Dr. Anna Matveyeva, a Senior Visiting Research Fellow at the Russia Institute, King’s College London, says the dynamics of Central Asian political systems and regimes are primarily shaped by domestic political processes, with external influences playing a conditional role. According to her, international developments, including the positions of the United States and the European Union, are unlikely to sway the leaders of Central Asian states from making key political decisions that they perceive as critical to their national policy or security. This reportedly underscores the significant primacy of domestic politics in the region.
The researcher notes that reflecting the broader global shift, the trend towards authoritarianism is evident not only in Central Asia but also worldwide. The era of the 1990s and early 2000s, marked by a widespread embrace of democratization, is reportedly giving way to a growing acceptance of authoritarian tendencies. “This shift doesn’t always imply outright authoritarianism; it frequently manifests as a concentration of power within a dominant group, alongside a robust monopoly on power,” said Dr. Matveyeva. “Such models, once viewed as deviations from the democratic norm, are increasingly seen as legitimate alternatives.”
In Central Asia, this trend is reportedly nuanced. On paper, these nations are democracies, with constitutions grounded in democratic principles and citizens ostensibly granted fundamental rights and freedoms. There is no overt movement to rewrite constitutions along non-democratic lines. However, the reality diverges significantly from these democratic facades. Previously, there was an expectation to maintain a semblance of democratic governance, but now, even this superficial adherence is no longer deemed necessary, the researcher emphasizes.
“What has also changed is that the demonstration model of democratization has become “lame”, because it is difficult to live in countries that are in the process of democratization and experience a lot of different growth problems, which neither the leadership of these countries nor their “Western partners” know how to solve in essence,” said Ms. Matveyeva. “And this fact has begun to undermine the democratization model. Therefore, the fact that Central Asian countries have come to their autocratic models is not a deviation, it is a different path, but it does not break out of the global trends.”
According to her, another feature of the development of the ruling regimes in Central Asia is their desire to achieve economic modernization and transformation without political reforms.
Even in the 1990s, it was believed that it was impossible to achieve economic success without political modernization. The Chinese model or the Singaporean model have shown that the state itself can be the engine of economic modernization, if it behaves strategically and takes into account the interests of citizens, not just the interests of the regime.
The evolution of democracy in Central Asian states, 32 years post-independence, presents a diverse picture, especially when contrasted with the 70-year tenure of the Soviet system. The Soviet legacy remains influential, yet these nations have developed under varying conditions and economic landscapes.
Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan exemplify this diversity, starkly contrasting in their developmental paths.
Tajikistan, as per World Bank classifications, struggles at the lower end of the income scale.
Kazakhstan, on the other hand, stands apart with its substantial resources, superior infrastructure, and less reliance on tax revenues, allowing for a more flexible redistribution of national income. Dr. Matveyeva notes that Kazakhstan’s diversity in social, political, and economic spheres somewhat enhances its internal freedom, particularly among elites. This is reportedly evident in the broader spectrum of public discourse, the existence of divergent viewpoints, and a government that not only acknowledges these debates but also occasionally adjusts legislation and policies in response to societal demands. This does not imply constant consultation with the populace, but rather a clear response to societal expressions.
Uzbekistan reportedly mirrors this trend. Its government endeavors to demonstrate the importance of societal engagement, acknowledging the need for a critical function within governance, making power more approachable, and aligning state institutions with societal needs.
Kyrgyzstan’s trajectory does not diverge significantly from the broader regional dynamics of Central Asia. The nation follows a similar course as its regional counterparts, navigating between the poles of democracy and authoritarianism.
She also notes that the upsurge in grassroots activism across Central Asia represents a noteworthy social trend. This region reportedly exhibits a strong inclination towards social solidarity and mutual assistance, a characteristic that transcends the prevalent atomization seen in many societies. The pandemic and subsequent lockdowns underscored this tendency, with people demonstrating a readiness to engage in selfless acts of neighborly support, even at personal risk.
Illustrative of this grassroots mobilization was the response to the Kyrgyz-Tajik border conflict. Volunteer groups from both nations rapidly organized themselves, displaying a willingness to assist their respective armies, even to the extent of taking up arms. Such spontaneous initiatives highlight the capacity for swift and effective self-organization within these communities.
