With the proclamation on February 7th 2003 this year by the Cabinet of Ministers as \"The Year of the Mahalla,\" the government of Uzbekistan incorporated Uzbekistani communal structure, which has also been called the basis for civil society in the country by many international observers, into the official state discourse. Furthermore, with the demonstration of the Erk opposition party on October 15th 2003, the government had to uphold at least some appearances of efforts towards democracy. Thus, the elections of oqsoqol (elders) of mahallas during November and December this year will inaugurate about 10 000 oqsoqols to be chosen by the members of these mahallas. The elections are not, however, to be observed either by local or international observers.

Mahalla are neighborhood community structures, and the public space in which neighbors or residents of a district regulate their economic and social relations. An individual, however, does not choose to live or become part of this structure; one is simply born into it. The basic unit of a mahalla is a family, not an individual; therefore it is not individuals or individual freedom that is the concern of mahalla, but family issues. Families help each other organize birthdays, weddings and funerals, but also deal with social issues such as unemployment, household infrastructure, and education. .

This neighborhood structure has attracted attention from different groups worldwide, including social scientists, economists, Islamists, human rights activists, women’s groups and now, in a more assertive way, the government of Uzbekistan. The international interested parties see the mahalla respectively as a mechanism for civil society, small business entrepreneurship, Muslim community, human rights awareness, and gender issues. Yet debates regarding this structure seem to benefit the government. By making people select its local leaders, the government argues that it ‘tries to realize the constitutional rights of citizens for local governance’ and according to Akmal Saidov, the chair of Olii Majilis’ (Uzbekistan’s parliament) Committee on democratic institutions, NGOs and local government bodies have ‘put on trial the progress of the contemporary political culture in Uzbekistan.’ .

Already in 1999, the Uzbekistani government made mahalla officers state-paid agents, and their regulations legally obligatory for all members of the mahalla community. The adoption of mahalla structure for political purposes dates to the Soviet years, when the Soviet government realized that the eradication of this structure would be impossible. Incorporating the structure into government proved to be an efficient strategy by which people had to rely on the mahalla network to access state resources, thus making state and mahalla mutually interdependent. The aim of the contemporary government policy is similar: to incorporate the community structures under its supervision and control. It is able to do it, however, under a discourse of democracy and local governance. .

So far, there has not been any public resistance to the elections of community leaders in Uzbekistan. There are nevertheless dissatisfactions with the policy, especially by the young, who regard the current policy to increase the powers of the elders and limit theirs, to increase corruption and control. Thus, a reader from Uzbekistan of a governmental article ‘Nation’s Word’ (15 Nov. 2003), which praised the democratic credentials of the new policy, asked ‘Why do mahalla leaders need to collaborate with the government and bring their laws into force? Was it not the moral principles and respect of leaders that designed the relationship between the young and the elders? What are the next steps? To issue the law on living in mahalla, putting in detail all the responsibilities of each citizen? Is this not an implicit threat to civic rights?’ .

In this context, there is a concern that the current step of the government of Uzbekistan to appropriate local governance under its control marginalizes the members of local communities and harms the institute of mahalla as the people’s public space as opposed to the state’s.