Introduction: Nontraditional Approaches to Russian Politics and Security

Abstract

Abstract: This introduction to a special section of Demokratizatsiya describes European University at St. Petersburg/Georgetown University project on Approaches to Russian Politics and Security. The guest editor reviews literature on nontraditional approaches to security studies, illustrates policy reasons for applying some of these concepts in Russian context, and introduces section's four articles. Keywords: nontraditional security, politics, Russia, security studies ********** The Soviet system's demise created a tremendous opportunity to unleash creative energies that had been ideologically constrained for decades. Even though some individuals ingeniously pushed USSR's intellectual boundaries, most Soviet social scientists worked within established Socialist paradigm. The opportunities to break out were greater in Central Europe than in Soviet Union. Despite high hopes for collaborative efforts, post-1991 scholarship has failed to produce much paradigm shifting. In Russia, country that dominated Soviet social science, stronger trend has become defense of analytical modes, not challenge of old assumptions. There are exceptions, however. Several universities established since 1992 offer a blend of Russian and Western scholarly approaches. In best cases, they expose students to Russian and Western (mirovoi, literally world) scholarly literature. The Carnegie Corporation of New York invited European University at St. Petersburg's political science and sociology faculty and Georgetown University's Government Department to explore potential synergies in a collaborative project involving scholars from both institutions. For three years, European University scholars developed their expertise in nontraditional approaches. During project's final year, each of them spent time at Georgetown, presented their work at seminars, and consulted with American colleagues to sharpen their scholarship's focus. The four articles published here present some of results from this collaboration. The Soviet system's collapse provided tremendous opportunities for scholars to rethink basic assumptions about politics and security. In first months of 1992, almost anything seemed possible. This gave extra potency to existing efforts to encourage thinking. In comparative politics, transitions paradigm--the dominant discourse--was quickly challenged by a chorus of critics who accused shock therapists of market bolshevism. (1) In both economics and political analysis, opposing sides tended to talk past each other. Political debates often involved a basic difference between procedural and substantive definitions of democracy. Economic arguments were similarly procedural, but ever more bitter, with rapid-reform advocates focusing on process, whereas gradualists emphasized outcomes. After 1998, focus increasingly shifted to nondemocratic systems, joining a growing literature on hybrid regimes and varieties of authoritarianism. (2) This literature, and related discussions' shift toward the political, is well-known to Demokratizatsiya readers. The backgrounds of nontraditional security topics may be less familiar, however. The Security Studies Dilemma Early Nontraditionalists The mainstream security studies community finds integration of new security issues difficult, especially given post--September 11 focus on terrorism. Many security studies experts have responded to perceived threats to traditional security studies by defending fortress rather than reexamining assumptions. Some of earliest and most influential scholars who challenged traditional security approaches include Richard Ullman, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, and Thomas F. Homer-Dixon. (3) Writing in early 1980s, when Soviet Union was still very much in business, Ullman warns that every administration in Washington has defined American national security in excessively narrow and excessively military terms. …