Editorial: Central Asia needs to embrace civil society

This editorial first appeared in the 4 April 2023 issue of our newsletter, Central Asia Concise. If you would like to sign up to Central Asia Concise, or any other of our newsletters, click here.

"The exciting changes taking place in Central Asia cannot succeed if they are only a top-down exercise," writes commonspace.eu in this editorial. "Civil society through NGOs and SMEs needs to be galvanised to sustain the reforms and changes and to give them momentum. This will be a test for the Central Asian governments, as much as the journey to political plurality which some of them have now, at least nominally, embarked on."

A story is told of a young Uzbek, who shortly after his country gained independence following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, went to the Governor of his region and told him he wanted to establish a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO). 

The Governor was shocked. “My son”, he told him, “you are from such a good family, why are you against the government?” In Islam Karimov’s Uzbekistan you were either with the Government, or against it. Here, as in the other Central Asian republics, there was no or little space for NGOs.

Unfortunately this attitude prevailed for decades. Civil society in Central Asia was weak and marginalised. A few NGOs managed to survive, with western funding, and often heavily infiltrated by intelligence agencies. Some religious inspired organisations were seen as tools of jihadist forces.

The lack of a proper civil society leaves a hole in Central Asia’s governance and development model. This is becoming more obvious as countries like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan cautiously implement reforms across all sectors of society and try to regain the time lost over the last three decades. The reforms that the two governments are pushing are positive and they are real. They are also top-down.

The presidential administrations in both countries struggle to get government officials to implement the changes that are necessary. The administrative system remains rooted in old habits, most dating back to Soviet times. In similar situations in other post-Soviet and transition countries, civil society often acted as a counterbalance, supporting reforms, and urging for more. But in Central Asia this demand is weak.

Plurality should be across society

In the last days, the new Kazakh Parliament was sworn in. It is a multi-party parliament, and although not pluralistic in the traditional sense, it allows for different voices. This has the potential to create a new dynamic in the country’s governance system,#. But the lack of civil society means that any positive steps do not get amplified through wider society. Change in this sector is necessary too.

First there needs to be a change of mentality - non-governmental does not mean anti-government. The message needs to come down from the top that NGOs are a necessary thing, and that they should not only be tolerated but encouraged.

Then there is a need to liberalise the regulatory framework, so that organisations are able to form easily, to enable them to work transparently and not to over-burden them with complex financial regulations.

Third, it is necessary to start giving NGOs a voice by seeing them as partners in the reform agenda that is being pursued by Astana and Tashkent. 

There will of course be those who will abuse the system, as was seen in other post-Soviet and other transition countries in the past. NGOs can simply become tools of opposition forces with hidden agendas. Even worse, in Central Asia, they can become tools of jihadist forces pushing a confused and distorted version of Islam. These are real risks that governments, working with genuine civil society groups, need to manage and tackle.

SMEs can also play a vital role

Parallel to civil society – some would argue part of it – are the SMEs – small and medium size enterprises. For many countries they are the motor of the economy. In Central Asia this sector is also in a nascent stage. But there are encouraging signs, especially in the high tech sector where young entrepreneurs are trying to break out of the mould of the past. This is a trend that one can see even in the smaller Central Asian republics, such as Tajikistan. This sector also needs to be encouraged through regulatory reforms, financial incentives and through the establishment of innovation hubs.

Central Asia’s western partners, especially the US and the EU, can and should be at the forefront in working with the governments of the region to support these sectors. The approach needs to be intelligent and nuanced, and most importantly, transparent. They too need to remember that non-governmental does not mean anti-government, and that the first obligation of NGOs is to contribute to the wider welfare of society and not to do politics.

In any case, the 4th EU-Central Asia civil society forum held in Tashkent last month was a positive step, but this initiative needs to be energised and be given a proper focus. Click here to read more.

The exciting changes taking place in Central Asia cannot succeed if they are only a top-down exercise. Civil society through NGOs and SMEs needs to be galvanised to sustain the reforms and changes and to give them momentum. This will be a test for the Central Asian governments, as much as the journey to political plurality which some of them have now, at least nominally, embarked on.

source: commonspace.eu editorial team
photo: Aga Khan Foundation
The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)