28
The discourse on democracy in Central Asia has been different from that in
western states. The authorities in Central Asia have dismissed the notion of a uni-
versal model of democracy and rejected the suitability of western democracy in
the region. While there are important differences in the imaginations of democ-
racy, presented by the leaders of the republics, they have been discursively con-
nected to historical narratives of their nations and linked by the goals of national
unity. The late president of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, had linked his beliefs, pol-
icies and programmes to representatives of the Uzbek cultural heritage (e.g., Amir
Timur, Avicenna, and Al-Farabi) to lend support to the model of development cho-
sen by his government. Tajikistan’s president, Emomali Rahmon, has justified re-
strictions on religious rights and economic freedom by arguing that the banned
practices were inconsistent with the “true culture of Tajiks.” Several authoritarian
governments – most notably Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan (under President Kur-
manbek Bakiyev) – have presented competitive elections as divisive and threaten-
ing to equal representation of diverse constituents.
They have advocated for alternative procedures of de-
cision-making that are supposed to unite the elector-
ate and ensure the best representation of their inter-
est. The institute of presidential appointments to the
legislative body and national assemblies of represent-
atives of ethnic diaspora, called for by the government
for consultation, have been put in place in parallel to
elections.
The discourses of democracy in Central Asia have
prioritised the goals of development over political lib-
eralisation, and security and order over democratisa-
tion. This has allowed the governments to divorce de-
mocracy from the idea of political equality achieved
through the procedural mechanism of electoral contestation and connect it in-
stead to the goal of socio-economic equality achieved through the governments’
economic policies. This has also allowed these governments to defend the state’s
interference in economic relations.
Some authorities in Central Asia, most notably those in Uzbekistan, have sub-
tly denied the principle of political equality as an a priori standard for a just and
fair rule. They put forth alternative normative foundations (most commonly, or-
der and security) for evaluating the “goodness” of their political rule. While not
openly portraying voters as lacking the requisite abilities for making good political
judgments, the elite have ascribed the leadership of the republics with superior
decision-making and moral qualities – in this way, buttressing the belief in theThe discourse
on democracy in
Central Asia has
prioritised the goals
of development
over political
liberalisation,
and security
and order over
democratisation.Opinion & Analysis How Central Asia understands democracy, Mariya Y. Omelicheva