scholarly journals Pridnestrovie

Author(s):  
Francesco Napolitano

This work is the result of a research made by the author in 2010, under the guide of Fabio Bettanin, professor of Eastern Studies at the University of Naples “L’Orientale”. It focuses on Pridnestrovie, a small patch of land, legally belonging to the Moldavian Republic, located between the eastern bank of the Dniester River and the Moldovan border with Ukraine. Pridnestrovie, during the Soviet period hosted most of the industries located in the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. In the aftermath of perestroika and the collapse of the USSR, Pridnestrovie declared, with the support of Moscow, its independence from Chinisau.

Kavkaz-forum ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Е.И. КОБАХИДЗЕ

В статье предлагается анализ Конституции Северо-Осетинской АССР 1978 г., отразившей этап развития ее государственности в советский период. Научное осмысление правовых аспектов истории Северной Осетии в статусе автономной республики, анализ ее места и роли в системе советской государственности во многом объясняет противоречия в реализации органами государственной власти республики функций политического самоуправления в эпоху «застоя» и «кризиса социализма». Анализ показывает, что декретированный ранней советской властью национальный суверенитет народов, населяющих советскую Россию, не нашел правового подтверждения в Конституции СССР 1977 г., на основе и в соответствии с которой были разработаны и приняты Конституции РСФСР и входящих в нее автономных республик, в том числе и СОАССР. Фиксация статуса автономной республики в качестве государственного образования без признания ее государственного суверенитета ограничивало пределы компетенции республиканских органов власти и управления и ставило их в фактическую зависимость от вышестоящих властно-управленческих структур даже в решении вопросов, отнесенных к ведению автономной республики. Все это вместе взятое превращало автономную республику в «квазигосударственное образование», высшие государственные органы которой действовали в режиме «местной власти». Противоречивые конституционные положения 1977-1978 гг., закрепленные в Основных законах СССР, РСФСР и СОАССР, стали одним из факторов деструкции советской власти и социалистической системы и последующего затем «парада суверенитетов» бывших автономных образований в пределах РСФСР. The article analyzes the 1978 Constitution of the North Ossetian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, which reflected the stage of development of its statehood relevant to the Soviet period. Scientific comprehension of the legal aspects of the history of North Ossetia in the status of an autonomous republic, an analysis of its place and role within the system of the Soviet statehood largely accounts for the contradictions in the implementation by the republican state institutions of the functions of political self-government in the era of "stagnation" and "crisis of socialism". Analysis shows that the national sovereignty of the peoples inhabiting Soviet Russia, that was decreed by the early Soviet government, did not find legal confirmation in the USSR Constitution of 1977, on the basis and in accordance with which the Constitution of the RSFSR and its autonomous republics, including NOASSR, were elaborated and adopted. Fixing the status of the autonomous republic as a state entity without recognizing its state sovereignty limited the competence of the republican authorities and made them in fact dependent on the higher power structures even in resolving issues attributed to the jurisdiction of the autonomous republic. All this taken together turned the autonomous republic into a "quasi-state entity", the highest state bodies of which operated in the regime of "local power". Contradictory constitutional provisions of 1977-1978, enshrined in the Fundamental Laws of the USSR, RSFSR and NOASSR, became one of the factors of the destruction of the Soviet power and the socialist system and the subsequent “parade of sovereignties” of the former autonomous entities within the RSFSR.


2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 222-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liutauras Nekrošius

