Authoritarianism in central Asia: curse or cure?

Abstract

The former Soviet republics of Central Asia-Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan-have largely resisted the movement toward democracy that has swept over other former communist states. Many factors can account for this: low levels of economic development, traditional culture, weak civil societies, the leading-role of the old nomenklatura in these new states, and ethnic cleavages. The larger question is what effect continued authoritarianism will have in these states. Should such governments be condemned as 'backwards' or do they serve a function, such as state-building, maintenance of inter-ethnic peace, or facilitators of economic growth? This article argues that the regimes of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan, on balance, do serve a positive purpose, preserving order and discouraging expression of radical nationalism. On the other hand, success for democracy in these countries is far from likely, and limited democratic experience in Kyrgyzstan shows that it carl exacerbate ethnic tensions and threaten economic reform. There are, of course, risks and problems associated with even the most benign forms of authoritarianism, but thus far many of these pitfalls have been avoided.