The Quest for Identity. Russian Public Opinion on Europe and the European Union and the National Identity Agenda

Abstract

This article looks into the debate on public attitudes in Russia towards the EU and Europe. The relevance of Europe and of the perception of belonging to Europe for Russian national identity is evaluated. To what extent do the Russians see themselves as European and what criteria fit this notion today after the two post-Soviet decades have drawn to a close? The existing image of the EU is analysed in the context of asserting and consolidating the Russian political nation. Elite and expert group opinions are considered, having in mind their influence on the wider public views on national identity. Historic notions of the West in Russian intellectual discourse are evocated as a valid context for the current debate, and the relevance of the traditional cleavage between westernizers and traditionalists for present day identity politics is evaluated. An important point in this discussion is the Russian and the Western perception of the ‘values gap’. The paper draws upon three groups of sources: public opinion survey data, public political discourse and its media coverage, and academic and expert literature.

Key Words:

• National identity
• European identity
• political nation
• public attitudes
• cultural and ideological cleavages
• ‘values gap’
• the significant ‘Other’
• intellectual discourse
• identity politics

Notes

In the Russian language there is a clear distinction between ‘Russian’ as relating to the people of Russian identity (language and culture, but not necessarily ethnicity – ‘Russkiy’) and ‘Russian’ meaning citizenship and belonging to the State entity (‘Rossiyskiy’). In this sense nationality may commonly refer to ethnicity (Russian, Tatar, Bashkir, etc), and not citizenship (Rossiyskiy as associated with the State i.e. the Russian Federation).

For such an example, see Klinke (2011). The author makes a strong case against opposing European ‘postmodern’ geopolitics and the Russian traditional ‘modern’ approach. He reasons that ‘the postmodern/modern binary and the hierarchical relationship that is constructed between the two countries might itself contribute to conflicts between the EU and Russia’ (p. 10).

These comprise materials published by academic institutions such as the Institute of Europe and the Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO), by leading universities with programmes in European studies and specialized research and teaching centers (such as the Centre of European Law, MGIMO University) and by independent (i.e., not linked to research institutions) journals (Russia in Global Politics). The public Committee ‘Russia in a United Europe’ has for several years brought together experts and politicians to discuss different aspects of Russian–EU relations. A new discussion forum – ‘European Dialogues’ was launched by the leading Russian think-tank IMEMO in 2009. The non-profit ‘EU–Russia Centre’ – an independent information and expertise resource – provides a network for discussion. All in all these and other similar initiatives including joint projects with universities in the Russian regions stimulate networking among scholars on the EU and bring together those in public opinion groups in favour of joint initiatives and closer ties with Europe.

The study was conducted in 2010 by the Moscow-based Institute of the Post-Crisis World and involved 245 experts (among them the author of this article) from 53 countries.