Belarus is known as the last dictatorship of Europe , yet its president enjoys public support. Its economy remains largely Soviet, yet exhibits high growth rates. Belarus styles itself as a European country yet clings to Russia as the only ally. The book explains these paradoxes by delving into history of Belarusian national institutions, including civil society, and the state.The book starts with an analysis of Belarusian national development from the time of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to the short-lived Belarusian People s Republic of 1918. The discussion turns to the crucial interwar period, when all national institutions of modern Belarus had taken shape. Belarus s surprising ability to cope with post-Soviet economic and geopolitical changes is discussed in the final chapter.

Belarus is known as “the last dictatorship of Europe”, yet its president enjoys public support. Its economy remains largely Soviet, yet exhibits high growth rates. Belarus styles itself as a European country yet clings to Russia as the only ally. The book explains these paradoxes by delving into history of Belarusian national institutions, including civil society, and the state. The book starts with an analysis of Belarusian national development from the time of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to the short-lived Belarusian People’s Republic of 1918. The discussion turns to the crucial interwar period, when all national institutions of modern Belarus had taken shape. Belarus’s surprising ability to cope with post-Soviet economic and geopolitical changes is discussed in the final chapter.

The proclamation of Belarusian independence on March 25, 1918, and the rival establishment of the Soviet Belarusian state on January 1, 1919, created two distinct and mutually exclusive national myths, which continue to define contemporary Belarusian society. This book examines the processes that resulted in this dual resolution in the context of World War I and the subsequent Russian Revolutions. Based on original archival material, Lizaveta Kasmach scrutinizes the development of competing concepts of Belarusian nationhood in the context of rivaling national aspirations and imperial policies. The analysis convincingly demonstrates the divisions within the nationalist movement, both politically between the moderates and socialists, and geographically between German-occupied territory with Vilna as a center versus Russian-controlled territory around Minsk. Besides the case study of Belarusian nation-building efforts, the book is a contribution to the study of the First World War in East Central Europe, approaching the war and its aftermath as a mobilizational moment in the region.

The 2015 issue of the Journal of Belarusian Studies is almost entirely about history. It focuses on the Belarusian-Polish-Lithuanian borderland and the period stretching from the uprising of 1863 to the inter-war period of the 20th century when the territory of today's Belarus was split between the Soviet Union and Poland. Two longer articles are followed by several essays which resulted from a conference held by the Anglo-Belarusian Society and other London-based organisations at University College London in March 2014.

This volume contends that young individuals across Europe relate to their country’s history in complex and often ambivalent ways. It pays attention to how both formal education and broader culture communicate ideas about the past, and how young people respond to these ideas. The studies collected in this volume show that such ideas about the past are central to the formation of the group identities of nations, social movements, or religious groups. Young people express received historical narratives in new, potentially subversive, ways. As young people tend to be more mobile and ready to interrogate their own roots than later generations, they selectively privilege certain aspects of their identities and their identification with their family or nation while neglecting others. This collection aims to correct the popular misperception that young people are indifferent towards history and prove instead that historical narratives are constitutive to their individual identities and their sense of belonging to something broader than themselves.

Personalist leaders, such as Russia's Vladimir Putin, Belarus's Alexander Lukashenko or Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro, are increasingly prominent players in the international landscape; their motivations and policies, however, are poorly understood. The regimes they lead are difficult to examine, mostly because of their most defining feature-an inordinate concentration of power in the hands of one single individual. Yet, personalist leaders do not rule alone, even if they do not always govern through institutional channels. How do personalist regimes really work? How do their rulers acquire and maintain personal control? How does contemporary personal rule differ from how it was practised during the Cold War? These are the key questions addressed in Personalism and Personalist Regimes, which offers a systematic examination of the logic of personalism, or personalist rule, tackling comprehensively the study of personalist leaders and personalist regimes. The book is underpinned by a theoretical framework that combines historical and comparative analyses, brought forward through a series of detailed country studies authored by a distinguished group of comparativists and area studies experts. The book also revisits, and builds upon, Sultanistic Regimes, the seminal study by H.E. Chehabi and Juan Linz. In contrast to Sultanistic Regimes that studied sultanism-an extreme form of personalism-Personalism and Personalist Regimes examines personal rule on its full continuum, from Turkey under Erdo?an or Venezuela under Maduro, to Turkmenistan under Berdimuhamedov or Libya under Gaddafi. Because personalism, or personal rule, can be present across all regimes, the book also includes several studies of personalism and institutions in party dictatorships, China or Cuba amongst others.

This book discusses the ideological and historical relevance of the term ‘Eurasia’ as a concept in the global geopolitical and ethno-cultural discourse. It focuses on the contested meanings attached to the idea and traces its historical evolution and interpretations. The volume examines the contours and characteristics of power politics in the Eurasian landscape by exploring the dynamics of the contending and competing interests that have come to occupy the region, particularly in the aftermath of the disintegration of the Soviet Union. It further examines the multiple narratives that define the socio-political realities of the region and also the policies of the state actors involved, by reflecting upon the multifaceted dimensions of the Eurasian issues. These include nation building strategies, identity, ethnic conflicts, security, democratization, globalization, international migration, climate change and energy extraction. The geopolitical and civilizational aspects of Eurasianism, in which Russia occupies a pivotal geo-political place creates both opportunities and anxieties for other stakeholders in the region. The book also holistically analyses the developmental dimensions of the post-Soviet space and ‘Eurasianism’ as a concept and political practice in domestic, regional and global affairs. The book also analyses the developmental dimensions of the post-Soviet space and ‘Eurasianism’ as a concept and political practice in domestic, regional and global affairs.