Modern Clan Politics: The Power of "Blood" in Kazakhstan and Beyond

Introduction: Modern Clan Politics

1n:!:rod.RctLOl'L: Mod.erl'L C("-l'L Po(itLc~ The role ofkinship ties and kinship rivalries is not merely a curious anachronism. It has important consequences for the political system as a whole.-Carl H. Lande One way to spot a foreigner visiting ex-Soviet Central Asia is to look at his shoes. Like that of his local counterpart, his footwear may be expensive or cheap, polished or scuffed, fashionable or ordinary. Given worldwide commerce, moreover, it may have been produced anywhere across the globe. What distinguishes his shoes is that he ties his laces tightly, while his counterpart ties them loosely or opts for laceless varieties.l How Central Asians tie their shoes is a clue about the significance ofkin ties. Since so much ofa Central Asian day is spent visiting relatives and friends, and since shoes are doffed at the entrance to each home, it is a matter of some significance to learn to wear one's shoes in the proper, local way. The alternative- continually to lag behindeventually becomes tiresome. Patterns of political life often reveal themselves in the mundane, implicit, and unspoken. They are rooted in everything ordinary-in that which requires no remark. In Central Asia, kinship ties are like the loosely laced shoes that give them away; they are a silent reality that pervades everyday life. What role they play for political and social actors and why they playa political role- when dominant approaches expect them not to-is the subject of this book. We seldom expect kinship-based divisions to occupy a prominent place in modern political life. In the era ofthe nation-state, we expect xv XVI Introduction fi)C"-re 1.1. Map of Kazakhstan and Central Asia SouTce~entral Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kz.html. that national-level allegiances and statewide bureaucratic structures supersede local attachments and marginalize local institutions. How can these attachments stand up to the pressures of nation and state building, let alone to the more recent transformative powers ofglobalization ? The general assumption is that they do not. From this perspective , this chapter's title-"Modern Clan Politics"-seems a contradiction in terms. We expect that the more complete the coercive apparatus of the state, the less likely clan politics would survive into modernity. One of the most coercive regimes ever witnessed, however, was unable to eliminate clan divisions and preclude their role in political life. Since the Soviet collapse in 1991, we have caughtglimpses ofclan relationships in politics. In Chechnya, subethnic teips became ensnared in Moscow's decision to launch a bloody invasion in 1994; some groups were more closely allied with Russia and others more staunch supporters ofindependence.2 In Uzbekistan, attachments to kin and locale that permeated everyday life even during the Soviet period continued to dominate a predominantly rural society.3 In Kyr- Introduction XVII gyzstan, a north-south divide that had its roots in segmentary divisions helped to define the bases for political appointments.4 Subethnic clans were likewise the major actors in Tajikistan, which descended into a protracted civil conflict that defied easy resolution.5 On a superficial level, the persistence of clan politics seemed to represent one of many failures of the Soviet state; it appeared that Moscow, in spite ofits proclamations to the contrary, had simply failed to transform the building blocks of identity along a vast southern periphery. Indeed, many of the newly independent state apparatuses that inherited Soviet structures were weak enough that it was difficult to imagine that the Soviet experiment represented anything less than a failure to penetrate its far-flung populations.6 But this was only a surface appearance. Today's challenges ofstate weakness should not color our understandings ofSoviet-era processes. Far from failing to transform the southern periphery, the Soviet state effected radical social and cultural change. The question then becomes: in what ways, and with what consequences, were the Soviets able to transform the populations that if!.habited these regions? To ask such a question is to recognize the unusual scope and capacity of Soviet power, although it does not mean accepting the terms ofdebate about whether the Soviet Union was "totalitarian" or not.7 How do we square the transformative power of the Soviet state, on the one hand, with the outcomes we witness across the former USSR, on the other? Why did the profound social...