The international community has expressed great concern about the treatment of the Uzbek minority in the south of Kyrgyzstan and has called on the majority community to make major efforts to improve the situation. The article compares the treatment of minorities in Kyrgyzstan with analogous situations in the Balkans and contends that, given the European-style ethnonational state model and democratic political system that have been adopted by independent Kyrgyzstan, such calls are unrealistic.

Nationalism became the bane of the Soviet empire. The disintegration of the USSR due to nationalistic forces has occurred with a swiftness that few, if any, Western Sovietologists anticipated. The four Central Asian states, with high rates of population growth and a strategic location at the crossroads of Europe, the Middle East and South Asia, now acquire a new significance. Of these Uzbekistan, with a population of twenty million, seventy percent of whom belong to the titular national group, looms largest in terms of demographic and economic potential. The population of Uzbekistan is almost twice as large as the other nascent Central Asian nations combined, and despite severe ecological damage, produces almost two thirds of the cotton in the region, along with natural gas, gold and other minerals.

On the theatrical stage, the term “dénouement“ refers to the resolution of a dramatic complication. On the stage of world events, few historical periods can rival the present situation in the Soviet successor states for satisfying this definition more exactly. On December 21, 1991, eleven men—all, ironically, former communist party officials—signed an agreement in Alma-Ata, Kazakhastan, resolving that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics “henceforth will cease to exist.” With this announcement, the “Soviet experiment” came to an end and a new world, inchoate and uncertain, began to emerge.

Most European early-modern states transitioned from composite monarchies into centralized ones. Essentially, composite monarchies were “more than one country under the sovereignty of one ruler.” As Moscow expanded and acquired the surrounding principalities either by inheritance or force, its grand princes enacted a series of legal and administrative reforms to dissolve the differences among its territories and create a centralized monarchy. These political reforms began under Ivan III, who instituted a standardization of Muscovite legal practice and formalized a defined system of social precedence, mestnichestvo, which accorded high rank to his newly acquired provincial elites within the Muscovite social system. Change could not happen overnight, and further legal reforms by Ivan IV, in addition to new religious reforms to eradicate differences of practice among his subjects, centralized the Grand Prince's political and religious authority.

The fight for Lwów/Lviv in 1918 was the first military conflict in the difficult twentieth-century history of Polish–Ukrainian relations. In the inter-war period, an impressive military memorial, the Eaglets Cemetery, was constructed in Lwów to honor the young defenders of the city. A monument to the Eaglets was also erected in the neighboring Przemyśl. In inter-war Poland, the Ukrainians, who had lost their cause for state independence, created their own cult of national heroes, the Sich Riflemen. Their graves in Lwów and Przemyśl, as well as in many smaller towns, became sites of public commemoration and national mobilization. This article traces the emergence, the development and the post-World War II decay of both competing memorial cults, focusing on their revival and political uses after 1989. It examines the trans-border aspects of memory politics in Lviv and Przemyśl and analyses the role of war memorials in (re-)establishing the link between ethnic communities and their homelands.

General Features of Economic Development.

There are two parallel processes taking place in the Estonian economy. First, the transition from a centrally planned economy to a market economy. Secondly, the shift from external relations that are Eastern oriented to relations that are Western oriented. Both processes accelerated after the introduction of the national currency—the kroon (abbreviation EEK)—on June 20, 1992.

In 2001, the Republic of Macedonia—the former Yugoslavia's southernmost republic—was on the brink of civil war as the ethnic Albanian “National Liberation Army” (UÇK) was fighting Macedonian security forces and establishing rebel control over parts of the country. The armed conflict took more than 200 lives and displaced, at one time or another, more than 100,000 people. Civil war was prevented by an agreement between the four major ethnic Macedonian and ethnic Albanian parties in the country, signed on August 11, 2001 in the town of Ohrid, thereafter usually referred to as the “Ohrid Agreement.” Far-reaching constitutional and legislative changes would re-construct the Republic of Macedonia as a multi-ethnic democracy. Since then, constitutional amendments and new laws have been passed, increasing the rights and power of minorities, especially the Albanian one. The new constitution combines the concept of civic citizenship with elements of de facto consociationalism, and satisfies the demand of the Albanian minority to help shape the destiny of their country using a collective voice.

This paper aims to extend the focus of ethnic minority research in two ways: first, by introducing the notion of constitutive representation of ethnicity and second, by operationalizing accountability for empirical research of minority representation in accordance with the constructivist representative turn. The paper suggests that the analysis of ethnic minority representation would be significantly refined if it adopted a more constructivist understanding of representation. Consequently, we need to move beyond traditional understanding of accountability as reelection. As a response, previous research has introduced more discursive and plural ways of understanding accountability. This paper contributes to these theoretical advancements by developing methodological tools for evaluating minority representation. The paper suggests that there are three systemic conditions necessary for the accountability of minority representatives: publicity, competition, and outlets for objection. Based on them, the paper develops 18 indicators for evaluating minority representation. The system accountability indicators allow us to extend our research beyond the identification of minority claims and try to explain the differences among those who claim to represent minorities.