In 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed. But did it end? The year began with the violent reassertion of Soviet authority over Lithuania, an exhibition of brutality that rallied international support for democrats and independence movements in the USSR. The year closed with the formal resignation of a powerless Mikhail Gorbachev and the official dissolution of the Soviet Union into independent republics loosely joined as the Commonwealth of Independent States.

The institutions of Soviet society, however, did not disappear with the stroke of a pen. The difficulty of Russia’s transition to a capitalist system and political democracy—an effort that has arguably regressed in the past two years—has been well-documented. The Baltic states have experienced greater success, pursuing economic and security alignment with NATO and Western powers. Peaceful movements have recently ousted authoritarian regimes in Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine, but leaders in Uzbekistan and Belarus have intensified their repression.

With the benefit of 15 years of post-Soviet history, this issue’s symposium addresses the lasting effects of Soviet political, economic, and social institutions on the former Soviet states. Why has authoritarianism disappeared in some countries but persisted in others? How does the specter of past Soviet domination shape the relationship between Russia and smaller republics? Is the transition from communism to capitalism solely responsible for Russia’s social disintegration and political dysfunction? After 15 years, how far has the former Soviet Union come, and how much further does it have to go?

Political scientist Michael McFaul introduces us to the challenge of predicting post-Soviet political developments, describing regimes in a “twilight zone” between democracy and dictatorship and their movement in either direction. Belarusian scholar and dissident Vitali Silitski explains the rise and persistence of President Alyaksandr Lukashenka, whose regime makes Belarus perhaps the most impermeable post-Soviet society. Neither political nor economic reform has progressed in Belarus; Professor Timothy Frye analyzes the relationship between democratization and economic liberalization in more general terms, explaining how democracy has led to economic reform, defying traditional expectations. International relations Professor Yaroslav Bilinsky considers the efforts of the largely successful Baltic states to move away from their former Soviet identity and align with like-minded Western states. Examining the domestic conditions of post-Soviet society, Professor William Cockerham offers a sociological account of the present mortality crisis among Russian men. Finally, President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia describes his attempts to reform a society stagnated by dictatorship and to negotiate geopolitical relationships still tinged with historical animosity.

Discussing his country’s efforts to abandon the corruption endemic to its 13 independent years of authoritarian rule, President Saakashvili calls into question the "post-Soviet" classification itself. If democratization and economic liberalization are processes that eliminate the remnants of Soviet rule, then the aspiration to complete these processes is an aspiration to move beyond the transitional category of "post-Soviet" and adopt a new identity. At some point, the label of "The Former Soviet Union" will no longer be intellectually fruitful.

That time has not yet arrived. The countries of the former Soviet Union seek to embrace the future, but none has fully discarded—and some may wish to preserve—Soviet institutions and identity. We hope that our analysis of how the Soviet past shapes the present will illuminate the possibilities for the future.