The Politics Collection includes over 477 books authored by leading scholars. This collection provides in-depth analysis of political events, ideas, movements and the pivotal roles of government, voters, parties and leaders.
The collection offers an analysis of political theories and practices of governance at both local and international levels, providing insights into foreign policy, international law, gender dynamics, global ethics, environmental politics, cybersecurity, counter-terrorism and peace studies. It examines political developments from the twentieth century to the present and explores global politics across Europe, the USA, Latin America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Additionally, the collection includes studies of confl ict mechanisms, national security and terrorism.
| Key series |
| Europe in Change |
| European Politics |
| Geopolitical Economy |
| Identities and Geopolitics in the Middle East |
| Humanitarianism: Key Debates and New Approaches |
| Issues in Environmental Politics |
| Key Studies in Diplomacy |
| Manchester Capitalism |
| New Approaches to Conflict Analysis |
| New Perspectives on the Right |
| Pocket Politics |
| Collection year | Titles |
| 2025 titles | 18 |
| 2023/4 titles | 54 |
| 2003-2022 titles | 349 |
| Total collection | 477 |
| Keywords |
| Alternative political models |
| Contested issues |
| Conflict |
| Race and protest |
| Gender |
| Nationalism and populism |
| Comparative politics |
| Ideology |
| Culture wars |
| Citizenship and borders |
| Ecology |
| Thema subject categories |
| Anthropology |
| Cold wars and proxy conflicts |
| Comparative politics |
| Diplomacy |
| Development studies |
| Elections and referenda / suffrage |
| European history |
| Feminism and feminist theory |
SDG coverage
Politics collection
The Caucasus Emirate was more than just the main insurgent group challenging Russia’s control of the North Caucasus between 2007 and 2015 – it also represented a radical reimagining of local identities and relations with actors in and beyond the region. Insurgency has plagued the North Caucasus since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Between 2007 and 2015, rebels waged their struggle under the banner of the Caucasus Emirate (Imarat Kavkaz, IK). This explicitly jihadist project radically reimagined the group’s goals, allegiances, and identity. Yet it has rarely been studied in depth. This book systematically examines the IK’s ideology to explain what the group claimed to be fighting for and against and how it sought to mobilise people behind its cause. The book reveals a group with a weakly developed political programme, which aligned itself with global jihadism but consistently prioritised local concerns. It demonstrates the priority rebel leaders afforded to shaping local identities, but also their failure to forge a unified group, address pragmatic concerns, or respond to emergent challenges. Re-evaluating the IK’s ideology helps us better understand the past and potential future of armed struggle in the North Caucasus.
The conclusion steps back from the empirical case study to reflect on the contribution and implications of the study. It starts by acknowledging the limitations that accompany the study of both leaders and their ideologies, before highlighting the key insights that such a study nevertheless provides. It highlights how the IK demonstrates the importance of accounting for both identity and pragmatism in the study of ideology. It then considers ideology beyond the IK, discussing its role in the splintering and collapse of the movement and the meaning of subsequent jihadist mobilisation in the North Caucasus and Ukraine. The chapter and the book conclude by identifying future directions of study that could help develop a deeper understanding of ideology and insurgency in the North Caucasus.
The 1980 national steelworkers’ strike is recalled by many activists as an opportunity to derail Thatcherism before it had gained any momentum. But, as the conclusion argues, any hope that this might have occurred was dashed by a trade union leadership incapable of responding to the existential threat posed to their industry and their organisations. The period after the strike saw the demolition of the steel industry and a succession of defeats for labour at the hands of capital. It is because of this that, in the memory of many steelworkers, there is a clear line between their strike and the miners’ strike of 1984–85. These points are considered the beginning and the end of the fightback against a Thatcherite government that was always determined to destroy trade union strength and vitality. For many of the activists who took part in the strike, it was the first time they had been engaged in such a dispute. Involvement in the strike had a significant impact on their lives. Many developed a lifelong commitment to the labour movement and the principles of social justice because of their involvement in this strike. Therefore, although the 1980 steelworkers’ strike and its aftermath produced a bleak outcome for many industrial communities, it had some positive outcomes on the future lives of many who had fought in it.
Chapter 4 considers the ideology articulated by the IK’s leadership in Dagestan, the largest of the North Caucasian republics and the one that became the locomotive of regional insurgency. It explains the distinct origins of conflict within the republic, showing how myriad groups aligned their local struggles with a broader regional agenda. It then shows how what was initially a highly depersonalised insurgency adopted an unrestrained approach to violence, and how over time this gave way to very relative moderation and an insurgent leadership that became much more concerned with its own affairs than appealing to new supporters. The chapter challenges presumptions that the Dagestani branch drove the internationalisation of the insurgency, showing how leaders displayed limited interest in global affairs even as they led the splintering of the movement and the ultimate defection of many IK members to the Islamic State (IS).
