Catalogue


Defining the sovereign community : the Czech and Slovak Republics /
Nadya Nedelsky.
imprint
Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009.
description
viii, 340 p.
ISBN
0812241657 (alk. paper), 9780812241655 (alk. paper)
format(s)
Book
Holdings
More Details
imprint
Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009.
isbn
0812241657 (alk. paper)
9780812241655 (alk. paper)
contents note
Awakenings -- Nation-building in the empire's waning years -- The first republic : Czechoslovakism and its discontents -- The second republic and the wartime Slovak state -- The third republic : "putting an end to all old disputes" -- The communist period : new vows -- From velvet revolution to velvet divorce -- The implications of the ethnic model of sovereignty in Slovakia -- The implications of the civic model of sovereignty in the Czech republic.
catalogue key
6850897
 
Includes bibliographical references and index.
A Look Inside
Full Text Reviews
Appeared in Choice on 2009-11-01:
In a sense, this interesting, thought-provoking book is an extensive explanation of why the Czechs and Slovaks ultimately decided to go their separate ways. The Czechs decided that "we" means the "citizens of the Czech Republic in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia," essentially a geographic definition, while the Slovaks defined themselves ethnically, "we, the Slovak nation," irrespective of where they lived. This attitude presumably reflects the Slovak historical experience: the attempt to remain true to their national identity even if dispersed or seeing their homelands trampled by a foreign occupier. In the last two chapters, Nedelsky (Macalester College) discusses the implications of the ethnic model of sovereignty in Slovakia and of the civic model in the Czech Republic. But the puzzling question remains whether the choice these two nations now face is really a free choice or something history will impose on them. In other words, at which point is the weight of history so great as to impose contemporary decisions? Perhaps the creation and general acceptance of the idea of a united Europe will definitively put to rest the question of whether the civic or ethnic model will prevail. Summing Up: Recommended. General readers, upper-division undergraduate students, and above. L. K. D. Kristof emeritus, Portland State University
Reviews
Review Quotes
"This interesting, thought-provoking book is an extensive explanation of why the Czechs and Slovaks ultimately decided to go their separate ways."- Choice
This item was reviewed in:
Choice, November 2009
To find out how to look for other reviews, please see our guides to finding book reviews in the Sciences or Social Sciences and Humanities.
Summaries
Bowker Data Service Summary
Despite sharing a nation for most of the 20th century, when the Czechs and Slovaks split in 1993, they founded their newly independent states on different definitions of sovereignty. The author asks why this should have happened and also what impact the differences had on individual and minority rights and participation in the new states.
Main Description
Though they shared a nation for most of the twentieth century, when the Czechs and Slovaks split in 1993, they founded their new states on different definitions of sovereignty. The Czech Constitution employs a civic model, founding the state in the name of "the citizens of the Czech Republic," while the Slovak Constitution uses the more exclusive ethnic model, and speaks in the voice of "the Slovak Nation." Defining the Sovereign Communityasks two central questions. First, why did the two states define sovereignty so differently? Second, what impact have these choices had on individual and minority rights and participation in the two states? Nadya Nedelsky examines how the Czechs and Slovaks understood nationhood over the course of a century and a half and finds that the perspectives of Slovaks and Czechs have been remarkably resilient over time. These enduring perspectives on nationhood shaped how the two states defined sovereignty after the Velvet Revolution, which in turn strongly affected the status of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia and the Roma minority in the Czech Republic. Neither state has secured civic equality, but the nature of the discrimination against minorities differs. Using the civic definition of sovereignty offers a stronger support for civil and minority rights than an ethnic model. Nedelsky's conclusions challenge much analysis of the region, which tends to explain ethnic politics by focusing on post-communist factors--especially the role of opportunistic political leaders. De fining the Sovereign Community instead examines the undervalued historical roots of political culture and the role of current constitutional definitions of sovereignty. Looking ahead, Nedelsky offers crucial evidence that nationalism may remain strong in Slovakia and the Czech Republic, even in the face of democratization and EU integration, and is an important threat to both.
