CC BY
7
I. ISKAKOV,
Cand.Sc.(Law) The Interregional Institute of Economics and Law (St. Petersburg) THE SPECIFICS OF POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND PROCESSES IN CENTRAL ASIA
Many authors of western political thinking from Aristotle to Cicero quite definitely opposed free institutions of Europe to the despotic power of rulers in East. This tradition was kept also for the time of the Middle Ages. Since the XIV century at least, the notion of "despotism" was identified with the states in the East. For the epoch of Renaissance, the conception of the eastern despotic state was worked out; in the social and political terms it was the alternative to the free state of the West (Machiavelli and others). In 1748 Montesquieu created his famous work "On the Spirit of Laws", where he united the political institutions of the East in a global notion of despotism. Montesquieu regards the eastern despotism as a global alternative to the free society. Leaving aside the detailed argumentation pro et contra, one may see the whole period of historiography of the countries in the East. It is significant that this view is contested, for instance by G. Anketil-Duperon, who proposed the following three arguments refuting the conclusions of Montesquieu:
the absolute despotism does not exist in the East, since the power is attained by a legal way (proved, for instance, by ceremonies analogous to western crowning of the person ascending the throne);
the existence of universal laws in the East is quite evident (they cover both the sovereign and the subjects);
the private property exists (its owners use it as anon-alienable property).
The author supports these convincing arguments by his experience accumulated as a result of difficult eastern journeys to
counterbalance Montesquieu, who based his views on materials of F. Bernuieu journey.
The disputes on the nature of the political power and state in the East go on up to present. The "third wave" of democratization originated in the south of Europe covered its central and eastern part and reached the countries of Central Asia, where it aggravated with a new force. Central Asia after Russia is the biggest bloc of the postSoviet space. It occupies the connecting position between the western and the eastern parts of Eurasia and the interim position between the developed North and the developing South. This region is one of the richest regions of the world in terms of deposits of natural resources. The position in the space and the natural riches make Central Asia a significant theater of the world political game.
The peculiarities of political processes in Central Asia to a large extent are conditioned by specifics of the social order and its institutional basis - by relations between the power and the property. In view of many scholars of the Orient, sociologists and political scientists, the social order of eastern society has its specific features, which crate fundamental differences between western and eastern societies. In particular, according to the conception "power-property", proposed by L.S. Vasiliyev, the state (in the name of its head) is accepted as a bearer of the social-political and economic power at the same time. The system of power-property was dominant always. It assumed different forms, including Soviet-socialist form. But its essence remained the same: the private property is subordinated to the power and is powerless confronting arbitrary rule of the authorities.
In this system the state seems to be a total and powerful entity in relation to a human being as a subject in life. The system power-property determines the policy of the state leaders in the East. The rulers always urged towards ideological support of the situation
characterized by dominance of social-economic and political power given the lack of social structures able to withstand it and liquidating any chance for a human being to make his choice among competing social forces. Such model of the social order was presented as a fixed norm and was justified by many ways (which was the function of ideology).
The eastern state is characterized by the combination of the state sector of economy with the state apparatus, which provides for the state a chance to have a rigid impact on processes of reciprocal action of economic subjects as one of them. The state has a chance to solve various conflicts for its benefit and its further consolidation. This state of order was formed on the perception of firmness of social structures, which was not only supposed by a mode of production but also advanced as an unchanged principle of social-cultural orientation of the human being. Following the disintegration of the USSR in 1991 for the process of consolidation of independent Central-Asian states the problem of strategy of modernization of economic and political systems became the principal problem for their leaders.
The contemporary states of Central Asia are still at the stage of transition. This transitory position of Central-Asian states may be characterized as a post-Communism having in mind as a main argument the "Soviet" origin of the region's states. But it is necessary to make the reservation that actually post-Communism concerns more Russia than Central Asia. Most countries of the region have "syndrome of the suddenly acquired independence", according to Imanaliyev, the president of the Institute of Public Policy. According to him, it showed its worth as follows:
the excessive personification of the chosen way of development with further formation of the regime of personal (or family-clannish) power (leadership) characterized by different elements from despotism
to soft authoritarian rule. It should be stated that the leader coming to power was not always and in all respects to blame for it;
the formation of the model of economic development with components of Soviet (sometimes more rigid) system of management; the mosaic incorporation of market mechanisms, partial return to natural economy (primarily in the rural sector); the illegal privatization and personal control of the leader over the most profitable branches of economy; the fragmentary integration in the world economic ties etc.;
the low level of political and legal culture (what is more significant in Central-Asian countries: law or family relations, law or a telephone call?); the lack of balance of relations in the triad "man-society-state". The civil society as a phenomenon does not exist in some states of Central Asia. The systemic notions and cycles, such as political and social regulation of power transfer and of separation of power, do not function in the region's states;
the dehumanization and sometimes destruction of social relations is displayed in the crisis of family institution, in the fall of level of education and health care, in the growth of the gap between city and rural regions, in mass migration and in criminalization of political, economic and public life in some countries of Central Asia;
the unpredictable and not always responsible foreign policy, which is carried out with constant discourses;
the lack of national systems of values and stable developing elites, which started to emerge.
