Whatever wording is used to describe Russia's current status within the "transition paradigm" (whose epistemological usefulness came to be increasingly questioned of late) – a "phony" or "imitation" democracy, a country that has stuck in the murky zone between autocracy and democracy, or an outright authoritarian system – there appears to be a consensus that Russia represents a classic case of a failed transition from totalitarianism to democracy. What accounts for this sorry outcome? Some analysis tend to resort to the old clichés, pointing to President Vladimir Putin and his Kremlin pals' KGB past and to the proverbial Russian penchant for a strong leader. Other Russian specialists search for deeper roots – such as Russia's dearth of experience in representative governance and the populace's general unfamiliarity with the principle of self-rule, the basic principle within any democracy; the ignorance of civil rights; the lack of any real notion of private property or rule of law compounded by the traditionally ineffective and often corrupt judiciary.All these aspects of Russia's historical-cultural inheritance have undoubtedly contributed to the country's post-communist trajectory. I would argue, however, that at the heart of Russia's failure to build a democratic polity following the collapse of communism and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 is the fundamental, and so far unresolved, 'problem of national identity'. Russia's peculiar feature – someone might even call it its perennial curse – has been the country's chronic inability to forge national and social cohesion – in other words, to build a political or civic nation – that is the key to the success of any democratic transformation.