The last years of existence of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic, as well as the two Post-Soviet decades, became the time of invariable interest and steadfast attention to the phenomena of ethnic and national identity. The growth of this interest, of course, cannot be a great surprise. The collapse of the Soviet Union, for the majority of Azerbaijanis, including (but not only) politicians, experts and social researchers, was directly connected with the nationalistic movements in the former Soviet republics. More than two decades of the nation-state construction process have already passed at present. And now we may observe how the idea of construction of the civil nation comes into a great contradiction with the inculcation of the Soviet tradition, which aimed to represent the Azerbaijani nation in ethno-cultural terms (“titular nation”, etc.) and institutionalized ethno-national personal identities. The “Soviet type” of essentialist national discourse is still produced by the Azerbaijani scholarly communities, mass media, politicians, etc., and still remains very popular on the level of ordinary people’s everyday life as well. It would be wrong to attach too much weight to the versions of radical nationalism “which threatens the stability of existing states”. Banal nationalism” or “ideological habits” rooted in everyday life are also particularly important. In the South Caucasus region (like elsewhere in the former Soviet Union) ideas of nationality as a biological and inevitable (ascribed) characteristic of any human being are common, everyday or “banal” as defined by Michel Billig. This type of “banal nationalism” did not lose its power after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the context of these banal ideas, representatives of ethnic groups just cannot be integrated into large civic nations. They will never become Azerbaijanis or Georgians. They always remain suspect in terms of their possible disloyalty towards the dominant groups. The discourse of tolerance cannot realistically function where ideas of the nation as a biologically predefined entity are widespread. The discourse about danger acquires a far greater success and stronger resources. This kind of approach leads integration-related issues and problems out of the public debate domain and facilitates the preservation of an authoritarian rule.