BACKGROUND: Unlike the transitioning countries in Eastern Europe, the Central Asian states have no history of independence. The landlocked countries have been pawns of different empires for centuries. They were first ruled by various khanates, then were caught in the 19^th century "Great Game" struggle of empires between Britain and Russia, then were controlled by Tsarist Russia before being subsumed by the Soviet Union. Given the region's history, it is not realistic to expect true democracy in the first decade of independence. By comparison, it took nearly 40 years to bring about democratic reforms in South Africa. That elections were even held at all in Central Asia can be seen as a sign of progress, however short on substance.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a brief, shining moment of democracy and grassroots reform flickered in Central Asia. Powerful non-governmental organizations such as the Aral-88 in Uzbekistan and Nevada-Semipalantinsk in Kazakhstan rallied political forces on the periphery against the Soviet center and seemed poised to elevate the concerns of their local constituencies onto a national platform. But when independence came, these NGOs failed to form viable political parties. Instead, the five Central Asian states elected former Communists to the presidency who consolidated power into highly authoritarian governments. In the mid-1990s, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan held referendums to extend the presidential term through the millennium. Kyrgyzstan moved elections up to ensure the reelection of incumbent Akayev. And Tajikistan, then mired in civil war, held widely criticized elections that brought current president Imomali Rakhmanov to power.

The recent Central Asian elections betray an underlying insecurity of the region’s leaders. Given their track records and name recognition, most incumbents probably would have won handily even in a level playing field. Instead, they opted for the safe road, satisfying their personal ambitions in the short term, but jeopardizing the long-term stability of the region. Part of this insecurity can be traced to events last year. The secular calm of the first years of independence was punctured when six bombs exploded in Tashkent's city center. And last fall, an armed band of Islamic militants held four Japanese geologists hostage for more than a month in the Batken province of Kyrgyzstan. These events have deeply unnerved the Central Asian presidents, and have profoundly influenced their attempts to shore up their leadership.

IMPLICATIONS: The cornerstone of democracy is "free and fair" elections. But the recent elections in Central Asia were far from free or fair. The recent elections in Central Asia raise a fundamental question: what does democracy mean in a place where the concept of "democracy" itself is foreign? What does democracy mean where presidents live in the shadow of Russia, and where the people have been conditioned not to question their leaders? Central Asian leaders maintain that they represent the stability necessary to prevent "Islamic terror" from overtaking the region. However, these Central Asian countries are inherently unstable as power is concentrated in one person and they are incapable of ensuring the peaceful transfer of power.

Russia's proximity and expressed strategic interest in what it considers to be its "near abroad," make Central Asia's experiment with democracy a risky venture. The likely election of former KGB boss Vladimir Putin to Russia's presidency breeds fear in the Central Asian leaders. In Central Asia, conspiracy theories abound that Chechen rebels, as well as Wahabbi terrorists, received their training first in Moscow and then in the Middle East. Many believe Moscow is using these fighters to destabilize the republics in the periphery in order to justify future military incursions in the region. Putin's current and bloody campaign in the Caucasus has caused a palpable fear in the Soviet successor states in the southern tier. It is obvious that the system of governance that the Central Asian republics ultimately adopt will have to be acceptable to Russia their powerful northern neighbor.

The United States considers Central Asia a strategic corridor and a potential energy supplier. The US has been promoting Central Asian independence from Russia, mainly through its pipeline policies that bypass Russian territory and through its support for political and economic reforms that it claims will bring prosperity to the region. However, privatization that has taken ownership out of state hands and into those of individual citizens has failed in its goal of empowering them both economically and politically. Even in Central Asia’s "island of democracy" Kyrgyzstan that has the fewest natural resources to sell on the world market, civil freedoms and "democratic" elections have not led to prosperity. Given this reality, it should not be surprising that most Central Asians in the impoverished countryside throughout the region have lost faith in democracy.

CONCLUSION: The consolidation of power throughout Central Asia in the presidential branch, rather than decentralized through a system of checks and balances, is a worrying trend. Any government relying on one person rather than self-sustaining institutions that ensure the peaceful transfer of power is inherently unstable. In tightening their grip on power, the Central Asian leaders run the danger of inadvertently causing their reins to snap, with consequences hard to predict.

The Central Asian republics lived under the heel of Soviet domination for more than 70 years and before that, under Tsarist Russia. In both cases, the authority was imposed from above through force. It should not be surprising that democracy, with its non-coerced freedoms, would be perceived with suspicion and not taken seriously in the region. While Western critics may shake their heads at the recent spate of "neither free not fair" elections in Central Asia, they should be patient with the Central Asian republics. The considerable investment in democracy is not likely to yield direct returns. Interests in the region must be long term. The rewards will be widespread.

AUTHOR BIO: Beatrice Hogan spent two years in Uzbekistan as a Peace Corps Volunteer and is a recent graduate of Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs. Her work has appeared in Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s Weekday Magazine and the United Nations Chronicle.

HOME

Copyright 2000 The Analyst All rights reserved