Civil Society in Central Asia

Kolkhoz and Civil Society in the Independent States of Central Asia

Kolkhoz and Civil Society in the Independent States of Central Asia Olivier Roy Central Asian societies are still mainly rural; 60 percent ofthe Uzbek population, for instance, lives in rural areas, and the figure is higher if we consider only ethnic Uzbeks, because non-Muslim minorities tend to live in cities. The birth rate is higher in the countryside, and there is still no massive rural migration: the rural population will thus keep its weight for a while. On the other hand, the few active democratic movements are urbanbased , while the presidential power is largely supported, among other things, by a network ofrural notables (usually on a regional basis). The consequence is that no process of democratization could bypass the rural areas. They are until now organized along the kolkhoz system, which is an administrative, economic, and sociological entity. The issue ofthe kolkhoz (collective farm) system is at the core of any approach to the building of a civil society. Maintaining, reshaping , or destroying the kolkhoz is also a practical issue as far as economic development is concerned. Is the kolkhoz just a legacy of a centralized and statist system or did it acquire some social and economic autonomy in the transition period after independence ? Is the kolkhoz doomed to disappear in favor ofprivatization or does it retain a kind ofsocial personality which makes it an actor not only ofthe transition but also in the emergence of a civil society? How to combine the social role ofthe kolkhoz with economic efficiency and rationality? The usual perception from economic experts (not just the IMF and World Bank, but also many NGOs engaged in building civil society) is that the kolkhoz is a negative factor and should be dismantled in favor ofprivate farmers. Ofcourse, the negative social aspects of dismantling the kolkhozian system are sometimes taken into consideration (mainly the rural migration that will follow), but they are seen as inevitable. Our aim here is not to plead in favor ofthe kolkhozian system, but to analyze its resilience and ambiguity. Privatization is inevitable in the long run, but, in my eyes, it should start from the kolkhoz and not fight against it, because the kolkhoz is part of"real" society , civil or not. In any case, the local actors are more clever (and have more time) than foreign experts to alter and recast imported schemes ofprivatization according to their own traditions, requirements ... and power struggles. One would save time in starting from the existing social order instead oftrying to impose an artificial change by law, money, inducements, and good will. 109 110 Olivier Roy The kolkhoz is in many ways a conservative institution inherited from the Soviet system and it is still a tool in the hands ofapparatchiks who fear losing their grasp on society in the event ofprivatization. But, on the other hand, the kolkhoz has acquired in Central Asia a far larger social and even political role than was devoted to it by the Soviet system; it does represent collective identities that could be a basis for maintaining a civil society. It could also be an actor in the transition period, allowing peasants to turn into farmers while retaining social structures which protect them from both state encroachments and wild privatization. In fact we can observe a differentiation among kolkhozes. Some are simply a tool in the hands of former apparatchiks trying to retain a social basis for their political power; they do this with the consent and support ofthe new authoritarian states, which find a way to extract benefits from industrial crops (cotton) bought at fixed prices and sold at market prices. But some others are experiencing a kind ofsocial and economic autonomy, which makes them closer to the "cooperatives" ofWestern Europe. Here arises the question ofwhat we mean by a "civil society." Two defmitions are at stake: one, inherited from Hegel and Marx, means a society which has its own social stratification and economic mechanisms "outside" the state; the other implies a society made up of free individuals, able and willing to build political ties voluntarily in order to create a State of Law. In this latter sense, privatization is obviously a prerequisite for democratization. In the former sense, there is already a kind of"civil society" in Central Asia; in the second sense, it has to be built from scratch. Without entering a lengthy philosophical debate, a point must be made. Civil or not, there already is a society in Central Asia, with its culture, traditions, solidarity...