Recently, the rebellious Kazakhstan was on the verge of civil war, and it is clear that the situation in the country, with all its not-yet-well-understood underwater currents, is far from stable. And this week, two events are occurring that indicate that the entire Central Asian region could become a zone of instability — widespread power outages (blackouts) in several countries in the region (https://golosislama.com/news.php?id=40448) and renewed clashes between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan (https://golosislama.com/news.php?id=40458). Apparently, we are witnessing the end of the post-Soviet configuration of Central Asia, which began with significant political changes in its largest state — Kazakhstan. However it ends, it is already clear that its architect and long-time leader, Nursultan Nazarbayev, has been removed from power. Moreover, it is uncertain whether his successor, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, who is responsible for purging Nazarbayev and his people, will be able to maintain control of the situation.
In this regard, while Kyrgyzstan has long been the only country in the region with a political system resembling a democracy, characterized by regular changes in power, the presence of an opposition, civil society, and independent media, three states that inherited the post-Soviet system of power stand in the way of an impending historic storm.
Of these three autocracies, the weakest link is Rahmon’s Tajikistan, because its system was created as a result of a treacherous revision of the agreement reached in the civil war that took place in the country immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union (https://golosislama.com/news.php?id=32703). And for this reason, its regime is weaker and more unstable than those that immediately emerged as autocracies.
As for the last two, it is obvious that the Turkmen regime is the most cartoonish and controversial, resembling the North Korean regime but with a Central Asian flavor. Of course, one could get the impression that such regimes, which have crushed their own people, are practically impossible to overthrow from within. But let us not forget the example of Ceaușescu, whose regime was not much different from that of North Korea and who, two weeks before he was overthrown, completely controlled the situation in Romania and crushed all dissent. And if we turn to the realities of neighboring Uzbekistan, Karimov’s dictatorship was established in large part out of fear of the opposition, which he destroyed to clear his path to power.
Today, Uzbekistan is at a crossroads, as the new president, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, has gradually begun to abandon the most controversial aspects of the Karimov regime, particularly the fight against all manifestations of Islam. But this course of gradual liberalization opens up opportunities for Uzbekistan to transform itself from a post-Soviet Central Asian satrapy into a modern Turkic-Muslim state, as well as risks if Mirziyoyev stops halfway or decides to turn back. No matter how effective a government may seem to itself, it cannot be stable in the modern world if it has no feedback from society, does not allow criticism and political competition. Therefore, at a certain stage, Shavkat Mirziyoyev will have to make a choice — either to lead and implement the transition of Uzbekistan to such a state and remain in the history of the Uzbek people as the true creator of a modern Uzbek state, or to oppose the people’s need for it, risking both his power and the entire country.
In this sense, the choice of civilizational course is even more important. As recently mentioned, those who dream of dragging Central Asia into Putin’s USSR 2.0 may try to take advantage of the instability in the region (https://golosislama.com/news.php?id=40411). This does not sit well with the strongest player in the region — China. However, despite its superiority over Putin’s Russia in all key parameters, the limitation of the Chinese project in the region lies in the fact that it relies on existing regimes and does not offer the countries of the region a supranational integration project.
The two powers capable of offering such a project are Erdogan’s Turkey and the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. As far as the latter is concerned, although some of our readers may sympathize with it because of its openly Islamic character, at the moment it is obvious that the Taliban are still learning how to govern their country and are also struggling with the enormous problems that we have already written about many times. In this sense, Turkey, which promotes the project of the Organization of Turkic States, has an advantage in all key parameters. However, it is also increasingly facing economic problems caused by geopolitical overstretch, which may expose it to internal political upheavals.
Whatever the case may be, one thing is clear: post-Soviet Central Asia is living its last historical days and is on the verge of major changes. And although their final outcome is still unclear, Muslims in the region need to determine the general direction of the movement they should strive for and resist.