The trends in Palanga architecture of the second half of the 19th – first half of the 20th century are represented in the National Cultural Heritage List by 10 villas, 14 residential houses, two hotels (Kurhauses of Nemirseta and Palanga), a pharmacy, a spa building, a ship rescue station and a bus station. But such heritage objects reflect the stages in the town development only partially. If the cultural heritage list of Palanga town is treated as a coherent and continuous collection reflecting different stages in architecture and culture of this town (as it should be), it would be relevant to add a few more samples of the mid and second half of the 20th century architecture to the list. Taking into consideration the presence of exclusive Soviet period architectural objects on the list (made according to recommendations of different professional and social communities), and recommendations of the list founders, the following two educational institutions realized less than 50 years ago that these may as well be enrolled as examples of specific historic period and acknowledged artistic style or trend, and as most progressive and/or artistic architectural solutions of the time, to be protected for public information and use purposes: the music school designed by architect I. Likšienė,1981, (Maironio St.8; see Fig. 1) and former Pioneers’ Palace designed by I. Likšienė and G. P. Likša,1985, (now the elementary school, at the address Virbališkės Takas 4; see Fig. 2). These buildings are distinctive examples of contemporary architecture development. At present managed by the local municipality, they are in good physical state, with retained initial qualities of space and volume structure, use of materials, environment and purpose. In the category of accommodation buildings the following may be marked out: the early architectural design works by A. Lėckas, namely, the Žilvinas hotel (Kęstučio St. 34; see Fig. 4, a.), designed and implemented in 1968 as a rest house for 45 guests (21 apartment) on commission of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Lithuania and the Žilvinėlis apartment building for 24 guests implemented in 1970 (Birutės al. 44; see Fig. 4, b.). These objects still owned by the state have been prepared for privatization. Before privatization it is suggested to enroll them on the Cultural Heritage List, identify their valuable qualities, character and level of significance and perform any other required procedures. It is also recommended to make agreements for protection of cultural heritage objects with the new owners of such buildings. The initial protection is also needed for the Rąžė book shop and café building (Vytauto St.84; see Fig. 5) designed by R. V. Kraniauskas in 1967 and considered mature in the artistic sense. The building has retained its small scale, which is characteristic for the resort town, and thus enriches the spatial perspective of the street. Considering its physical shape, functional and aesthetical qualities and the use character, it is also highly recommended to grant the heritage protection status to the administration building Komprojektas (Gintaro St.30,30A; see Fig. 6) designed by G. P. and I. Likša in 1988. The collection of Palanga architecture may also be enriched by the conserved pavilions of the summer reading hall of the National Martynas Mažvydas Library (Vytauto St.72, (1968); see Fig. 7) and Kupeta (S.Daukanto/ S.Dariaus and S.Girėno St., (1969); see Fig. 8) designed by architect A. Čepys; an example of the original concrete plastics, the coffee shop Banga (J. Basanavičius St. 2; see Fig. 10) designed by G. J. Telksnys in 1976–77 and realized in 1979. The present shape and use character of these buildings cause serious threat to their preservation. There is little probability that within the context of the on-going reconstructions traditional acts for enrollment on the heritage list could somehow contribute to the conservation of values of the Vanagupė resort center, the laureate (1984) of prestigious prize by the USSR Council of Ministers (architects A. Lėckas, S. Šarkinas and L. Merkinas; see Fig. 3); the resthouse Guboja implemented only partially in 1976 (in Šventoji, Jūros St 65A., architect. R. Buivydas); resthouse Auska (presently, hotel, Vytauto St.11; architect J. Šipalis, 1977); and the resthouse Šiaulių Tauras (Vytauto St.116, architect G. P. Likša,1983). Nevertheless, the identified architectural, urban, landscape and engineering values of objects and analyzed possible forms for their conservation (ex-situ and in-situ) could become a basis for scientific study of contemporary architecture and urban planning in Palanga resort. Based on their design material, the initial concepts of such objects should be identified and their present as well planned for the future transformations should be analyzed. Such study to be presented publicly (for example, on the National Cultural Heritage List database) could ensure conditions for better understanding of past and present values of the objects, for both, specialists and public at large, and be a highly valuable source of information describing the architecture of the time to be used for information, scientific and professional purposes. Such study may also become a stimulus for preparation of complex regeneration design projects of objects and landscapes, which would comprise the conservation and development needs and add new artistic values. Santrauka Dėl pakitusių politinių, ekonominių ir kultūrinių sąlygų XX a. II pusės architektūros ir urbanistikos kūriniai dažnai nebeatitinka šiandienos naudotojų poreikių ir keliamų reikalavimų. Todėl apleidžiami, griaunami ar reikšmingai kinta. Dėl to ryškėja iniciatyvos siūlyti į KVR įtraukti kuo daugiau šio laikmečio kūrinių. Tačiau XX a. IX dešimtmetyje kultūros paminklais tapę naujosios architektūros kūriniai dėl neraiškios saugojimo strategijos, žmogiškųjų ir finansinių išteklių tvarkybai stokos vis tiek nyksta. Todėl kyla abejonių ar registro plėtra bus veiksminga. Straipsnyje Palangos miesto pavyzdžiu nagrinėjamos galimybės sudaryti vėlyvojo modernizmo architektūros kolekciją. Manoma, kad sistemingas kultūriškai vertingų architektūros objektų rinkinys formuojamas apjungiant skirtingus saugojimo metodus gali paskatinti atsakingas institucijas, vietos ir profesines bendruomenes susitelkti atsakingam architektūros paveldo puoselėjimo ir tvaraus naudojimo procesui.


