Accessibility links

Breaking News

Qishloq Ovozi (Archive)

Nick Megoran: "When I first went there 20 years ago, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan were more theoretical realties...." One look at an Uzbek border crossing in the Ferghana Valley shows how this has changed.
Nick Megoran: "When I first went there 20 years ago, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan were more theoretical realties...." One look at an Uzbek border crossing in the Ferghana Valley shows how this has changed.

The Central Asian states marked 25 years of independence this year. Kazakhstan was the last of the five countries to celebrate its 25th anniversary as an independent country on December 16.

There have been some good articles already published looking at a quarter-century of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

The Majlis, RFE/RL's weekly podcast about Central Asia, wanted to do its part to mark the anniversary also, and to mark it in a unique way.

So, with RFE/RL Media Relations Manager Muhammad Tahir moderating, the Majlis brought in two of the legends of Central Asian studies: Gregory Gleason, currently at the Germany-based Marshall Center for Security Studies, and Nick Megoran, professor at Newcastle University in the United Kingdom.

Gleason and Megoran, besides contributing a voluminous amount of material on Central Asia, have been watching the region since the first days of independence. They remember what was happening in the early years of independence, they were there, and they continue to follow events in the region.

On a personal note, I will add that Gleason and Megoran were among the first Western scholars writing about Central Asia in the era of independence. I knew their names in the early 1990s, and I benefited greatly from their articles.

So they were exactly the guests the Majlis needed to provide some insight about where Central Asia is today and how it got to this point.

I have a few decades of experience with Central Asia myself, so I was happy to take a place around the campfire, reminisce, and talk about some of the things that shaped the course of a region.

The topic -- Central Asia's 25 years of independence -- is a thick subject. This is a longer Majlis than usual and therefore we decided to break it up into two parts.

The guests explain how they came to be involved in Central Asian studies, and recall the situation in the early days. For example, Megoran lived in the Uzbek section of the Ferghana Valley in the mid-1990s. Commenting on the border situation, Megoran says, "When I first went there 20 years ago, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan were more theoretical than realities...."

That border is very different today, a sign of the disintegration of Central Asia that has characterized the region for most of the last quarter-century. The panel notes that Uzbekistan played a large role in preventing regional unity and looks at how that affected the evolution of Central Asia.

The first contacts with the West are also discussed. Megoran recalls that "NATO had formed some partnership agreements, so I would occasionally meet NATO soldiers in Ferghana."

These soldiers were visiting Central Asia as part of NATO's Partnership for Peace program. Turkmenistan was the first country to join the program in May 1994 and Tajikistan the last in 2002.

And Gleason explains the West's understanding of Central Asia in those early years was "a kind of unjustified...unchallenged assumption that the countries were in what was called 'transition.'" This misperception would often lead to complications in relations.

The Central Asian states generally welcomed ties with the West in those early days. Relations with Washington and European countries provided a counterweight to the former colonial master, Moscow.

But as Gleason points out, not long after Central Asia's independence, Moscow would make clear that Central Asia would never stray too far from Russia's orbit. "In explicit form in 1993, [Russia's very first Foreign Minister] Andrei Kozyrev talked about the border of the Soviet Union being the limit of Russia's sphere of influence."

That, and much more are in the first part of the Majlis.

Part 2 of the Majlis looks at the systems of government that developed in Central Asia and explores some of the possible reasons for these evolutions.

The panel delves deeper into the relations between the West and Central Asia, particularly in the post-9/11 era and obviously with special attention to the United States' role, the souring of those ties in recent years, and what the West's expectations for ties with Central Asia look like in the future.

And the Majlis also looks at the arrival of China, and Russia's reinvigorated efforts to assert influence in the region through Russian-dominated organizations such as the Collective Security Treaty Organization and the Eurasian Economic Union.

We couldn't get everything in, but much ground was covered, and the opinions being expressed represent about 100 years, combined, of experience with Central Asia. Here is the full audio recording of the discussion, in two parts:

Majlis Podcast: Central Asia's Last 25 Years, Part 1
please wait

No media source currently available

0:00 0:36:12 0:00
Direct link
Majlis Podcast: Central Asia's Last 25 Years, Part 2
please wait

No media source currently available

0:00 0:25:26 0:00
Direct link

Listen to or download the Majlis podcast above or subscribe to Majlis on iTunes.

