After Andijan: Authoritarianism, Islam, and Social Mobilization in Central Asia

At a recent Kennan Institute talk, Eric McGlinchey, Assistant Professor of Government and Politics, George Mason University, argued that citizens of Uzbekistan are becoming increasingly inclined to mobilize in protest of government repression, threatening the stability, and even the existence, of Islam Karimov's authoritarian government. According to McGlinchey, a popular uprising in the city of Andjian in May 2005 demonstrates that a new type of sustainable, mass mobilization at the regional level has developed in Uzbekistan.

Until recently, McGlinchey said, there was no coherent social mobilization in Uzbekistan. A handful of opposition and human rights groups formed in the perestroika era and are still active today, but these groups have never had much resonance with the general population. Islamic civil society exists throughout the country, but is localized and typically centers around charismatic leaders of city and neighborhood mosques. McGlinchey did note previous instances of social mobilization. He cited a protest in the city of Kokand in November 2004 as an example of the type of limited social mobilization that Uzbekistan experienced before the Andijan uprising. Prior to the 2004 protest, a significant number of people in Kokand had been arrested for promoting Islamic extremism, but these arrests had prompted no popular response. When new trade restrictions that hurt small-scale bazaar traders were enacted, however, traders in the Kokand bazaar turned against the tax police and marched to city hall, demanding an audience with the mayor. The protests ended without violence and the Kokand government ceased enforcing the trade restrictions.

The distinctive feature of the 2005 Andijan uprising, in McGlinchey's view, was the combination of religious and economic grievances in motivating the protesters. The Andijan uprising occurred in response to the arrest of 23 prominent local businessmen on charges of religious extremism. Protests in support of the businessmen turned violent on May 13, with armed men freeing the 23 businessmen from prison, and the government responded with military force against both the armed attackers and unarmed demonstrators. Several hundred people were killed. The Uzbek government claimed that the 23 businessmen and their supporters were radical Islamists, but McGlinchey argued that the businessmen had no political agenda or desire for an Islamic state. Their main concern, he contended, appeared to be promoting prosperity within the Muslim community, which made them widely popular.

Some commentators, McGlinchey said, have claimed that Uzbekistan will not be the site of the next "color revolution" because the government is willing to use military force to quash protest. However, McGlinchey believes that the military response in Andijan was not the response of a strong state, but of a weak state struggling to hang on to power. He argued that the local elites of Andijan had been co-opted by Muslim businessmen and were no longer dependent on the central government in Tashkent. Although Andijan has so far been the only instance of a violent mass uprising in Uzbekistan, McGlinchey argued that the pattern of popular local religious and business figures eroding the power of the central government is occurring throughout the country.