Конструирование «либерализма» в постсоветской России (Наследие 1990-х в идеологических битвах 2000-х)
The article analyses the process of discursive construction of the image of “liberalism” in post-Soviet Russia. The author sticks at the reputation approach, i.e. considers as “liberals” the politicians and pubic intellectuals who call themselves this way or are regarded as such by their contemporaries. Analyzing the texts of the “liberals” and their critics the author argues that the current crisis of liberalism in Russia is partly a consequence of the form in which it was invented in the 1990s. Liberalism in Russia is associated with the Westernism, obsession with the market economic reforms, paternalist approach to the illiberal majority, criticism of the authoritarian regime and renunciation of imperial ambitions. In the context of political and ideological shifts of the 2000s and the 2010s this combination of ideas facilitated a development of the negative image of liberalism and its political marginalization.
The paper focuses on the evolution of the relationship between the Michurinist biology, Darwinism, and Lamarckism in the 1930–50s. The argument is based on the analysis of citation practices in Lysenkoist periodicals and programmatic statements of Lysenko and his close associates.
Igor Pellicciari is a tenured professor at the State University of Urbino (Italy) and a senior fellow at the Higher School of Economics (Moscow). He is also contract professor at the Moscow State University and LUISS University (Rome). From 2005 to 2013 he has been a Senior Expert of the European Union for Institution Building Programs, done in cooperation with the Russian Presidential Administration and the Russian Federation Duma.
In order to understand modern Russia and not to fall into the current most common stereotypes (the first and most common one being the image of its current president as a modern Tsar), it should be a prerequisite to analyze the period of the substantial failure of the first Russian constitutionalization which preceded the Soviet government and the entire Soviet period.
This book aims to analyze this period (1905–1907) distinguished by the short but intense liberal era in Russia at the start of the 20th Century. Thanks to this, Russia experienced one of the latest and shortest liberal periods in Europe, in which, however, seeds were launched for the later modern political and institutional development of the country.
It is important to observe the revolution of 1905 and the following convocation of the First Russian Duma in 1906, which evolved into a lost opportunity for the Russian constitutionalization and ultimately ended up being a forgotten liberal revolution. Instead, throughout the decades became predominant Lenin’s narrative of the 1905 events as a general rehearsal towards the hailed and inevitable Glorious Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917, which by contrast, was considered the start of a new era and a strong new legitimate political regime.
Thus, the liberal and constitutionalization potential of the 105 revolution have been for almost a century banned from the official political history of the Soviet Russia.
Nonetheless, today all these events, and especially those generated by the parliamentary institutions, have been reevaluated in the light of their role in inspiring the constitutional transformation of the current post-soviet political system, and have a newly acquired practical significance for the modern institutional development of Russia.
From this perspective, it is more historically understandable the current effort of the Russian Federation to consolidate first and more liberalism and Rule of Law reforms before dealing with the issue of a full and true procedural democratization of the country.
The chapter analyses the process of discursive construction of the image of “liberalism” in post-Soviet Russia. The author sticks at the reputation approach, i.e. considers as “liberals” the politicians and pubic intellectuals who call themselves this way or are regarded as such by their contemporaries. Analyzing the texts of the “liberals” and their critics the author argues that the current crisis of liberalism in Russia is partly a consequence of the form in which it was invented in the 1990s. Liberalism in Russia is associated with the Westernism, obsession with the market economic reforms, paternalist approach to the illiberal majority, criticism of the authoritarian regime and renunciation of imperial ambitions. In the context of political and ideological shifts of the 2000s and the 2010s this combination of ideas facilitated a development of the negative image of liberalism and its political marginalization.
The article deals with the processes of building the information society and security in the CIS in accordance with modern conditions. The main objective is to review existing mechanisms for the formation of a common information space in the Eurasian region, regarded as one of the essential aspects of international integration. The theoretical significance of the work is to determine the main controls of the regional information infrastructure, improved by the development of communication features in a rapid process.The practical component consists in determining the future policies of the region under consideration in building the information society. The study authors used historical-descriptive approach and factual analysis of events having to do with drawing the contours of today's global information society in the regional refraction.
The main result is the fact that the development of information and communication technologies, and network resources leads to increased threats of destabilization of the socio-political situation in view of the emergence of multiple centers that generate the ideological and psychological background. Keeping focused information policy can not be conceived without the collective participation of States in the first place, members of the group leaders of integration - Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Currently, only produced a comprehensive approach to security in the information field in the Eurasian region, but the events in the world, largely thanks to modern technology, make the search for an exit strategy with a much higher speed. The article contributes to the science of international relations, engaging in interdisciplinary thinking that is associated with a transition period in the development of society. A study of current conditions in their relation to the current socio-political patterns of the authors leads to conclusions about the need for cooperation with the network centers of power in the modern information environment, the formation of alternative models of networking, especially in innovation and scientific and technical areas of information policy, and expanding the integration of the field in this region on the information content.
This special publication for the 2012 New Delhi Summit is a collection of articles by government officials from BRICS countries, representatives of international organizations, businessmen and leading researchers.
The list of Russian contributors includes Sergei Lavrov, Foreign Minister of Russia, Maxim Medvedkov, Director of the Trade Negotiations Department of the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, Vladimir Dmitriev, Vnesheconombank Chairman, Alexander Bedritsky, advisor to the Russian President, VadimLukov, Ambassador-at-large of the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry, and representatives of the academic community.
The publication also features articles by the President of Kazakhstan NursultanNazarbayev and internationally respected economist Jim O’Neil, who coined the term “BRIC”. In his article Jim O’Neil speculates about the future of the BRICS countries and the institution as a whole.
The publication addresses important issues of the global agenda, the priorities of BRICS and the Indian Presidency, the policies and competitive advantages of the participants, as well as BRICS institutionalization, enhancing efficiency and accountability of the forum.