На англоязычной версии этого блога совсем недавно было опубликовано сообщение о трагической судьбе «гражданского общества» в Узбекиста…

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.

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…

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.