In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • Democratic Transition in Central Asia: An Assessment
  • Juliana Geran Pilon (bio)

Writing in Book IV of the Politics, Aristotle notes that Plato did not explain why tyrannies are prone to revolutions, or how they change to other forms of government. Yet graciously Aristotle comes to his mentor’s defense: Plato “could not very well have told: because there is no rule.” While history has often shown that tyrannies simply transform into other tyrannies, it also provides examples of the transformation of tyrannies into oligarchies and even democracies. Aristotle duly notes such possibilities; his devotion to the empirical method prevented him from making pronouncements wildly at odds with reality. In this matter, as in so many others, Aristotle proved to be wiser than his illustrious teacher, as well as modern political analysts, who presume to study a region and then recommend change with little attention to evidence. All too often, such brash prescriptions disregard not only the complex nature of political evolution, but also the sentiments and ideals of citizens who must live under changed political systems.

The Central Asian republics, having only recently gained independence from the Soviet Union and tasted democracy, offer an excellent case in point. Their unique experience has given rise to many difficult questions: whether they are, or ever can be, market democracies by Western standards; whether Western governments are wise to push them along lines they might not otherwise follow; and, indeed, whether it would even be desirable for these nations to become democratic. Answers do not come easily; they certainly cannot be made a priori, or merely on the basis of grand theories. [End Page 89]

Some Western observers of Central Asia have looked at the region with a skepticism bordering on condescension. There has been speculation that Western-style political democracy is not suited for the region; that democracy isn’t understood by the people and cannot take root until Western-style constitutions are in place; that Central Asian governments will ultimately choose to be authoritarian; and that, in any case, efforts to implement democracy must take a distant second place to economic reform. 1 Inspired by Samuel Huntington’s theory that some civilizations simply aren’t capable of embracing and institutionalizing liberalism, these skeptical Western attitudes have at least deterred a pernicious Wilsonian crusade that might seriously backfire by ignoring context, history, and culture. Americans have more than once botched well-intentioned interventions on the international scene. The danger lies in adopting both Plato’s rigid hierarchy of human nature and his apparent tendency to ignore facts.

In fact, Central Asian populations today exhibit a fairly widespread desire to participate more actively in the political life of their nations. An analysis of recent surveys conducted in Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan 2 by the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES) reveals a wide spectrum of attitudes towards political and economic issues, both practical and theoretical. These studies indicate that Central Asians are supportive of democratic rights, while generally dissatisfied with their own governments’ performance in defending these rights, and are hopeful for progress without recourse to violence. 3

The Legacy of Authoritarianism

Since independence was thrust upon the Central Asian republics with the breakup of the Soviet Union in August 1991, significant changes have taken place. In December 1991 Kazakstan elected former Communist Party leader Nursultan Nazarbaev. In March 1994, irritated by the unwillingness of the existing 360-member legislature to pass reform legislation, President Nazarbaev scheduled new parliamentary elections. This resulted in a 174-member legislature, fairly closely managed by Nazarbaev and including a small portion of seats (8 percent) directly appointed by him. A year later, the Constitutional Court declared the election illegal, and Nazarbaev took the opportunity to create another government, as well as draft a new constitution that greatly expanded the powers [End Page 90] of the executive. These authoritarian proceedings occurred under the misnomer of democracy.

Kyrgyzstan declared independence immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union and was the first Central Asian country to adopt economic liberalization with genuine enthusiasm. Its president, the physicist Askar Akaev, regarded as quite liberal and open to Western ideas, introduced strong economic reform measures. However, in October 1994 Akaev announced...

Share