Insight Turkey
Insight Turkey
Challenging ideas
On Turkish politics and International affairs

Insight Turkey > Reviews > Book Reviews |

Stable Outside, Fragile Inside? Post-Soviet Statehood in Central Asia

Stable Outside, Fragile Inside? Post- Soviet Statehood in Central Asia brings together a team of authors who address the complex issues of building statehood and state institutions in the Central Asian region post-independence. For nearly 20 years, five states in the region have been engaged in the process of nation-state building and the building of “statehood”– a term the authors use extensively throughout the book. Yet, many expert scholars and foreign observers believe that the achieved statehood is quite weak and the political systems in the region remain volatile. The events in Kyrgyzstan in spring and summer 2010 perhaps best illustrate this fragility, though this edited volume was prepared for publication before the revolution and interethnic conflicts in the country formerly known as the “Island of Democracy.” 

 

Stable Outside, Fragile Inside? Post- Soviet Statehood in Central Asia brings together a team of authors who address the complex issues of building statehood and state institutions in the Central Asian region post-independence. For nearly 20 years, five states in the region have been engaged in the process of nation-state building and the building of “statehood”– a term the authors use extensively throughout the book. Yet, many expert scholars and foreign observers believe that the achieved statehood is quite weak and the political systems in the region remain volatile. The events in Kyrgyzstan in spring and summer 2010 perhaps best illustrate this fragility, though this edited volume was prepared for publication before the revolution and interethnic conflicts in the country formerly known as the “Island of Democracy.” 
The book was designed to identify “the awkwardness of Central Asian states as a distinctive feature of the regional transition” and “the increasing appearance of external stability and domestic fragility” (p.6). To achieve these goals the book is divided into two sections. The first, written by Paul Kubicek, David Gullette, Martin Spechler and Dina Spechler, and John Heathershaw, addresses analytical and theoretical frameworks for under- standing relations between domestic and international developments in the region. The second section, written by Kirill Nourzhanov, Claire Wilkinson, Lawrence Markowitz, Steven Sabol, and Alisher Ilkhamov, focuses on the “localization in the dynamics of Central Asian state-making,” providing empirical evidence from each of the five states in the region. In the introduction, Emilian Kavalski establishes a theoretical framework explaining the rationale for discussion of “stateness” (term coined by J.P. Nettle), “awkward statehood” (a term used by Kavalski, “set of authority structures and state-society relations;” p.15), and “international socialization.” In this regard, Kavalski highlights the importance of “localization of international standards” according to existing cultural traditions and perceptions (p.21). 

The first section – the assessment of theoretical and analytical approaches in explaining state-building in Central Asia– concentrates on four major schools of thought: democratization literature (by Paul Kubicek), “clan” politics model (by David Gullette), international political economy paradigm (by Martin Spechler and Dina Spechler), and post-colonial literature (by John Heathershaw). In Paul Kubicek’s discussion of the literature on democratization in Central Asia he focuses on the implication of the democratization process on statehood and state-building in the region and explains the persistent “democratic deficit” by focusing on political history, including Gorbachev’s failure to reform the political system in the region. He comes to the conclusion that the combination of domestic “democratic deficit,” limited political competition and complex regional political environment undermine democratic development in Central Asia and, therefore, limits building of “democratic polities” in the region. David Gullette revisits the theoretical assumptions of the so-called “clan” politics model – one of the most widely used and misunderstood approaches in analyzing Central Asia – presenting his arguments for the theoretical reframing of the concept of clan politics “in the context of interacting local and external norms and values” (p.53). He posits that there are many shortcomings in the current “clan” politics model, as it suggests looking at political development through the “prism of genealogical imaginations” (p.69). In the meantime it is more productive to look at the politics in the region by focusing “on people’s strategies to meet everyday challenges” (p.69). Martin Spechler and Dina Spechler suggest applying the international political economy approach in explaining the dynamic interaction between domestic and international political development; they argue that the economic culture of “doing business” in the region affects the policy making procedures and ultimately, the state building practices. 

In the second section - the authors discuss empirical evidence from the Central Asian states to illustrate the validity of various theoretical approaches in explaining highly different and quite unique developments in each of these states. The significance of these differences is puzzling, especially if we take into consideration that all these countries shared the Soviet experience and Soviet-type modernization and political changes. For example, two countries – Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan – are culturally so close to each other, however, politically so different. To explain these differences, Kirill Nourzhanov explores Kazakhstan’s political leadership and its perception and interpretation of liberal democratic values. In the meantime, Claire Wilkinson suggests it was external political players and probably a new “great game” that contributed to the existing trajectory of political development, democratic socialization, and the specific actions of the elite and their attempt to play external actors against each other in achieving domestic goals, especially after 9/11. Lawrence Markowitz firmly believes that the trajectory of recent political development in Tajikistan is rooted in the context of the post-Soviet transition, especially due to protracted civil war. Thus, the Tajik elite’s pursuit of political survival leaves limited space for external actors to influence Tajikistan’s domestic political development. According to Steven Sabol, the political development in Turkmenistan takes a unique and very different direction in the post-Soviet era through the introduction of Turkmen exceptionalism and isolationism. This is combined with Niyazov’s policy of preserving some practices from the Soviet era and with attempts to build Turkmenistan’s statehood on a number of newly invented symbols. Alisher Ilkhamov suggests that the “awkwardness” and failures of the Uzbek political system could be attributed to neopatrimonialism, mismanagement, corruption, and the fragmentation of the national elite along various patronage, clientelist, and clan networks. 

Overall, the book is an interesting and noteworthy contribution to our understanding of the political dynamics in the Central Asian region. Readers will enjoy engaging with the work, and are likely to take some research questions and polemic ideas suggested therein a step further.


Labels »  

We use cookies in a limited and restricted manner for specific purposes. For more details, you can see "our data policy". More...