Author(s):  
Adrian Brisku

Arguably, an account of modern Georgia is one about the country’s emergence as a political nation (independent republic and nation-state) in the region of the Caucasus—geographically straddled in between the Eurasian landmass—and the challenges of redefining, developing, and preserving itself. It is also about how it was forged under and often against its powerful neighbors, most notably the tsarist Soviet and Russian state, and about its equally uneven interactions with other neighboring nations and nationalities within its political borders. And while one cannot put a precise date on the cultural and political processes as to when this modern Georgia emerged, the late 19th century is that period when people within the two tsarist governorates of Tbilisi and Kutaisi interacted more intensively among themselves, but also within the imperial cultural and political centers of St. Petersburg and Moscow as well as beyond the imperial confines, in Central and Western European capitals. This in turn—following impactful events: the 1861 tsarist Emancipation of Serfs, the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878, the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, the First World War, the February and October Revolutions of 1917, the brief making of the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (1918)—led to a diffusion of and reaction to political, economic, and cultural ideas from European and imperial metropoles that on May 26, 1918, culminated with the establishment, for the first time, of Georgia as a nation-state: the Georgian Democratic Republic. A social democratic nation-state in its political content, the political life of this first republic was cut short on February 25, 1921, by the Red Army of a re-emerging Russian (Soviet) state. In the ensuing seventy years in the Soviet Union—initially, from 1922 to 1936, as a constitutive republic of the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic and then as a separate Soviet Socialist Republic until the implosion of the union in 1991—the republic and its society experienced the effects of the making and unmaking of the Soviet Marxist-Leninist modernization project. Especially impactful for the republic and its society was the period of the 1930s and 1940s under the hyper-centralized rule of the Georgian-born Soviet Communist Party leader Joseph V. Stalin: a period marked by implementation of a centrally planned economic model and political purges as well as a consolidation of the nation’s ethnocultural and territorial makeup. Also important was the late Soviet period, particularly that under the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, whereby thanks to the economic and political reforms undertaken in the later 1980s, calls for the recovering of the republic’s political independence were intensified and ultimately realized. This happened on April 9, 1991—with the first Georgian president, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, declaring the independence of the Republic of Georgia before the Soviet Union’s dissolution on December 26, 1991—and its international recognition would come easily and fast. But what would prove difficult and slow, from the outset, was building a European-style nation-state—meaning a liberal democratic order based on the rule of law and a market society—as was the case in the brief presidency of Gamsakhurdia (1991–1992). The latter’s term was marred by an ethnopolitical war in the South Ossetian region and brought to an end by a civil war fought in the capital city of Tbilisi and the Megrelian region. It continued to be difficult during the long and interrupted presidency of the former Georgian Communist Party boss, Eduard Shevardnadze (1995–2003)—the 1995 Constitution established a semi-presidential system of government—in which an ethnopolitical war with Abkhazia started and ended (1992–1993), state institutions stabilized, and a pro-Euro-Atlantic as opposed to a pro-Russian foreign policy was articulated, but state corruption also thrived. A European-style republic appeared closer during the full-term “hyper-presidency” of the Western-educated president Mikheil Saakashvili (2004–2013), marked by concrete steps toward Euro-Atlantic integration (NATO membership and EU partnership/toward membership) and a distancing from Russia as well as top-down neoliberal domestic reforms. But the republic was scarred by a war with Russia in August 2008 and a growing authoritarianism at home. It remains so despite a shift, since 2013, from a presidential to a parliamentary republic with the last directly elected president being the first woman president, Salome Zurabishvili (2018–). Since 2012, the Georgian Dream Party—established by billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili (prime minister, 2012–2013)—governs the republic by pursuing Western-oriented domestic reforms, EU and NATO integration, and a nonconfrontational position against Russia. The latter continues to undermine the country’s territorial integrity, having recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia’s independence in 2008 and maintaining its military bases there.