Steel was central to the rise of British capitalism, but by the 1970s the industry was mired in difficulty. This was due to a variety of factors, the most pressing of which were economic depression and the mismanagement of the industry by private and state employers alike. Steel was a barometer of capitalism: when capitalism thrived, steel flourished, but when capitalism was in crisis, the fortunes of steel plummeted. This had been the case for British steel in the late 1920s to early 1930s, and it was visible again in the 1970s. By this stage, the industry was nationalised, and the British Steel Corporation (BSC) had been created. However, as the chapter argues, in these conditions of capitalist crisis, neoliberal solutions were being prescribed that had dire consequences for the workers. This included a mass redundancy and closure programme. Steel had always been a hazardous industry, but, as steelworker testimonies reveal, one that offered reasonably secure employment. In some towns, it was the main source of employment and an industry where unskilled workers could enter and learn new skills, allowing them to make progress and gain promotions to higher paid grades of work. As the crisis engulfed the industry in the late 1970s, all of this was now under threat.
Chapter 3 starts the process of mapping the ideology of the IK by considering the ideas articulated by the three men who led the group throughout its lifetime: Dokka Umarov, Aliaskhab Kebekov, and Magomed Suleymanov. It starts by situating the North Caucasus within the broader Russian political system. It then outlines the problems that these leaders identified; the solutions they proposed; the tactics they endorsed; and the main strategies used to mobilise potential and actual supporters. The chapter is organised around the three phases into which the IK’s lifespan can be divided, with each phase marked by a shift in the group’s ideological position. These phases are characterised by the progressive internationalisation of the group, but also the persistence of Russia as its main enemy and concern. Overall, the chapter establishes what might be considered the ‘core’ ideology of the IK, which provided direction to the rest of the group.
Chapter 1 establishes the historical context from which the IK emerged. It identifies the origins of the group in the Chechen separatist struggle for independence that resulted in two wars between the self-proclaimed Chechen republic of Ichkeria (Chechenskaya Respublika Ichkeria, ChRI) and post-Soviet Russia. It then traces the dual processes of Islamisation and regionalisation of that struggle, as different parts of the insurgency contested ideological control of the movement. It shows how these processes culminated first in the creation of a regional military structure under the auspices of the ChRI, and then in the complete replacement of the ChRI with the IK. It examines how these changes have been interpreted in existing literature on the North Caucasus, showing how some authors have focused on the IK’s relationship with the global jihadist movement and others have prioritised the local dimensions of conflict.
Chapter 6 turns to the final and most neglected of the IK’s core branches: Ingushetia. As the republic with the closest historical, political, and cultural links to Chechnya, the story of the Ingushetian insurgency is often lost within that of the broader Chechen conflict, and it raises important questions as to whether it can be considered operationally and ideologically distinct from its Chechen counterparts. At the same time, the Ingushetian insurgency provided a home for another of the IK’s most inspirational ideologues, Aleksandr Tikhomirov (Said Buryatskiy) and drew on highly localised identities. Considering the Ingushetian branch and its highly constrained efforts at constructing meaning provides an opportunity to reflect on the limits of the insights that the study of ideology can offer.
Chapter 2 situates discussions of the ideological evolution of the North Caucasus insurgency within broader debates around ideology and political violence, providing the theoretical justification for the study that follows. It explores the meaning of jihadism and efforts to map different strands within it, and it shows how the North Caucasus has been peripheral to those debates. It considers the disputed role of ideology in political violence and debates over the level of attention that should be afforded to it, making the case for taking ideology seriously. It then introduces social movement theory’s concept of framing to explain how we can study ideology on an empirical level, outlining the material and approach that underpins the subsequent analysis.
The introduction provides a top-level overview of the book, establishing the IK as a topic of study. It opens with a discussion of the circumstances surrounding the proclamation, showing how this marked the end of one phase of ideological contestation within the North Caucasus insurgency and the beginning of another. It then explains why, by 2007, such a radical transformation was necessary. It identifies the context in which the IK operated and to which it had to respond, and it considers the role of ideology in that response. The discussion then moves to elaborate the aims and approaches for the book, explaining how ideology will be mapped across the geography and lifespan of the group. The chapter then outlines six key findings that comprise the book’s main argument and contribution, before closing with an explanation of the book’s structure.