Post-liberal statebuilding in Central Asia: A decolonial perspective on community security practices and imaginaries of social order in Kyrgyzstan by PHILIPP LOTTHOLZ A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY International Development Department School of Government and Society College of Social Sciences University of Birmingham December 2017 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract This thesis presents a development of the concept of post-liberalism to analyse processes of statebuilding in Central Asia by the example of Kyrgyzstan from a decolonial angle. Recent debates in peace, conflict and intervention studies have conceived of ‘post-liberal’ and ‘hybrid forms of peace’ as modalities of resistance against and re-negotiation of a globally dominant ‘liberal peace’ template promoted by Western governments and the international intervention architecture. The approach of this research questions the global dominance and prominence of the ‘liberal peace’, the possibility of resistance and agency against it, and of emancipation of people in post-conflict or transition countries in the global periphery. By introducing ‘imaginaries of statebuilding’ – understood as mental constructs structuring people’s thoughts and actions – as novel analytical concept, the study captures the complex and contradictory processes of reception, adoption and resistance against globally dominant notions of capitalist economic development, democracy, and peacebuilding and security practices. In the empirical part, practices of peacebuilding and community security – and their embeddedness in the post- liberal trajectory of statebuilding – are analysed by the example of local crime prevention centres, territorial youth councils, and a national level NGO network working on police reform and participatory provision of public security. The research demonstrates how exclusion, structural violence and precarity are reproduced and feed into patterns of post-conflict governmentality which exist in sync with seemingly emancipatory and contextually meaningful ways of coexistence and steps towards institutional reform. These negative effects of the combination and hybridisation of the three identified imaginaries of statebuilding – a ‘Western liberal peace’, ‘politics of sovereignty’ and ‘tradition and culture’ imaginary – are critically reflected upon. Entry points for more fundamental critique and social/political practice are provided throughout the dissertation and, in the conclusion, synthesised into a new decolonial approach towards peace, conflict and intervention research. Acknowledgements The people to be mentioned first are the protagonists of this research: research participants, conversation partners, interlocutors and all those ready to invite me to get to know their initiative, project, organisation and points of view. I am most grateful for your openness and trust and hope that this research will only be the beginning of a lasting dialogue. The research experience was especially enriching thanks to Alexey, Chynara and Timur, who patiently answered my questions, read multiple draft analyses and enabled key insights. The research assistance and translation skills of Gulniza and Meerim helped to broaden the perspective of the project. The project was generously funded by the University of Birmingham’s School of Government Society Doctoral Bursary, a One Year Doctoral Scholarship from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and a PhD Completion Grant from the Centre for East European and International Studies (CEEIS, Berlin). Support from the School of Government and Society Conference Fund helped me to present my research and gather valuable experience. My field trip to Kyrgyzstan benefited from the IDD Fieldwork Fund and a guest fellowship at the Central Asian Studies Institute at the American University of Central Asia in Bishkek. Nick Lemay-Hébert has been the mastermind behind this project. More than a supervisor, you were a mentor, friend and provider of help, encouragement, inspiration and support. I look forward to one day being able to pass on these gifts to new generations of scholars! I appreciate Heather Marquette’s support and patience as co-supervisor and will not forget her endorsement and guidance on my vague idea of pursuing a PhD. I am also thankful for the many friends and colleagues at the University of Birmingham who made my studies there a joyful undertaking, and especially indebted for the friendship, help, advice and comradery of Mattias, Fabian, Roman, Franco, Karolina, Elisa and Maria and many other friends. Yuri, Raia and Momchil have made life in Bulgaria yet more enjoyable, and the boys back in Reutlingen remind me time and again what it really feels like to have a place to call home. I am thankful to my mother Regine and brother Richard for supporting me on this path and patiently anticipating, together with my two grandmothers and other relatives, the day that I will finally graduate, in spite of the tragic change this year has brought to our family. Emi and Mikhail, I am happy and full of gratitude for the backing and warmth that you provided every day through the most difficult times. My greatest appreciation is expressed to my partner Polina Manolova. Your love, vivacity and care have helped me to truly cherish life and I look forward to new adventures and time spent together. To my father Stefan Lottholz and grandmother Herta Brink, it is still hard to believe that you are not here anymore. I will always keep your memory alive. Notes on Transliteration and Language Most of the research in this project was conducted in Russian language. In rare instances, I have employed Kyrgyz interpreters or retrospectively discussed conversations or events held in Kyrgyz language (these are indicated in footnotes). All translations from Russian are my own unless otherwise indicated. Interviews were transcribed into Russian and, after analysing them, translated for quotation in the dissertation. The original words added in brackets are usually in Russian language or marked as Russian/Ru. or Kyrgyz/Kg. For transliteration, I use the Library of Congress ALA-LC Romanisation table (https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/russian.pdf, accessed 13 November 2017), which means that all Cyrillic letters are transliterated with their Latin equivalents and i is used for й; j and zh for ж; kh for х; ts for ц; ch for ч; and sh for ш. For convenience, I transliterate щ with sh as the difference to ш is negligible in spoken Russian. I transliterate я and ю with ia and iu, but use a ya and yu if the letters are used at the beginning of words. I further chose to omit apostrophes and other additional signs for reading and writing comfort. The same goes for the peculiarities of the Kyrgyz alphabet, which includes additional letters that sometimes make a significant difference, and sometimes less so. Most importantly, the word for rural executive committee or administration, айыл окмоту, transliterated as aiyl okmotu, is written айыл өкмөтү in Kyrgyz and transliterates as aiyl ökmötü. Both in written and spoken Russian, this is usually simplified to the former version, although people tend to use the mutation ü at the end. I also use the Russian names for cities, such as Uzgen instead of Özgön. To build the plural of transliterated words, I add an s rather than Russian y (ы) or i (и), e.g. aksakals. Table of Contents Chapter I Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 I.1 Rationale for the study ................................................................................................ 5 I.2 Research objectives ...................................................................................................... 8 I.3 Contribution ................................................................................................................. 9 I.4 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 14 I.5 Thesis structure .......................................................................................................... 26 Chapter II Peace, conflict and intervention research between theory and practice .... 32 II.1 Peace, conflict and intervention research: Intellectual heritage and current challenges .................................................................................................................... 33 Post-Cold War statebuilding and the critique of the liberal peace ........................... 33 A methodological and decolonial critique of (critical) peacebuilding scholarship .. 39 II.2 New concepts and approaches to statebuilding: Sociology and ethnography ...... 44 The deceptive potential of ethnography and anthropology in peace- and conflict studies .........................................................................................................................