Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

Russia is trying, through its bombs, attacks, and brutality, to erase what Ukraine was. Therefore, it is a war effort to keep remembering how Ukraine in peace looked like, how it smelled, tasted, and felt. And to never forget that this is a war against Ukraine, in its own right. Not as a representative of the West, and not as a representative of democracy. But because Ukraine is of such importance to Russia, that a break between the two is unthinkable for Putin. That was what Leonid Kravchuk, the Ukrainian president, realized already in 1991. He, and Ukrainian leaders after him, tried to protect their territory while at the same time reassuring Russia that relations could still be friendly. But Russia has never changed in a similar way.

This book examines what came to determine the local power and character of the Communist party-state at the level of the national non-Russian republics. It discusses how, although the Soviet Union looked centralised and monolithic to outsiders, local party-states formed their own fiefdoms and had very considerable influence over many policies areas within their republics. It argues that local party-states were shaped by two decisive relationships - to the central Communist party in Moscow and to local constituencies, especially to the local intelligentsia and the creative professions who constituted the local party-states’ biggest potential adversaries. It shows how local party-states negotiated stability and their own survival, and contends that the effects of "Sovietisation" continue to be felt in the independent states which succeeded the republics, particularly in the field of the relationship with Moscow, which remains of immense importance to these countries. 

With the striking exception of the three Baltic States, the post-Soviet space unites in its incapacity to make a modern democratic state function. This incapacity is not just a marginal phenomenon but tends to be a syndrome. Against this background, this article addresses two interrelated questions. The first part develops a theoretical argument concerning post-Soviet developments, anchored in social theory. It underlines that how well democratic and legal institutions are going to function is determined, partly but not only, by the level of general social differentiation in a given society at the time of the introduction of these institutions. For such complexity to develop, a central state with a certain level of institutionalization, and with infrastructural, and not primarily repressive, capacity, is a necessary precondition. The second, empirical, part tries then to identify the variation that nevertheless exists in terms of democracy, state capacity and rule of law, between the post-Soviet states. As the recent, and promising, case of Georgia demonstrates, the crucial post-Soviet challenge is to break monolithic power structures. By increasing economic autonomy, a process that also strengthens societal complexity can start to evolve.

In contrast to bureaucracies and classic public authorities, the core activities in academia are not rule performing and subject to direction, but explorative and searching. However, as academia over time has been overtaken by a short-term achievement perspective with origins in the private sector, the challenge for academic leadership today seems close to that of supporting corporate innovation: how to safeguard and encourage risk-taking and uncertainty in the face of a managerial approach rewarding short-term results before long-term potential. This chapter addresses issues of how changes in governance and the increasing predominance of managerialism have affected academic leadership at the macro- and micro-levels, collectively and individually. It is pointed out that creative academic environments and the leadership sustaining them is characterized by institutional autonomy, diversity in disciplinary training, balance in competencies, and organizational flexibility. Since academia is decentralized, a great deal of attention is paid to the micro-level; to leadership at the actual shop floor.

This article argues that a close analysis of the early 2000s populism in post-communist Europe allows us to better understand their novelty at the time, what they brought to party politics, and to better explain the dynamic of politics in the region. The central argument is that there were pivotal parties that held a universalist and community-seeking orientation. The article analyzes three electorally successful parties in Eastern Europe, the National Movement Simeon II (NDSV) in Bulgaria, Jaunais Laiks (JL) in Latvia, and Res Publica (ResP), and uses interviews with party representatives, secondary literature, additional documents and published interviews. The findings indicate that these parties share the common vision of a restored community after a decade of social, economic, and political turmoil. Their message of social harmony was rooted in a decade of partisan politics and multi-party system that enhanced competitive views. 

Vart går statskunskapen, och varför? Det är de två frågor jag vill beröra i denna artikel. Min utgångspunkt är en oro för hur ämnet kan hållas ihop och en känsla av främlingskap inför den utveckling som ägt rum under de senare decennierna, där en positivistiskt driven statskunskap riskerar att reducera människan till själlös massa, samtidigt som en sammansmältning av hermeneutik och ’postmodernism’ lett till en samhällsvetenskap där möjligheten till gemensamma måttstockar har satts ifråga. Statskunskapen befinner sig på ett sluttande plan, där ”gated communities” alltmer lever sina egna liv, och där hårklyverier och fack­jargong riskerar att skymma sikten. Till syvende og sidst ligger emellertid överlevnaden för statskunskapen, och för all samhällsvetenskap, i att vi verkligen ser, påstår något bestämt om världen därute och når ut med det till omvärlden, och inte primärt ägnar oss åt den egna flocken och dess utgångspunkter, oavsett om de handlar om abstrakta resonemang eller metodologisk sofistikation.