The ongoing territorial conflict with Armenia forms the backdrop to Rumyantsev’s chapter on Azerbaijan. The central discursive myth of the historical enemy, variously personified as Armenian, Russian and Iranian, occupies a key role in the country’s historical narrative and public political discussions. The debate centres on the enhancement of Azerbaijani national history as a component of the ideology that services not only the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict but also the policy of ‘nationalising nationalism’. The politicisation of history, the development of a single ‘master narrative’ underscoring Azerbaijani victimhood and the notion of ‘incomplete sovereignty’ and its instrumentalisation by the mass media is exemplified by figures such as Abulfaz Elbicay, Heydar and Ilham Aliyev, and Sabir Rustamxanli, politicians who also hold academic doctorates.
- Abbasov, I., and S. Rumyansev. ‘Azerbaijan. Ways to Perpetuate the Past: Analyzing the Images of “Others” in Azerbaijani History Textbooks’. In Contemporary History Textbooks in the South Caucasus, edited by L. Vesely, 33–56. Prague: Association for International Affairs AMO, 2008.Google Scholar
- Cornell, S. E. Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus. Richmond (UK): Curson Press, 2001.Google Scholar
- Kilit Aklar, Y. ‘The Teaching of History in Azerbaijan and Nationalism’. Ab Imperio 2 (2005), 469–97.Google Scholar
- Shaffer, B. Borders and Brethren: Iran and the Challenge of Azerbaijani Identity. Harvard: The MIT Press, 2002.Google Scholar
- de Waal, T. Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War. New York/London: New York University Press, 2003.Google Scholar