In this connection, one of the most important problems existed in the Central-Asian states is the problem of constructing self-identification models and at the same time of finding out identity in the environmental space, according to M. Imanaliyev. There were several hypothetical ways of development in the region's countries:
a) the western way - open economy, political pluralism, developed "civil society";
b) the Turkish way - a rather liberal but oriented to separation between secular and Muslim functions of the state; c) the Iranian way -a Muslim-theocratic and anti-western;
c) the Chinese way - with keeping of a rigid political regime oriented to reforms under the state's control.
As it is known at present, not one of these options of development was realized in a pure way by the region's countries. However, as a result of the reforms carried out in five states of the region some mixed strategies of modernization are executed: the strategy of partial liberalization with the support on energy resources with elements of authoritarian rule (Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan); the authoritarian types of modernization with keeping full state control and use of natural energy resource (Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan); the peripheral old type of modernization with elements of economic liberalization (Tajikistan).
For a long time, the civilization's union of the peoples of Central Asia was regarded as a general part in most scientific works and political appraisals. Actually, all contemporary leaders of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan, in particular for the time of regional summits, underline the common nature of history and languages, the origin of traditions, culture and economics. The main trend responding to the spirit of present time by numerous authors is considered to be the integration, including Central Asia. And what is more, the definition itself of Central Asia recently actually by all leaders of the states in Central Asia is called to be "the bridge between the West and the East". And this place should indicate a chance for universal acceptance of achievements of both parts of the world.
A decade ago, history of Central (formerly Middle) Asia was regarded as an inherent part of history of the USSR. At present, the conclusion has been perceived that there are adequate justifications to consider Central Asia as a type of local civilization. And what is more, a group of Kyrgyz scientists has made the conclusion that Central Asia shall be considered to a larger extent to be a part of the East but has been able to work out its own civilization's space. The authors regard that the Central-Asian civilization includes two components -civilizations of nomads and settled farmers. At the same time, the Central-Asian region comes forward as a part of Islamic civilization. This recognition is characteristic for the present state of political processes in the region. The recognition of particulars represents a significant part of national self-appraisal and self-identification.
Central Asia was always a complicated and contradictory region. Probably, therefore the present appraisals of history and perspectives of the region are very different. Some of them are presented in the form of mythic perceptions or are far from actual knowledge. For instance, K. Pleshakov writes: "It is curious that Central Asia is a vacuum of centralism. The space used to be united (by Chingizkhan, Tamerlan, Alexander II or Stalin) is separated to five state entities. In Soviet time, the boundaries between them sometimes were fixed by means of the ruler (for instance, between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to the west of the Aral). Four of them are Turkic people. Economies of Central Asia are marked by one-crop system. The cherished hopes for "better life" are based exclusively on the export (to the West) of natural resources, mainly oil and gas, as well as gold, narcotics, copper and other items. In scientific words, the proto-imperial space was formed in Central Asia. To put it bluntly, the region is ready to be united by the certain leader of hegemony.
The approximately analogous approach is shared by some contemporary political analysts, who are specialized in situations in new independent states. The political conjuncture defined the attitude to the states of Central Asia as the system of "N-stans" characterized by common economic, political and social foundations and the united civilization's origin as well as the almost identical political regimes and economic policy. Given this basis, the events in Uzbekistan become easily subjects to extrapolation in Kazakhstan, while the regime in Turkmenistan does not differ at all from the Tajik and Kyrgyz regimes. For ten years, a lot of stock phrases were formed, which do not explain the real processes. R. Abazov writes about it: "We as analysts of the Soviet system consider in the same way the processes in the former Soviet Union and in Central Asia, in particular. But the realities not always corresponded to the ideological constructions applied for explanation of them".