Main Description
Though they shared a state for most of the twentieth century, when the Czechs and Slovaks split in 1993 they founded their new states on different definitions of sovereignty. The Czech Constitution employs a civic model, founding the state in the name of "the citizens of the Czech Republic," while the Slovak Constitution uses the more exclusive ethnic model and speaks in the voice of "the Slovak Nation." Defining the Sovereign Communityasks two central questions. First, why did the two states define sovereignty so differently? Second, what impact have these choices had on individual and minority rights and participation in the two states? Nadya Nedelsky examines how the Czechs and Slovaks understood nationhood over the course of a century and a half and finds that their views have been remarkably resilient over time. These enduring perspectives on nationhood shaped how the two states defined sovereignty after the Velvet Revolution, which in turn strongly affected the status of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia and the Roma minority in the Czech Republic. Neither state has secured civic equality, but the nature of the discrimination against minorities differs. Using the civic definition of sovereignty offers stronger support for civil and minority rights than an ethnic model does. Nedelsky's conclusions challenge much analysis of the region, which tends to explain ethnic politics by focusing on postcommunist factors, especially the role of opportunistic political leaders.Defining the Sovereign Communityinstead examines the undervalued historical roots of political culture and the role of current constitutional definitions of sovereignty. Looking ahead, Nedelsky offers crucial evidence that nationalism may remain strong in Slovakia and the Czech Republic, even in the face of democratization and EU integration, and is an important threat to both.
Main Description
Though they shared a state for most of the twentieth century, when the Czechs and Slovaks split in 1993 they founded their new states on different definitions of sovereignty. The Czech Constitution employs a civic model, founding the state in the name of "the citizens of the Czech Republic," while the Slovak Constitution uses the more exclusive ethnic model and speaks in the voice of "the Slovak Nation." Defining the Sovereign Communityasks two central questions. First, why did the two states define sovereignty so differently? Second, what impact have these choices had on individual and minority rights and participation in the two states? Nadya Nedelsky examines how the Czechs and Slovaks understood nationhood over the course of a century and a half and finds that their views have been remarkably resilient over time. These enduring perspectives on nationhood shaped how the two states defined sovereignty after the Velvet Revolution, which in turn strongly affected the status of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia and the Roma minority in the Czech Republic. Neither state has secured civic equality, but the nature of the discrimination against minorities differs. Using the civic definition of sovereignty offers stronger support for civil and minority rights than an ethnic model does. Nedelsky's conclusions challenge much analysis of the region, which tends to explain ethnic politics by focusing on postcommunist factors, especially the role of opportunistic political leaders. Defining the Sovereign Communityinstead examines the undervalued historical roots of political culture and the role of current constitutional definitions of sovereignty. Looking ahead, Nedelsky offers crucial evidence that nationalism may remain strong in Slovakia and the Czech Republic, even in the face of democratization and EU integration, and is an important threat to both.
Table of Contents
Introductionp. 1
Awakeningsp. 29
Nation-Building in the Empire's Waning Yearsp. 49
The First Republic: Czechoslovakism and Its Discontentsp. 65
The Second Republic and the Wartime Slovak Statep. 90
The Third Republic: "Putting an End to All Old Disputes"p. 113
The Communist Period: New Vowsp. 130
From Velvet Revolution to Velvet Divorcep. 162
The Implications of the Ethnic Model of Sovereignty in Slovakiap. 190
The Implications of the Civic Model of Sovereignty in the Czech Republicp. 231
Conclusionp. 276
Notesp. 281
Indexp. 329
Acknowledgmentsp. 341
Table of Contents provided by Ingram. All Rights Reserved.

This information is provided by a service that aggregates data from review sources and other sources that are often consulted by libraries, and readers. The University does not edit this information and merely includes it as a convenience for users. It does not warrant that reviews are accurate. As with any review users should approach reviews critically and where deemed necessary should consult multiple review sources. Any concerns or questions about particular reviews should be directed to the reviewer and/or publisher.

  link to old catalogue

Report a problem