Author(s):  
Yuriy Makar

While writing his memoir, the author highlights the root causes of Collaboration University of Saskatchewan and State University of Chernivtsi Agreement. In June, 1977 on behalf of Professor Konstiantyn Chervinskyi – the-then Rector of State University of Chernivtsi, the author had the honour to meet in Kyiv Robert Begg – the President of University of Saskatchewan. What is more, during this crucial meeting the author initiated the talks concerning further fruitful collaboration between universities. Interestingly, the actual inter-university collaboration has started taking its shape since 1976, when a bronze statue of Lesya Ukrayinka, made in Kyiv (Ukraine in former USSR) by sculptor Halyna Kalchenko and architect Anatoliy Ihnashchenko, was unveiled at the University of Saskatchewan (Sascatoon). The monument was presented to the University by the Association for Cultural Relations with Ukrainians Abroad. Significantly, it was the Association that invited the Rector of University of Saskatchewan and his wife to pay an official visit to Ukraine. The Rector himself suggested signing the agreement with one of the universities of West Ukraine. Symbolically, State University of Chernivtsi was targeted by the Ministry of Higher and Secondary Specialized Education of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Of particular value were the provisions of University of Saskatchewan agreement. They supported the study of the language, culture and history of Ukraine. Furthermore, the agreement aimed at academic and cultural exchanges of faculty, scholars and students at the post-secondary level. This was unprecedented formal agreement between a North American university and a university in Ukraine. Noteworthy, Collaboration agreement was solemnly concluded by both Rectors on June 5, 1977 in compliance with the sticking points of the Canadian part. Regrettably, the former USSR’s (Mocsow) authorities amended the agreement, excluding the point of students’ exchange program. In terms of the Canadian students, they were able to come and study at State University of Chernivtsi; our students, however, were forbidden to cross the borders of the USSR. Instead, the faculty of our university enjoyed the right to go on their sabbatical to Saskatoon. Paying the tribute to University of Saskatchewan, the author extends his gratitude to its authorities. Nevertheless, after the USSR collapse, the students of State University of Chernivtsi got an excellent opportunity to study in Canada. To conclude, the Agreement prolongs its validity. To be more precise, the Chernivtsi-Saskatoon Universities’ Collaboration Agreement will celebrate its 40th anniversary in 2017. According to the author, the agreement has quite a reasonable right to be extended. Keywords: Lesya Ukrayinka, University of Saskatchewan, State University of Chernivtsi, Collaboration Agreement


2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-365
Author(s):  
Mayhill C. Fowler

AbstractIn the Soviet Union theatre was an arena for cultural transformation. This article focuses on theatre director Les Kurbas’ 1929 production of playwright Mykola Kulish’sMyna Mazailo, a dark comedy about Ukrainianization, to show the construction of “Soviet Ukrainian” culture. While the Ukrainian and the Soviet are often considered in opposition, this article takes the culture of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic seriously as a category. Well before Stalin’s infamous adage “national in form and socialist in content,” artists like Kulish and Kurbas were engaged in making art that was not “Ukrainian” in a generic Soviet mold, or “Soviet” art in a generic “Ukrainian” mold, but rather art of an entirely new category: Soviet Ukrainian. Far from a mere mouthpiece for state propaganda, early Soviet theatre offered a space for creating new values, social hierarchies, and worldviews. More broadly, this article argues that Soviet nationality policy was not only imposed from above, but also worked out on the stages of the republic by artists, officials, and audiences alike. Tracing productions ofMyna Mazailointo the post-Soviet period, moreover, reveals a lingering ambiguity over the content of culture in contemporary Ukraine. The state may no longer sponsor cultural construction, but theater remains a space of cultural contestation.


Author(s):  
Alexander V. Martynenko

The article analyses the development of the Tatar national school, including Tatar language teaching, in Soviet and Post-Soviet Mordovia. In the introductory part of the article it is explained that in the Middle Ages and the subsequent Imperial period of national history, the formation of Tatars (including on the territory of modern Mordovia) was mainly confessional, Muslim. This education was concentrated in schools of two levels - mektebah and madrasah, and was based on the Hanafi Math'hab (law school) of Sunni Islam. Further, it is concluded that in the first decades of the Soviet period the new, secular, system of national education of the Tatars developed, replacing the traditional religious (Muslim) school. The article provides an overview of formation of the Tatar national school in the Mordovian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic and its preservation in the Republic of Mordovia. The Soviet school system of education provided a fairly rapid increase in the literacy of the Tatars of Mordovia already in the late 1920s  – 1930s, within the framework of the national school as well. As for the modern period, the special role of teaching Tatar is emphasized not only by the state authorities of the Republic of Mordovia, but also by the Regional National Cultural Autonomy of the Tatars “Yaktashlar” and by representatives of the state and public structures of Tatarstan. The article concludes that the system of Tatar national schools in Mordovia that developed during the Soviet period has adapted to new sociocultural and ethno-political Post-Soviet realities, and Tatar language teaching has not only been preserved there in the 1990s - 2010s, but continues to function effectively and to develop.


