The views expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the view of Chatham House, its staff, associates or Council. Chatham House
is independent and owes no allegiance to any government or to any political body. It does not
take institutional positions on policy issues. This document is issued on the understanding that if
any extract is used, the author(s)/ speaker(s) and Chatham House should be credited,
preferably with the date of the publication or details of the event. Where this document refers to
or reports statements made by speakers at an event every effort has been made to provide a fair
representation of their views and opinions, but the ultimate responsibility for accuracy lies with
this document’s author(s). The published text of speeches and presentations may differ from
delivery.
Russia and Eurasia Programme Paper: 2012/03
Averting Violence in
Kyrgyzstan:
Understanding and
Responding to
Nationalism
Nick Megoran
Newcastle University
December 2012
REP Programme Paper: Averting Violence in Kyrgyzstan: Understanding and Responding to Nationalism
www.chathamhouse.org
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This paper considers ways of averting further violence in southern Kyrgyzstan following the inter-
ethnic clashes of June 2010. Distrust between Uzbek and Kyrgyz communities remains high, with
many segments of Kyrgyz society fearful of the intentions of the Uzbeks, and suspicious of the role
of foreign organizations and agencies. A corrupt legal system has meant that perpetrators have
largely gone unpunished and the vulnerable Uzbek minority has routinely been mistreated. The
paper contends that in order to avert future violence it is necessary to get to grips with the
trajectory of nationalism within the country.
Nationalism in Kyrgyzstan has been misunderstood by foreign analysts. It should not be
understood as an inherently negative force, but rather an ambiguous ideology that divides and
excludes while also being inseparable from the rise of modern democracy and welfare states.
Nationalist politics can be inclusive or exclusionary of minorities. As the doctrine that posits that a
nation should have its own territory, and that this territorial nation-state should in some way reflect
the character of the nation, it is the ideology of the world divided into nation-states into which
independent Kyrgyzstan was ‘born’ in 1991. This ideology informs the state-led nation-building
projects that all Central Asian governments embarked on in 1991. Nationalism is thus, for the time
being, an inescapable context to politics in the republic. The paper’s key analytical question is thus
‘how can Kyrgyz nationalism/nation building become more inclusive?’
The paper suggests that the historical trajectory of Kyrgyz nationalism is marked by a profound
insecurity about the very survival of the country, and the fear that Kyrgyzstan is primarily
endangered by the weak state of the Kyrgyz language, internal disunity, and geopolitical threats. A
historical imagination that sees classical Kyrgyz political forms derived from a nomadic past posits
the solution to these challenges as ‘unity’ and ‘concordance.’ According to this vision, Uzbeks (or at
least their elites) are seen to represent a fundamental existential threat to the state, because they
are perceived to be aligned to external powers and not investing in the national project of unity.
The paper examines how comprehending nationalism in this way makes the policy responses of
central and municipal authorities understandable and rational in their own terms. These responses
– including the building of statues of Kyrgyz national heroes around Osh, a drive to ‘Kyrgyzify’
social life, and the fostering of ‘tolerance’ between grass-root communities – are grounded in the
idea that inter-ethnic peace in Osh is to be guaranteed through unity by creating loyalty to a strong
state with a clear Kyrgyz character and ideology.
Next the paper examines the responses of international actors, who have generally failed to
understand both the trajectory of Kyrgyz nationalism and its role in conditioning responses to the
Osh violence, and the role of patronage networks in influencing career pathways and political
change. As a result two problematic assumptions have shaped policy-making. The first is that
nationalism is a pathology that can be isolated to a few extreme individuals and then be eradicated
by a central government that is willing and able to do so. The second is that it is feasible at the
moment to promote and foster the civic reintegration of Uzbeks as actively participating citizens of
an inclusive state. By misdiagnosing the problem, the international community has proposed
solutions that are either unrealistic or, by fuelling a backlash against the Uzbeks, dangerously
counter-productive.
The paper concludes by arguing that a just peace in southern Kyrgyzstan will not be possible until
the insecurities at the heart of contemporary Kyrgyz nationalism are addressed. To be sure, this
will not occur without massive reform of the police and judicial system, so that justice is seen to be
done, and increasing economic opportunities for all. However even if these occur, the Uzbek
minority will not be safe until the Kyrgyz themselves feel that Kyrgyzstan is safe. The key
recommendations therefore are:
•
In policies and rhetoric, Kyrgyz politicians and civil society should promote the
development of inclusive, civic forms of nation-building.
•
Kyrgyz society should energetically pursue the goal of making Kyrgyz the primary
language of public life and inter-ethnic communication. At the same time, the
secondary roles of Russian and Uzbek should be protected within given spheres.