisation qui constitue un enjeu politique au sein de l'UE et des Etats voisins est-européens pour lesquels la perspective d'une adhésion future est controversée. Elle permet, enfin, de mieux comprendre le processus de fabrication d'une politique étrangère européenne tout en examinant les enjeux liés à la construction d'une communauté politique dans l'UE et à ses marges.