Kyrgyz will go to the polls on December 11.
Kyrgyz will go to the polls on December 11.

Kyrgyzstan's December 11 referendum on amendments to the constitution has been a contentious issue since plans to hold it were announced this last summer, and it appears it will be an issue in the coming months as the country prepares for the presidential election late next year.

To look at the problems this referendum has caused and the fallout that might soon follow, RFE/RL assembled a Majlis, or panel, to discuss the possible motives for conducting the referendum and what it might mean for Kyrgyzstan in 2017.

Moderating the discussion was RFE/RL Media Relations Manager Muhammad Tahir. From Bishkek, Edil Baisalov, longtime political figure in Kyrgyzstan and also chief of staff in former Kyrgyz President Roza Otunbaeva's administration, joined the Majlis. From the United States, one of the leading authorities on Kyrgyzstan, Erica Marat, who is an assistant professor in the Department of Regional and Analytical Studies at the National Defense University's College of International Security Affairs, participated. I had my hands full trying to keep up with those two, but I said a few things also.

There are 26 proposed amendments to Kyrgyzstan's constitution. Panelists pointed out the referendum was pushed through hurriedly, leaving a lot of questions about the reasons for the changes.

Baisalov said, "I don't really think people have a very good idea of what these amendments are supposed to bring, what kind of changes."

Marat commented on the haste with which the referendum was passed and a date named for the vote, saying, "the way the constitutional referendum was imposed just shows that political process doesn't really matter, and whatever the changes in the constitution, it will benefit the political class who is in power, who wants to rule the country according to what they see as appropriate for their political interests."

That view is shared by some in Kyrgyzstan, especially those who, like Baisalov, believe that "this current constitution has built not a democracy, not a parliamentary democracy, but a very oligarchic system."

Marat went a bit further and said that "the constitution that was approved in 2010 tried to eliminate the importance of an individual and give more powers to the parliament," but "Atambaev still wanted to impose his own vision, and in the future political leaders that will replace Atambaev...can still use the constitution or interpret it the way they want."

In any case, Baisalov said, "I would not overdramatize the significance of this vote in terms of transfer of any constitutional powers from the president to the prime minister."

Baisalov, who was part of the efforts to draft the current constitution in 2010, mentioned that parts that give the prime minister more power at the expense of the presidency are natural.

"According to the current constitution, the prime minister is supposed to be the most powerful politician and leader in the country, we modeled the prime minister to be on par with the chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, or the British prime minister," he said.

That cuts to the heart of the matter going forward. If the current constitution had genuinely created a parliamentary system in Kyrgyzstan, next year's presidential election would not be terribly important.

But as it stands now, "our future depends on who is going to win the presidential election," Baisalov said.

That almost guarantees that next year's presidential campaign will be energetic and controversial and many of the complaints likely to be heard will stem from the December 11 referendum.

The Majlis looked into these issues in greater detail and also discussed other proposed amendments to the constitution, such as who can legally get married or what Kyrgyzstan's obligations to international conventions on human rights will be, or ecocide, and why these changes were included in the package voters will be asked to approve at polling stations.

Here is the full audio recording of the discussion:

Majlis Podcast: What Is Kyrgyzstan's Constitutional Referendum About?
please wait

No media source currently available

0:00 0:38:14 0:00
Direct link

Listen to or download the Majlis podcast above or subscribe to Majlis on iTunes.

Load more

About This Blog

Qishloq Ovozi is a blog by RFE/RL Central Asia specialist Bruce Pannier that aims to look at the events that are shaping Central Asia and its respective countries, connect the dots to shed light on why those processes are occurring, and identify the agents of change.​

The name means "Village Voice" in Uzbek. But don't be fooled, Qishloq Ovozi is about all of Central Asia.

Subscribe

Blog Archive
XS
SM
MD
LG