University of Central Florida STARS Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 2004 Facade Democracy: Democratic Transition In Kazakhstan And Uzbekistan Robin Nicole Merritt University of Central Florida Part of the Political Science Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Masters Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STARS Citation Merritt, Robin Nicole, "Facade Democracy: Democratic Transition In Kazakhstan And Uzbekistan" (2004). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. 143. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/143 FAÇADE DEMOCRACY: DEMOCRATIC TRANSITION IN KAZAKHSTAN AND UZBEKISTAN by ROBIN NICOLE MERRITT B.A. University of Central Florida, 1999 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Political Science in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Summer Term 2004 © 2004 Robin Nicole Merritt ii ABSTRACT This thesis explores the reasons behind the stagnation in the transition to democracy in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. According to their constitutions, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are democracies. In actuality, however, there is little evidence to support that these are democratic systems. These states’ post-Soviet constitutions outline them as democracies – yet they lack a free press; freedom of association is suppressed; religious freedom is limited; and free speech is constrained as well. While these two countries hold popular elections, much of their electoral processes are under the control of the executive branch of government - calling into question whether or not Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan really hold “fair and competitive” elections. In sum, in both of these states, democracy is de jure rather than de facto. Why is this so? Why are Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan not the democracies in practice that they are on paper? Many scholars and policy-makers blame the stagnation in these states’ democratic transitions on the firm hands used by the countries’ presidents to maintain their current power and even to increase it. Other scholars point out that Central Asia has never been democratic and thus does not know how to be so. These scholars refer, in particular, to the region’s history as part of the Russian Empire and later, as part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Using frameworks drawn from Dahl’s Polyarchy (1971) and Huntington’s The Third Wave (1991), this thesis finds that not only are Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan straying from their constitutional democratic starting points, no single factor is to blame for the stagnation in the transitions to democracy in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Rather, it is the combination of multiple factors – both internal and external – that provides the most comprehensive explanation of these states’ failure to become full-fledged democracies. Combining the elements of strong dictator- like presidents with a lack of democratic history is but the tip of the iceberg. Internal factors such as “political culture” and external factors such as the influence of the international community also play major roles in the current state of affairs in these Central Asian states. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................iii TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................... iv CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 5 Literature Review........................................................................................................................ 6 Chapter Descriptions................................................................................................................... 9 1990........................................................................................................................................... 11 Creating New Democracies ...................................................................................................... 12 A Framework for Analysis of de jure versus de facto Democracy........................................... 13 Political Institutions: The Separation of Powers and a System of Checks and Balances........ 16 Political Institutions: The Electoral System and Opposition Parties ....................................... 18 Civil Liberties ........................................................................................................................... 25 CHAPTER TWO: KAZAKHSTAN............................................................................................ 33 From Tribalism to Russification ............................................................................................... 34 The Russian Experience............................................................................................................ 37 Sovietization ............................................................................................................................. 39 Independent Kazakhstan ........................................................................................................... 42 CHAPTER THREE: UZBEKISTAN .......................................................................................... 57 Early Uzbek Foundations.......................................................................................................... 59 Russian Subjugation and Sovietization..................................................................................... 63 Sudden Independence ............................................................................................................... 68 Economic and Foreign Policy Issues ........................................................................................ 76 CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH............................................ 82 A Final Comparison of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan With Framework.................................... 85 Future Research ........................................................................................................................ 87 Where Do We Go From Here? ................................................................................................. 90 Why Democratization in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan Matters ................................................ 94 APPENDIX A: CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN......................... 96 APPENDIX B: CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN ......................... 134 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 158 iv CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION This thesis explores the reasons behind the stagnation in the transitions to democracy in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. According to their constitutions, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are democracies. In actuality, however, there is little evidence to support that these are democratic systems. These states’ post-Soviet constitutions outline them as democracies - yet they lack a free press; freedom of association is suppressed; religious freedom is limited; and free speech is constrained as well. While these two countries hold popular elections, much of their electoral processes are under the control of the executive branch of government – calling into question whether or not Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan really hold “fair and competitive” elections. In sum, in both of these states, democracy is de jure rather than de facto. Why is this so? Why are Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan not the democracies in practice that they are on paper? Using frameworks drawn from Dahl’s Polyarchy (1971) and Huntington’s The Third Wave (1991), this thesis finds that not only are Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan straying from their constitutional democratic starting points, no single factor is to blame for the stagnation in the transitions to democracy in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Rather, it is the combination of multiple factors – both internal and external – that provides the most comprehensive explanation of these states’ failure to become full-fledged democracies. Combining the elements of strong dictator- like presidents with a lack of democratic history is but the tip of the iceberg. Internal factors such as “political culture” and external factors such as the influence of the international community also play major roles in the current state of affairs in these Central Asian states. 5 Literature Review The current literature regarding Central Asia tends to suggest two general explanations as to why the region has failed fully to transition to democracy in accordance with international standards. One explanation places the blame on the current leadership, specifically President Nursultan Nazarbaev of Kazakhstan and President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan, in those two cases. Most often this is the viewpoint of human rights organizations like Amnesty International; however, more politically oriented groups such as Freedom House, Eurasianet, and, to an extent, media and press organizations like the International Press Institute (IPI) and Radio Free Europe (RFE) can be