Identity is one of the most slippery concepts in the social sciences, yet in this impressive book, Cheng Chen has provided a robust definition which she has applied in a consistent and illuminating manner to compare ideological developments in postcommunist Russia and China. The focus is on how ideology-building projects were conducted in the two countries, and how this has shaped their respective foreign policies. Ideology is also a highly-contested notion, yet the author has provided a convincing definition that allows her to apply the concept in surprisingly effective ways. In her view, successful ideology building requires at the minimum two conditions. First, a regime has to create a coherent “ideological repertoire,” drawing on the country’s ideological history and current national concerns (what Chen calls nationalism). Second, the emerging ideology needs to generate a relatively high level of commitment among the political elite. To be effective, the nascent ideological worldview must capture the imagination of the elite, and act to unify the ruling groups.

Drawing on a wide range of documentary evidence, as well as interviews, speeches, and press commentary, Chen moves beyond the simplistic antinomies of liberal democracy and “autocracy.” Instead, she provides a rich insight into the intellectual debates in contemporary Russia and China, revealing with great subtlety the various currents, contradictions, and tensions in the two countries. The focus on the search for new regime ideologies shifts the focus away from standard discussions of democratization towards how the countries’ elites are coming to terms with the perceived developmental and international challenges facing their societies. The author usefully distinguishes between a national ideology, which establishes a shared identity and the bases for citizenship for a state, and a regime ideology, which justifies the way that long-term domestic and international goals are framed.

Applying this theoretical framework to the two countries, Chen skillfully follows the evolution of regime ideology in the two countries, as well as drawing useful comparisons between the two. In the case of Russia, the multiple pasts (the Imperial, Soviet, and Liberal), meant that by the time Vladimir Putin assumed the presidency in 2000 the ideational sphere was intensely fragmented. In the end, Putin’s achievement was to create a political ideology with which the elite could identify and for which show support, but this did not overcome profound ideological divisions. The regime ideology focused on power and a set of developmental and international goals (above all the defense of Russia’s status as a great power), but this was based on unstable foundations. The essential pluralism of elite views had not been overcome, and instead an ideology of power ensured that elites benefitted from the system to ensure their loyalty, but no transcendent merging of regime and national ideologies had been achieved.

China was rather more successful in effecting this merger. At least, the evolving regime ideology was able to encompass enough of the national aspirations to ensure a high degree of elite commitment. Of course, the institutional framework was very different from Russia. Although Chen convincingly argues that China is, like Russia, a postcommunist country, the Communist Party remains the hegemonic force, providing the framework for action while constraining and shaping ideological debates. Chen concludes that in both countries regime ideologies remain works in progress, but in China they have taken a more delineated, and thus probably more enduring, form.

A number of contentious points can be identified. Although the concept of ideology is applied effectively, the rich debates and issues associated with the notion are left unexplored. For example, underlying much of what Chen is talking about is the way that a ruling regime establishes and maintains its hegemony, yet this Gramscian approach is nowhere to be found. Second, some of the findings could be taken further. In the case of Russia, for example, the difficulties in establishing a regime ideology could in fact be interpreted positively as an indication of the robust ideological pluralism of the society. Third, the possible tensions between questions of political economy (including the material bases of achieving elite support) and ideological consolidation are underplayed. Fourth, there is occasionally the tendency to revert to a rather undifferentiated, essentialist application of the concept of nationalism. And fifth, although the comparisons between Russia and China are well made and helpful, the comparative method by definition tends to shade over some of the nuance of the individual cases. Overall, though, these are points for discussion, and do not detract from what is a major contribution to the literature.