Список використаних джерел

1. Закон України Про інвестиційну діяльність. // Загальні положення - 18.09.1991. – с.1

2. Державнапрограмаактивізаціїрозвитку економіки на 2013—2014 роки. Кабінет міністрів України. – 27 лютого 2013. – ст. 2-4.

3. Комітетіз економічних реформ приПрезидентовіУкраїни.Програма економічних реформ на 2010-2014 роки: Заможнесуспільство, конкурентоспроможнаекономіка, ефективна держава. – 2009 – с. 37-56.

4. Васильєв В. Інвестиції: генезис та економічна сутність категорії. // Економіка. – 2012 - № 2. – С. 13.

5. Інвестиційний клімат в Україні: закладено базис для подальшого розвитку. IFC. – 2013 – c. 2-37.

6. Кейнс Дж. М. Загальна теорія зайнятості, відсотка і грошей. – с. 147-148.

7. Майорова Т.В. Інвестиційна діяльність. – К.: Центр учбової літератури. -2009. –с.41-62.

8. Україна в світі. Огляд міжнародних індексів 2013. // Фонд ефективне управління. – 2013. – с.1-6, с. 19-23.

9. Чорна М.В., Глухова С.В. Формування ефективної інвестиційної політики підприємства: Монографія. – Харків, 2010. - с.9.

10. Щукін Б.М. Інвестування. – 2004. – с. 167.

Секція: міжнародна інформація

IarovyiD.¹

NATIONALISM AND IDENTITY OF THE POST-SOVIET COUNTRIES

After the fall of colonial system the nationalism has emerged as a political and, what is not less important, intellectual movement in the majority of newly independent countries, establishing the bond among representatives of national elite and creating a background for the development of national identity. Definitely, it was not a monolithic process, which had various streams and directions, but still, such countries as Botswana, Namibia, Mauritius have successfully implemented nationalism as an instrument of consolidation of people, i.e. they have adopted the inclusive type of nationalism [1].

Still, after the collapse of the USSR its former republics, which found themselves in the similar situation as postcolonial states, had some failures with both establishing identity and maintaining internal peace and democracy. To that end, it should be decided whether it is possible to equate the postcolonial and post-Soviet countries and to research their identity in the same discourse.

This topic is controversial and challenging, as it is difficult even to define which countries might be considered as ex-colonies in the post-Soviet perspective. This category may include all fourteen former Soviet republics, which were under rule of Russia. There is also a point of view, that Belarus and Ukraine are out of that list, as they share a lot of similarities with Russia, and share a lot of historical developments [2]. The opposite notion comprises not only republics of the former USSR, but the post-socialist states of the Eastern Europe, which must be assessed as post-colonies as well [3].

I would emphasize that countries of the Warsaw Pact should be excluded from this list for a range of reasons. Being a colonialist has been deemed as a profitable activity, either due to receiving contributions, or to the economic decisions which colonies made to satisfy the metropolitan sates; by contrast, for the USSR it was a huge spending. They wasted a lot of money to keep the military presence and didn’t even benefit from the goods manufactured in that countries [4;5]. It was almost impossible for an ordinary Soviet citizen to come to the «colony» as a tourist, and the key reason is that the countries of Eastern Bloc were much more prosperous.

There is also a political reason: the former colonies of the West still have strong ties with their former metropolitan states (language, personnel, policy, trade), while Russia has lost all the «progress» made by Soviet authorities, and for a long time has been lagging in development from the post-socialist independent countries. It may seem that such approach allows us to rule out the Baltic states from the further research, but it will be indicated and explained why that they should remain in focus.

Thus I will limit the possibility of the application of postcolonial perspective to the former republics of the Soviet Union. In order to decide if the process of post-colonial identity reconstruction is comparable to the post-Soviet, it is worth to examine which policy has Russia employed as a «metropolitan state» towards other countries during the Soviet period.

Indeed, its policy shares several important characteristics with the colonialism: absence of political independence, cultural domination of the titular nation and language, ignorance of the right of nations to self-determination. But this country was «unlike other European empires in a number of ways, the most significant of which was its emphasis on the modernization and political mobilization of the periphery» [6]. The economic development of the republics was not curbed, moreover, Russia made a lot of efforts to modernize the infrastructure of these countries, to raise the qualified personnel in the national republics.

Still the most important feature, which distinguishes the identity of post-Soviet republics from that of the classic post-colonial states, is the way they acquired independence. While the stages of the colonial system collapse took place after the large-scale wars, and this process was endorsed by national liberation movements of the colonies, the USSR has collapsed in relatively peaceful order, and there is a very small chance that it has been caused by the patriots from Soviet republics. The Soviet system could not compete with the global political and economic realities, and its defeat was self-condemned and self-promoted. Definitely, the nationalist movements has taken place in various parts of the USSR, and they have accelerated its failure to a certain amount [7]; but these processes were very rapid, and they didn’t result in the establishment of national identities in newly independent states.

Here we come to the key distinctive feature of that countries, that has impacted their further development. The events of early 1990s have led to the emergence of fifteen independent states (including Russia) with the population deprived of independent identity and respectable philosophy to build it upon. For wide segments of society the independence was very sudden and unexpected, and it’s a determinant difference of the post-Soviet states from postcolonial: lack of their common identity, reclaimed in the process of struggle for independence. Moreover, the Soviet identity was prevailing among the grass-roots, threatening the whole process of nation building on the early stages.

It means that after 1991 newly independent states found themselves in the position of choice: what will they prefer to develop their identity upon - either civic nationalism, which defines a nation by common citizenship, or ethnic nationalism, which concentrates on the ethnicity of titular nation.

Even taking into consideration that the heat of the ethnic nationalism in post-Soviet space belongs to the past, the seeds have been sow, and they are influencing the current situation. It should be kept in mind by policymakers that despite the high level of representation of titular nations, post-Soviet states are not monolithic. These nations are mostly composed of many ethnic groups with their own culture, religion and language. Ethnic nationalism calls for the establishment of the state in which this heterogeneity is ignored, and a lot of people whose culture and historical experiences are not used for state-building, according to the principles of ethnic nationalism, may find themselves beyond such a state. The examples of Ulster, Tamil people in Sri-Lanka and Kashmir demonstrate that ethnic nationalism has compromised itself as a measure of establishment secure nation.

References

1. Forrest J.B. Nationalism in Postcolonial States. Chapter of the book «After independence: making and protecting the nation in postcolonial & postcommunist states» (editor Barrington L.), pp.33-44, University of Michigan Press, 2006.

2. Nikitina Y. Legacy and Responsibility in the Post-Soviet Space, PONARS Eurasia Policy Memo No. 202, June 2012.

3. Chioni Moore D. Is the Post- in Postcolonial the Post- in Post-Soviet? Toward a Global Postcolonial Critique. Chapter of the book «Baltic Postcolonialism: On the Boundary of Two Worlds», pp.11-31, 2006.

4. Johnson A.R. The Warsaw Pact: Soviet Military Policy in Eastern Europe, The RAND Publication Series, July 1981.

5. Crane K. Military Spending in Eastern Europe, The RAND Publication Series, May 1987.

6. Adams L. Can we apply postcolonial theory to Central Eurasia? Central Eurasian Studies Review, 7/1, Jan 2008.

7. Beissinger M.R. Nationalism and the Collapse of Soviet Communism, Contemporary European History, Volume 18, Special Issue 03, pp 331-347, Aug 2009.

Зайцева М.^⃰*