Historian Alexander Knyazev on Current Events in Kyrgyzstan, their Historical Roots, and Likely Outcomes

Reposted from Gazeta.kg, originally published on Polit.kg.
Interview by Hilarion Zvyagintsev
Translation by Google/style edit by Ryan Weber

As part of the "Sharp Corners" series which focuses on the portrayal of Kyrgyz history in school textbooks, Polit.kg interviewed prominent historian Alexander Knyazev, Ph.D [of the Kyrgyz Slavic University, Bishkek]. The conversation quickly moved past the works of Osmonov and other pseudo-historians, and ultimately dealt with the connection of the past, present, and prospects for the future state of Kyrgyzstan.

Hilarion Zvyagintsev: In your opinion, what role does the Kyrgyz ethnic group play in the history of Kyrgyzstan? Why has this subject become such a fixture in today's debates?

Alexander Knyazev:- Ethnocentricity in the interpretation and teaching of history is largely the result of compromise among the unprincipled parts of the scientific community. At the turn of the 1980s and 90s, when the idea of ethnocentrism began to dominate - how this dishonored the academic community of the [Kyrgyz] Republic will be discussed - many just began to go along [with this narrative]. This is particularly noticeable in the proclamation of the 2,200th anniversary of Kyrgyz statehood, the 3,000th anniversary of Osh, and the question of the historicity of Manas as a person. It is characterized by lack of professionalism among our scientists. No profession can exist without lapses in professional ethics, but it's wrong to change [the way we write] history in favor of short-term interests. This causes harm and does not bring any benefit, and in a multicultural society - even more so. In a context where the socio-economic situation does not allow most people to travel outside the republic, not only young people, a huge part of society formed a provincial consciousness, ideology, limited to the extent of Kyrgyzstan and the myths operating here.

Read more »

Panel Suggests Media, Representation, Corruption all Obstacles to Peace & Democracy in Kyrgyzstan

by Ryan Weber

On the evening of December 6, the Elliott School at George Washington University in Washington, DC hosted a panel discussion titled, "Post-election Developments in Kyrgyzstan: The Tension Between Democracy Promotion and Conflict Mitigation."

The event was moderated by Dr. Sean Roberts, director of the International Development Studies Program at George Washington University, and author of the Roberts Report on Central Asia and Kazakhstan. Panelists included Alisha Khamidov, lecturer at the School of Advanced International Studies at the Johns Hopkins University; Jeff Goldstein, senior policy analyst of Eurasia at the Open Society Institute; and Sam Patten, senior program manager of Eurasia at Freedom House.

The event drew a respectable crowd of students and DC-based Eurasia analysts, and focused on the relationship between democracy promotion and (ethnic) conflict resolution in post-Bakiev Kyrgyzstan. Especially at issue was the tension between ethnic Kyrgyz and ethnic Uzbeks in the country's Southern regions and how certain political factions used nationalist rhetoric to exploit and encourage this tension for their own gain leading up to the October 10 parliamentary election.

Each offered their perspective on the nature of the widespread June violence that shook Osh and lead to the death of hundreds and the flight of tens of thousands of ethnic Uzbeks to the nearby border with Uzbekistan. Each speaker had been to Kyrgyzstan within the past 6 months, during the Osh violence, October elections, or both.

Read more »

A Hard Look in the Mirror: Central Asia Scores Poorly on Perception of Corruption

by Ryan Weber

Transparency International Released its 2010 Corruption Perception Index (CPI), and as the regional map shows (above), Central Asia is left looking rather red in the face. On a scale of 0 to 10, in which lower numbers were judged more corrupt by respondents, the regional regimes scored between 2.9 (Kazakhstan) and 1.6 (Uzbekistan & Turkmenistan). Georgia, China and Russia provide some context, with the first two - by no means poster children for anti-corruption - scoring higher than any Central Asian states at 3.8 and 3.5 respectively, while Russia, the dominant political force in the region, held steady with the pack at an embarrassingly low score of 2.1.

The Index, which is compiled from a series of surveys filled out by citizens of each country then averaged and adjusted according to the survey biases, is just one measure, and an admittedly imperfect one, to evaluate the level of corruption active in the everyday, as well as institutional levels of government. Corruption is a difficult concept to define, ranging from police traffic bribes to no-bid government contracting, and even more complicated to track accurately. The index provides a "rough barometer" of public perceptions, captured at the moment they take a survey, and not held against a baseline experience. As such, as the Transparency International website warns,

"The CPI is not a tool that is suitable for trend analysis or for monitoring changes in the perceived levels of corruption over time... Year-to-year changes in a country’s score can result from a change in the perceptions of a country’s performance, or changes in the methodology resulting from TI’s efforts to improve the index." (link)

Well and good, but trend analysis may in fact provide some interesting results when considered in light of the events affecting the various countries, or as a measure of the similar or dissimilar year-by-year corruption perception of citizens from different countries within a shared region. It must still be stressed, what such analysis will show is not the level of corruption in any country, but the perception of corruption among its citizens.

Read more »