Sitnikov Alexey Vladimirovich

The article compares imperial and national practices of statebuilding using Russia as an example — a large, multi-component state. Due to its scale and ethno-religious diversity, such states develop special political institutions to ensure unity, security, and development. The formation of these states went through an imperial stage, and this is refl ected in contemporary political practices. The author examines various types of nationalism that emerged in post-imperial spaces. The first is ethnic nationalism, built around the myth of a common origin. In contrast to it, there are supra-ethnic models: civic nationalism (based on liberal values and democracy, as in the USA) and state nationalism as in China, where unifi ed national values and the strong role of the state come to the fore). Modern Russia implements a specific variant of supra-ethnic state nationalism: its goal is not assimilation, but the preservation of the distinct identity of peoples while fostering a common Russian civic identity. This approach partly continues the imperial legacy, which envisaged the coexistence of ethnic and common imperial identities. A strong centre played an important role as an arbitrator in conflicts between diff erent groups. Flexible approaches were applied: the inclusion of local elites in the common imperial system, indirect governance, autonomy, the preservation of local traditions, and, in some cases, even the granting of benefits and privileges to minorities. Education, the army, bureaucracy, and a common cultural canon (literature, historical narratives) also served as instruments of integration. Imperial consciousness linked the legitimacy of power to ensuring stability, security, and a worthy place for the state in the world. It presupposed the priority of the common good over local ethno-nationalism and fostered an inclusive understanding of belonging to the state, regardless of ethnicity or religion.