The Development of National Identity in Post-soviet Azerbaijan

Abstract

Widely known for its diversity of peoples, the Caucasus is home to the so called Transcaucasian states, which include Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia. Formed as member republics of the Soviet Union in the early 20th century, these nationstates became independent after 1990. Though they in many ways owed their existence to Soviet policy, and of course also to Soviet power, the peoples of this region nevertheless regarded their countries as legitimate nations, and saw themselves as proud custodians of thousands of years of culture and statehood.

Like their neighbours, the Azerbaijanis have laid claim to a long history of civilization and development in the Caucasus. Beyond this, they also profess to live in the first democratic state of the Islamic world. This selfdefinition already carries in itself the peculiarities of their peripheral position, namely the hybridity of their collective identity (Bhabha, H. 2004). As part of Islam, but as a result of tsarist Russian expansionist efforts, they became involved in the process of forming “imagined communities” (Anderson, B. 1991) which resulted in the proclamation in 1918 of their shortlived independent nation state. However, the formation of their national identity over the rest of the 20th century was determined by Soviet type state power, which meant the abolition of the role of religion in defining identity. The effects of the Soviet period, in addition to the nature of political leadership, also illustrates continuity in everyday life, even after the break up of the Soviet Union, and in parallel with the revival of Islam.

Given its history in the short 20th century, Azerbaijan understandably retains specific post-Soviet characteristics. This article focuses specifically on the effects of power, hegemony and leadership that determined the formation of the Azerbaijani nation. In terms of the national consciousness of Azerbaijanis more generally, the direct and indirect influence on the periphery by centralized leadership, whether Soviet or now Russian, is paramount.