27consequence, nation-building became a process of conjoining the nation with the
state, personalised by the ruling elite.
Inevitably, official ideas about the nation and nationhood have been contested,
renegotiated, and rejected at different levels. These disagreements over national
identity transcend the conflictual dynamics of relations between nominal majorities
and ethnic minorities. At the sub-national level, for example, identities have been
constructed through intermingling and amalgamation of different non-national
elements, such as clan, tribe and religion. In Kyrgyzstan, for example, the identifi-
cation with the Kyrgyz nation has been tempered by the regional (north vs. south),
kin-based and a variety of local identities. The youth, in particular, has identified
with the varied, changing and eclectic identity drawing on a range of cultural rep-
ertoires, including Islam and Christianity, Russian music and western capitalism.
At the national level, the Central Asian republics have deployed alternative dis-
courses of national identity to reap the greatest benefits in their foreign relations
with various international players. Kazakhstan has successfully presented several
identities: one linking the state with the titular nationality, another one appeal-
ing to its multi-ethnic character and the third one portraying it as a transnational
country integrated with global trends.
The top-down nation-building processes have become intertwined with efforts
at regime legitimation; and some of the regime legitimation strategies have been
turned into important tools for state- and nation-building. The rhetorical commit-
ment to democracy and the façade of democratic institutions have been central to
internal and external legitimacy of the administrations and instrumental to enact-
ing the modern nation in their states.
Building “democracies”The governments of Central Asia have introduced an entire set of formal demo-
cratic institutions and have allowed citizens (within limits) to form associations and
mass media outlets. These regimes have held regular multi-party elections, albeit
without real competition, and combined the rhetorical acceptance of democracy
with other authoritarian elements. Because of the global appeal of democracy, no
government can reject it without the risk of international isolation, and even the
most authoritarian regimes have embraced democratic ideas fearing domestic and
international de-legitimation. Democracy, however, has been important for legiti-
mising not only governing regimes but also modern nations. In the contemporary
discourse of nationhood in Central Asia and beyond, the notion of being a modern
nation has become inextricably linked to being a democratic one.
How Central Asia understands democracy, Mariya Y. Omelicheva Opinion & Analysis