Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. Slavic Review
  4. Slr Volume 77 collection

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply
Subject: Show more
Journals: Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies: Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

320 results in SLR Volume 77 Collection

Page 1 of 16

  • Inside Russia's Imperial Relations: The Social Constitution of Putin-Kadyrov Patronage
  • Julie Wilhelmsen
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2019, pp. 919-936
  • Print publication: Winter 2018
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation
  • View abstract

    This article analyzes how Moscow has extended its rule over Chechnia since the beginning of this century. Within the larger understanding of this rule as imperial in form, the current distinct contractual relationship between the Russian center and Chechnia is substantiated as one based on kinship. I argue that the Putin-Kadyrov relationship is a generic case of patronage but highlight the local imprint that such relations acquire by tracing how Chechen kinship practices inform this case.

  • Russian “Federalism”: Illiberal? Imperial? Exceptionalist?
  • Andrey Makarychev, Alexandra Yatsyk
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2019, pp. 912-918
  • Print publication: Winter 2018
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation
  • View extract

    Relations between the center and regions in Russia, being always in the limelight of attention in political science literature, remain a battlefield of different scholarly interpretations. Several narratives shape the current debate on Russian subnational regionalism or, in very legalistic terms, “federalism.” One is bent on applying to Russia such normatively-loaded concepts as multilevel and networked governance, meta-governance, indigenous governance, civil society participation, and others with strong liberal and institutional pedigrees. In this vein, Russia might be referred to—for example, along with Germany and France—as a “post-imperial democracy,” with an implicit anticipation of the prefix “post-” to signify Moscow's commitment to a democratic, rather than imperial, future. Seen from this perspective, with all its specificity Russia still conforms to basic standards of democratic rule and therefore can be approached, described, and analyzed in the language applicable to the liberal west, where institutions mitigate controversies over interests and create consensus over rules of the game.

  • Other Books of Interest
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2019, pp. 1153-1154
  • Print publication: Winter 2018
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation
  • Utopias and “Normality”: 1968 Revisited Fifty Years On
  • Jacques Rupnik
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2019, pp. 890-896
  • Print publication: Winter 2018
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation
  • View abstract

    The Prague Spring of 1968 did not provoke a major international crisis but at most an “incident” in the making of east-west detente. Yet it deserves to be revisited for three reasons of lasting significance for Europe. First, the Prague Spring revived, beyond the contemporary writings on Czech “democratic exceptionalism,” the European debate about the relationship between socialism and democracy. Second, it was often interpreted as part of an international generational revolt against the establishments, yet it also revealed sharp contrasts between east and west. Can the misunderstandings and different legacies of 1968 in Paris and Prague be enlightening for trans-European dialogue (or lack of) after 1989? Third, Czechoslovakia in 1968 represented the most far-reaching blueprint for reforming the system within the Soviet sphere. Its crushing prevented reform in eastern Europe and Moscow. Although it provided inspiration for Gorbachev's belated, botched attempt to save the system, this was twenty years too late, thus paving the way for its implosion in 1989.

Page 1 of 16