Centrally controlled Civil Society
This reaches me from someone in Tashkent who is not affiliated with neweurasia. He wishes to remain anonymous. - Ben
The Uzbek government has been assuming more and more control of all possible sectors of society in the country. It became more apparent after the crackdown on the population in Andijan in May 2005 that the government does not allow real grass-root opposition in the country. But the governmental efforts evident in the country right now have been prepared even before Andijan. I obtained the information in this post from an Uzbek who has been closely following the developments.
Some years ago the Institute of “Studying the Public Opinion” was founded. Its role in civil society is, simply put, to control it and also to use civil society to create a so-called objective view on the country. The Institute reports to the Security Council, which is directly reporting to the president’s office. It aims to research different aspects of civil society in Uzbekistan. The ten departments of the Institute monitor NGOs, women’s issues, youth, economy, social issues, Mahallas, education, the party system, elections and governmental structures.
The headquarters of this institute are in Tashkent and it has branches all over the country. Around 40 people work in the HQ. While the objective of the institute seems to be relatively harmless, there are a couple of issues that are of concern for civil society organisations.
Active involvement of the Institute
The Institute has been involved in a couple of developments in Uzbekistan. Around two years ago, the Liberal Party of Uzbekistan was founded by the initiative of the institute. There might be links to the department of the Party System. Also, the Women’s Council was founded and here are strong links to the department of women’s issues and a related decree of the president. Last year, the National Association of Non-Governmental-Organisations (NaNaOuz) was founded. It reports – not a real surprise – to the NGO department of the Institute. NaNaOuz was also created by a decree of the president and its director is a secret service person. There is also a youth council and even developments in the social field that are linked to the department of social affairs.
NGOs in Uzbekistan are under pressure to join either NaNaOuz, the Women’s Council or the Youth Council. The director of NaNaOuz made it clear that any attempt of registering another national NGO body will not be successful.
Complete social control
The Institute reports to the Security Council, as do the secret service and the tax police. As the security council is headed by the president, this shows the emergence of a full central and governmental control of all aspects of live in Uzbekistan. One comparison that might be justified could be made to the Gleichschaltung of society in Germany during the nineteen-thirties. The state is able to detect any kind of dissent in its early stages, react and at the same time fill the gaps that the suppressed civil society leaves.
The Uzbek government likes to claim that it has to follow its own way in developing a social and political system that is appropriate for the region. But the means taken by the government are not new. Many aspects of organising the state in Uzbekistan clearly have their roots in state models that can be described as dictatorship. All is wrapped up, at least in Tashkent, with the glittering life of the global village with its inhabitants of Nestle, Nike, LukOil and so on leaving the impression on a visitor that the situation is not that bad at all.
Civil Society is a construct that is vague and not clear. But a vibrant civil society needs certain things to live and grow. These are freedom of expression, freedom of organisation, security of the personal and human rights as well as an uncorrupted life that enables people to support their families. And, as the videos from Andijan showed recently, this is what many people in Uzbekistan want: A life free from suppression and corruption! All that leads me to the question if the basic needs of the people in different countries differ that much or if it is a question of governmental interpretation and the wish to have as much power as possible?
on June 28th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
I don’t think the Andijan videos necessarily showed what your anonymous author says they showed. Some people saw an armed violent uprising sponsored by Islamist extremists bent on bringing Sha’aria rule to the Ferghana Valley. And I think ordinary Americans would agree that Sha’aria would be a worse fate for Uzbekistan and the world than “the glittering life of the global village with its inhabitants of Nestle, Nike, Lukoil and so on…” Perhaps anonymous doesn’t think so, but perceived links between so-called Civil Society actors and Islamist extremists are one reason that the Uzbek government has an excuse to crack down on NGOs–just as the US government shut down Islamic charities in America such as Global Relief and Benevolence International.
on June 28th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
Wouldn’t be an Uzbekistan blog without Laurence apologizing for the dictatorship…
Another reason the Uzbek government has an excuse to crack down on NGOs is that they could someday threaten the government’s stranglehold on the spoils of power. There are few countries in the world more poorly governed than Uzbekistan. It is important to the government that no one be able to point out this fact freely, nor publicly debate it or offer alternatives - something local activists might be prone to do. This requires total obedience and severe punishment for those out of line.
For those who believe in an Islamist conspiracy at every turn, however, no level of cruelty or misgovernance will ever convince them of the need for change.
on June 29th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
“Wouldn’t be an Uzbekistan blog without Laurence apologizing for the dictatorship…”
Let’s be happy that at least *some* old traditions still stand. :))))))
Well, he’s pro-karimovist; I’m in favor of an Islam-inspired alternative; so we’re both on kind of different sides of the front line yet definitely share an non-pc approach.