The adherence to the prepared schemes often leads researchers to unfounded conclusions and meanings, which are reflected in description by western analysts of the situation in Central Asia. As a result of mixture of myths with theoretical artificial schemes, a new image of Central Asia is being formed as a group of countries approaching authoritarian rule and totalitarian regime with different speed. The distinctive features of the new myth about these countries and peoples are the assertions about maladjustment to market relations, deep roots of religious fundamentalism, stagnation of economic life and excessive adherence to patriarchal relations and constant struggle among various clannish groups. This approach causes objection primarily of the experts with a long experience of studies of peoples and states in Central Asia. Naturally, many problems exist. Like all new states, the Central-Asian countries are subject to corruption and are marked by the struggle of elites for redistribution of property, while
society has a small impact on state decisions , the middle class is small and the interests of social groups are not reflected in the parliament and the party system. The sickness is common, while the experience of its treatment differs in various countries.
A thorough study of the region leads to understanding of existence of civilization's limits. The search for peculiar, honest and individual features is not something special, and this is a world trend. The detailed and deep study of history free from ideological dictate reveals the tendency to study of civilizations, cultures and sub-cultures, which results not so much in the search of the common feature as of differences among them. And what is more, the tendency to the search for identity leads to the review of former appraisals and to separation of local civilizations.
After disintegration of the USSR a long transitional period started and continued to the start of the XXI century in all states of Central Asia, according to A. Ulunyan, a senior researcher of the IGH of RUS. At present, it is impossible to speak about the unity of the states in Central Asia having in mind the formed model of state governance. They may be divided conditionally in two groups: Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan; Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The level of the totalitarian rule in the existing political regime is the criterion for definition of the group. Although Kyrgyzstan is nearer to democratic foundations than other countries of the region, all of them are characterized by the complete control over the legislative power. At the same time, the lower chamber of the parliament is elected in the second group.
The forms of governance in all countries of the regions resemble each other and differ only in the level of the features of totalitarian regime, mentions A. Vlasov, the deputy director of IAC of M.V. Lomonosov University. The analysis of the situation in
Kazakhstan, marked by rapid economic growth, shows that economic reforms are not accompanied by political reforms. All countries of the region took the choice in favor of ethnic nationalism as a state ideology. The form of governance constructed by the states of Central Asia conditionally may be named as "governed democracy" or "façade democracy". The leadership exerts main efforts to keep the position of ruling elites. The opposition is virtual being integrated in the existing structures, and tactfully catches the power's feelings. Therefore the inevitable crisis of power in countries of Central Asia discussed a lot by Russian experts will hardly take place. The construction of "governed democracy" represents the most probable scenario of development of the region's countries. Some force major circumstances (for instance, aggravation of the Islamic factor) may cause a great aggravation of discords within the ruling elites resulting in the outcome which would be not easy to predict. Kyrgyzstan is marked by very great instability, and it represents the only exception in the region. Probably, it would be necessary to start construction in this country from naught.
The following conclusion may be made. The political institutions and processes in Central Asia are characterized by their historical and social-cultural specifics. Many analytical schemes created by western political science as usual are not justified by empirical research. The processes of democratization and modernization of the political system in practice assume a characteristic, which differs from theoretical description. The Russian political science has to do a lot to describe adequately the going on processes in the region. It is necessary to overcome to a great extent some false stereotypes and perceptions on the Central-Asian states as eastern despotic entities unable for development of democracy. The similar perceptions and appraisals in essence repeat the assertions often repeated in western political
research, which describes the political processes in Russia in traditions of American Soviet research.
"Nauchnye vedomosti Belgorodskogo gosudarstvennogo Universiteta", Belgorod, 2011, N13, vyp. 19, pp. 207-213.
Rakhnamo
(Politics), Cand. Sc. (Pol.) (Tajikistan) TRANSFORMATION OF POLITICAL CULTURE "POLITICAL ISLAM" IN TAJIKISTAN
To the author's mind, in the course of discussion about "political Islam" it is worthless to come back to the known disputes on the terminology and to consider acceptance or non-acceptance of the use of this category. The personal experience shows that in the course of practical definition of this notion's boundaries we face great theoretical and methodological problems. Besides, these problems have some practical aspect. In this connection, the author during discussions on "political Islam" in Tajikistan often asked his colleagues the rhetoric question: does "non-political Islam" exist in Tajikistan?
As a researcher of the Islamic environment in Tajikistan for a long time the author may definitely make the conclusion: it is impossible to see "non-political Islam" in Tajikistan. Thus, the logical conclusion will be as follows: all groups and strata of Islamic clergy in Tajikistan actually take part in politics and have a definitely formulated political position. And only the form and specifics of their participation in politics are different.
In this connection, the main types of political activities of the clergy in Tajikistan should be mentioned.
The dependent political participation is characteristic for the so called "official clergy". The institution of official clergy is the organic
