Central Asia Fifteen Years after Independence: The Drift towards Authoritarianism

At a recent Kennan Institute talk, Sebastien Peyrouse, Researcher, Center for Post-Soviet Societies Studies, National Institute for Oriental Languages and Cultures, Paris; and Marlene Laruelle, Associate Scholar, French Center for Russian, Caucasian and East European Studies, Paris, and Fellow, Woodrow Wilson Center, discussed the political situation in Central Asia and how it has been affected by recent events such as the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan and the Andijon uprising in Uzbekistan. They argued that all the states of Central Asia are becoming increasingly authoritarian, and all are facing economic and social problems that have led to destabilization of the region.

According to Peyrouse, the states of Central Asia have shared a similar political course since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. All of them have paternalistic systems in which the president has increased his power and extended his tenure through dubious referenda. In addition to their extensive political powers, Peyrouse said, the presidents of Central Asian states have amassed substantial wealth for themselves and their families by diverting revenues earned from the export of natural resources. The threat of radical Islamism is used as the primary justification for increasing authoritarianism, he noted, and charges of "Wahhabism" are a frequent justification for imprisonment in the region, including the imprisonment of members of secular opposition groups.

The issue of succession has proven a serious challenge for Central Asian states, Peyrouse argued. The current leaders hope to follow the model of Azerbaijan, where President Heydar Aliev named his son as his successor, and the son was successfully elected president following the elder Aliev's death. However, Kyrgyzstan—which in 2005 became the only Central Asian state to have a regime change—presents an alternate model, in which the president was forced out by an organized opposition and popular discontent with corruption and economic decline. Peyrouse contended that the threat of a revolution is one of the most serious concerns for Central Asia's authoritarian leaders.

This fear of revolution led Uzbek President Islam Karimov to violently suppress an uprising in Andijon in 2004, according to Peyrouse. Although officially presented as an Islamist coup attempt, the Andijon uprising actually began as peaceful protests in support of 23 businessmen who had been arrested for Wahhabism, but eventually turned violent. Kazakh officials also feared a revolution around their presidential elections in 2005, Laruelle added. Despite the appearance of democratic elections, the campaign was tightly controlled by the government, and incumbent president Nursultan Nazarbayev won 91 percent of the vote. Laruelle noted that while Nazarbayev's vote total was clearly inflated, he does have significant support among the people of Kazakhstan, thanks to the country's strong economic growth.

Laruelle concluded by discussing some of the consequences of the instability in Central Asia in 2005. She argued that the threat of revolution led Central Asia's leaders to turn away from cooperation with the United States and seek closer ties with Russia. Several states also passed laws severely limiting the ability of foreign and international organizations to operate locally or fund local NGOs. In addition, Laruelle argued that Uzbekistan is becoming increasingly unstable. The crackdown following the Andijon uprising has broken the balance between the Tashkent and Samarkand clans, and increased the power of the Secret Services within the government. Laruelle noted that in this context of increasing instability, the Central Asian states face serious ongoing challenges, including: economic failure in all states but Kazakhstan, high levels of rural unemployment, falling life expectancies, drug and arms trafficking, and the problems of corruption and patronage networks.