1985 ◽  
Vol 66 (6) ◽  
pp. 468-468
Author(s):  
Editorial Team

On April 28, 1985, after a serious and prolonged illness at the age of 66, a famous scientist and surgeon, Honored Doctor of the RSFSR and the Mordovian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, Doctor of Medical Sciences, Head of the Department of Hospital Surgery of the Mordovian Order of Friendship of Peoples of the University named after I.I. NP Ogareva professor Ivan Ilyich Klyuev.


Author(s):  
Yuriy Maksimenko

oday, as a result of the reform of decentralization and administrative-territorial organization, actually a new administrative-territorialunit is being established in Ukraine – a united community. But the basis and at the same time the reason for the joint of communitieswere first of all the most numerous local and at the same time the smallest administrative-territorial units in Ukraine – villagecouncils, inherited by Ukraine since Soviet times.Historically, the state and municipal system of modern Ukraine did not arise by itself, but was built on the “foundation” of theSoviet era, because Ukraine as an independent state is the successor of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR), which, in turn –the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic (USSR), founded 100 years ago – in 1919. The smallest local authority in Soviet times and afterthe declaration of independence in Ukraine was the village council, which for a hundred years of its existence evolved from a componentof the mechanism of state governance at places to the basic level of local self-government.The article presents the result of historical and legal study of the establishment and development of the structural organization oflocal administrative bodies in Ukraine during the Soviet era on the example of village councils, their legal status, structure, main powersand tasks done by these bodies and the status of their members and officials. Village councils became the basic bodies of local managementof Soviet Ukraine and its smallest administrative-territorial units. On the basis of the organization of the activities of Sovietvillage councils with certain evolutionary changes, local self-governing bodies – village councils of independent Ukraine – still functiontoday. Investigation of formation and development of these bodies in the Soviet period of the history of the state and law of Ukrainedeserves the attention of legal science, including in the current reform of decentralization and administrative-territorial organization.


2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 359-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy K. Blauvelt ◽  
Giorgi Khatiashvili

In 1929, local officials in the mountainous region of upper Ajara in the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) pursued aggressive policies to force women to remove their veils and to close religious schools, provoking the Muslim peasant population to rebellion in one of the largest and most violent of such incidents in Soviet history. The central authorities in Moscow authorized the use of Red Army troops to suppress the uprising, but they also reversed the local initiatives and offered the peasants concessions. Based on Party and secret police files from the Georgian archives in Tbilisi and Batumi, this article will explore the ways in which local cadres interpreted regime policies in this Muslim region of Georgia, and the interaction of the center and periphery in dealing with national identity, Islam, gender, and everyday life in the early Soviet period.


2021 ◽  
Vol 47 ◽  
pp. 99-117
Author(s):  
Akvilė Naudžiūnienė

This article presents a socio-historical study that combines an analysis of the theoretical model of the “new man” in the late Soviet period (1964–1988) with an empirical study of personal experiences of people who were students at schools in the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic (LSSR) during this period. The aim is to analyze how the teaching and learning process were organized during the late Soviet period in LSSR schools, how it was understood by the participants of this study, and what were the possible differences in the experiences of schoolchildren. Also, it is equally important to determine which of the schoolchildren’s experiences in this period could be qualified as “unifying experiences” that formed the mentality of the late Soviet period generation. These experiences are compared with the common Soviet vision of the “new man” education, which was also changing during the late Soviet period. While searching for the answer to how much of the theoretical “new man” model was adopted by this last Soviet generation in LSSR, we use a post-revisionist approach and focus on the narrative of everyday history – what it meant to be schoolchildren in Soviet schools. The research revealed that the formal institutionalization of collective life for schoolchildren through Pioneer or Komsomol organizations was ineffective in creating a collective community feeling between the young generation. During the late Soviet period in LSSR schools there were four main disciplinary practices: formal notices by writing or by word, unsanctioned physical punishments, preventive disciplinary practices, and informal shaming. The last informal disciplinary practice was considered by schoolchildren in todays perspective as the most effective means of discipline at schools. These practices reflected the model of monitoring each other in the adult Soviet society and formed the horizontal control system involving students, their parents, and teachers. The research revealed a preliminary informal social stratification of children in LSSR schools during the late Soviet period. It was not related to the vision of “the new man” education but encouraged an already existing division within the LSSR society. This was a complete departure from the ethical-moral visions of educating “the new man” in schools, which were based on the demolition of the established class division, enabling this “new man” to create a welfare of socialist society by their own hard work and heroic achievements.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document