“And I think ordinary Americans would agree that Sha’aria would be a worse fate for Uzbekistan and the world than “the glittering life of the global village with its inhabitants of Nestle, Nike, Lukoil and so on…” ”
Maybe I missed st. but what does the ‘oridinary American’ suddenly has to do with Uzbekistan (assuming that he/she knows where it is at all)?
I think anonymous’ point was, that the regime, like its Soviet predecessor and also several third world dictatorships, is very good at puting up a façade of wealth, economic growth, stability and development, *at least in the capital and tourist places*. It is that that they show off to foreign delegations, syphilitic dipomats who rarely venture out of the capital, etc. That is nothing new.
Now that we’re at it, an important component of society in this kind of countries is a considerable social-psychological gap between:
a) those, who are grew up and ar anchored in the capital/city — in Uzb’s case, russianised-westernized ‘Tashkent Uzbeks’ (often families of Soviet dignitaries, so-called intelligentsia), métis and non-Muslim minorities esp. Russians and Koreans;
b) those from ‘outside’ (’kichlaktsi’, rural/smalltown folk, the vast majority Uzbek Muslims in this case).
A lerge part of group a) is stuck in a mindset whereby they believe that group b) are predominaly “illiterate hillbillies that are influenced by the Wahhabi” and want to “destroy our civilised lifestyle”. The fact that over the last 15 years many kichlaktsi moved close to ‘the city’ have added to that sort of primal fears.
That mindset (+ prop/stae media brainwashing) explains why a certain number of Tashkentsi genuinely believed that the Andijan massacre was orchestrated by ‘Wahhabis’ and that shooting them down was the right thing to do.
The thing is, this mindset is also the one of the Karimovs, both very russianized Uzbeks. And that’s why they, and part of their enrourage, believe that the kicklaktsi should nog have access to a better life, education etc. but should be kept under the boot.
“Around two years ago, the Liberal Party of Uzbekistan was founded by the initiative of the institute.”
Which reminds me that ‘cardboard-opposition’ that existed in the GDR at the time…
on June 29th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Ataman, Believe it or not, I’m not pro-Karimov. I do want a BETTER–not worse–alternative for Uzbekistan in the future. If you can develop that within Islamic law–something I doubt is possible–good luck to you. But if not, a “Russian path” a la Putin looks like Uzbekistan’s most likely road. In that regard, if I were the US government, I’d work with existing governments, rather than against them. Honestly, I think any major developments may have to wait until a new administration arrives in 2008. After all, even Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai is complaining about the Bush administration’s broken promises…
on June 30th, 2006 at 7:04 am
One feedback from me. Well, that all sounds quite interesting. I did not really want to talk about extremists who call themselves Islamists or pro- or contra-Russians. I rather brought this Andijan example up to show that labelling is mainly on the surface of both sides and it is to make use of imagination (of who is the bad and who is the good). Will try to explain my impressions.
Concerning Andijan I am split. In the video you could see both: those wanting freedom and those calling Allahu Akbar. The main point for me is that people are rather unhappy with the current situation. While the goverment says they are all muslim terrorists Human Rights groups focus on those demanding freedom. But the main idea of me bringing this up was to show the potential of people being unhappy with the restricted situation. The government tries to limit the power of all NGOs that are not within its framework. And Laurence, I don’t see the Sharia being introduced in Uzbekistan. Let’s be clear here. Even during USSR times there was a double sided approach. While authorities were not allowing certain traditional muslim habbits (like traditional weddings) you still could see those same folks participating in traditional events.
I like Uzari’s point here. There is not an extremist (or islamist) at every hidden corner in Uzbekistan. Laurence, have a look at the differences of Islam between let’s say Saudi Arabia and Central Asia.
The point of the hegemonic control by Ataman is interesting. Which raises the question for me for how long some minority control about the majority can go on successfully… Therefore I don’t see the Russian Path. We should not get fooled here by too much intercultural sensitivity: those in power want to remain in power and teh means to reach this are the same in the different parts of the world.
And honestly, the US government has been behaving like an elephant in a China Store in many countries (including Uzbekistan), not only during the Bush administration.
on March 4th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Hi…Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts about comin..holy Tuesday .
on March 7th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Hi…I found your site via Yahoo! when i was searching for china models, and this post regarding really sounds very interesting to me.. Thanks.
on March 9th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Hello…Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts ! it was a great Sunday .