The
recent death of Uzbek President Islam Karimov reminded me of a conversation I
had with a commentator and former senator from that country some 16 years ago.
We discussed why Karimov needed to keep such an iron grip on the country he had
ruled since before the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The
president had just been re-elected with around 90 per cent of the vote in a
process that was clearly rigged. Why, I asked, is it necessary for him to have
such an unbelievably high percentage of the vote which would never happen in a
fair election? Why couldn’t he be happy with say 65 per cent which would still
be classed as a landslide in the West?
My
companion said that if such a result was published and it was seen that perhaps
30 per cent or more opposed Karimov it would be an encouragement for
“undesirable” elements in the country.
“Uzbeks
have the choice between democracy and chaos or strong rule and stability and
overwhelmingly they choose stability. In Uzbekistan if you go about your lawful
business, raise your family, pay your taxes and keep out of politics you have
nothing to fear from the Government,” the former parliamentarian said.
This
supposed link between democracy and chaos has been skilfully managed by Karimov
over the past quarter of a century, reinforced more recently by the need to confront
Islamic extremism in a country where the majority of the population profess to
be Muslim. However, like many dictators,
the Uzbek strongman saw himself as immortal and had no interest in succession
planning.
The
situation is complicated by the Uzbekistan’s strategic position in central Asia,
which is bound to see the United States, Russia and China all vying for influence
with whoever manages to take control in Tashkent.
While
a number of names are being thrown around as possible successors, an obvious
choice has yet to emerge. At best this will result in a behind-the-scenes power
struggle, at worst overt violence and the kind of instability that Karimov so
feared.
No comments:
Post a Comment