Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Sovereignty After EmpireComparing the Middle East and Central Asia$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Sally N. Cummings and Raymond Hinnebusch

Print publication date: 2011

Print ISBN-13: 9780748643042

Published to Edinburgh Scholarship Online: March 2012

DOI: 10.3366/edinburgh/9780748643042.001.0001

Show Summary Details

Sovereignty after Empire: The Colonial Roots of Central Asian Authoritarianism

Sovereignty after Empire: The Colonial Roots of Central Asian Authoritarianism

Chapter:
(p.178) 9 Sovereignty after Empire: The Colonial Roots of Central Asian Authoritarianism
Source:
Sovereignty After Empire
Author(s):

David Lewis

Publisher:
Edinburgh University Press
DOI:10.3366/edinburgh/9780748643042.003.0008

This chapter discusses whether Central Asian authoritarianism can be viewed in some way as a legacy of empire, while accepting that many other factors have contributed to the emergence of the present political systems that dominate the region. The historical legacy of empire, particularly that form of empire seen in the Soviet period in Central Asia, has contributed to the emergence of authoritarian political systems in two important ways. First, the nature of sovereignty that emerged in the post-Soviet period in Central Asia owes much to the attitudes of Soviet-era national elites towards the borders of the Soviet republics in Central Asia, which emerged partly as a result of deep involvement in the bureaucratic politics of resources in the Soviet period. This, in turn, contributed to the emergence of a type of authoritarian regime that reflected this particular understanding of sovereignty. Second, the nature of authoritarianism in Central Asia — its neo-patrimonialism in particular — stems in part from the informal structures of social organizations and resource distribution that developed in Soviet Central Asia in the 1970s and 1980s. To a certain extent these mirrored political and social developments in other parts of the Soviet Union, but in Central Asia they were framed within a particular discourse about ethnicity and a state system which, despite its anti-imperial rhetoric, was often characterized by colonial principles and discourses. In this sense, authoritarianism in Central Asia becomes more comprehensible when viewed through a post-colonial lens.

Keywords:   Central Asia, authoritarianism, empire, neo-patrimonialism, social organization, resource distribution, ethnicity, state system

Edinburgh Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.