Leaving the scene by one of the major political figures of the Central Asia (CA) Islam Karimov anticipates a new era of transformation not only in Uzbekistan, but in the entire region. This event is part of a logical chain of perturbations that are covered by the third world.
Karimov’s leaving was predetermined by the time change, which has affected the whole of Eurasia, and in one form or other transform authoritarian or semi-authoritarian regimes in Eastern-type to pre-democracy or democracy.
The crisis of authoritarian economies clearly identified systemic problems were after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the newly independent countries demonstrated their inability to develop more in the former regime, based on the exploitation of natural resources and corruption.
The Soviet elite usurped the power since the Soviet times are in confusion, understanding the need for change, and that these changes will be the end of their "eternal" reign. Most of them were unable to accept the proposals of the civilized world in the transformation of democracy and erroneously (which shows the current state of crisis companies) followed the path of resistance to change and the formation of clan-based states.
Even up to the large-scale crisis after the collapse of the Union, which covered the post-Soviet space in 2014, the elites were still confident that they will be able to correct the course of history in the right direction. The Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev was also sure that the high oil prices, which are a basic replenishment mode, will remain unchanged for at least 25 years. However, this erroneous perspective led him, as well as other post-Soviet rulers to make decisions on the reform of the stalled systems.
Just yesterday, it would seem that authoritarian regimes have firmly monopolized economy and established a repressive control over society. Even Western politicians and analysts were pessimistic in their assessments of the future by observing an increasing strengthening of authoritarian tendencies in Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Central Asian countries.
Such sentiments vividly expressed American researcher Jenifer Murtazashvili from Pitsburg in 2014 in the study "Three reasons why there will not be revolution in Uzbekistan" (the characteristics could well be attributed to all the post-Soviet authoritarian regimes):
- Islam Karimov's regime is strong, because, first, his policy provided a high rate of economic development; secondly, there was a merger of the interests of flexible clan and the state; thirdly, repressive measures against any manifestations of discontent are used;
- The power is a "stationary bandit" who robs in such a way that plundered has the opportunity to survive and continue to work, provide with revenues themselves and "the bandit";
- A small level of social inequality does not encourage people to revolt/revolution;
- This regime has no alternative in the face of political leaders;
- When Karimov came to power, he did not have any competitors in political circles or in civil society;
- The government has effectively redistributed the resources that the population there is a certain level of self-sufficient lives;
- Authorities skillfully used mahalla institute for population control and prevent manifestations of protest potential;
- A system of social support has been created, and it provides the people's trust in the authorities.
But today under
the crisis all these factors are under a rapid process of self-destruction, forming a revolutionary mood in all sectors of society, deceived unfounded prospects of steady economic growth and social well-being. Now the power deals not with political opponents, but with the whole mass of the population.
At this stage of development of the former Soviet Union, when 25 years have passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the new countries have the experience of tradition of self-government, and established a direct, though controversial, international dialog with Western community and the USA is not interested in instability.
In the era of the collapse of the Soviet Union the USA skillfully used the instability of the transition period for the implementation of post-Soviet space and in the establishment of their influence, which has been steadily strengthened, especially in times of economic crisis.
At this stage, the US is interested in the formation of stable, predictable partners who share common values and standards of behavior defined by international law and obligations. Former US president's national security adviser, Zbignev Bzezinski, even the first post-Soviet years believed that national interests of the USA can only provide democratic regimes, implying under the interests not the use of democracy as a tool of governing such states, and the creation of a consensus of interests that ensure the safety and development of each of the parties. This illustrative example emerged in Europe after the Second World War and in other regions of the world where such a model has been built.
Last negotiation activity in Washington in Eurasia, indicates that in the future the United States will use the formula of gentle, but consistent pressure on countries in the transaction between authoritarianism and democracy, because after other Soviet political Mohicans lave the world, do not experience a serious obstacle to the implementation of the doctrine of its national security. Constructivism of Putin, Lukashenko, Nazarbayev, Aliyev, Sargsyan, Rakhmonov and others caused by the economic crisis, shows that before the fact of evolution or revolution the leaders increasingly prefer the latter. And the world is witnessing the formation of different kinds of reformist initiatives in these countries.
Russia as a major player in the post-Soviet space is no less interested in its own reforms, and along its borders, which increases its external security and create more favorable conditions for introduction in the developing neighboring markets and new financial and material resources.
President Vladimir Putin's visit to Samarkand along with the commemoration of Karimov, was also a message to all that Moscow supports the subsequent course of history in Uzbekistan, which will lead Shavkat Mirzyaev, coherent receiver of Karimov.
Before Karimov’s death the Moscow Center Karnegiesche assumed that after his leaving the power will be less oppressive and more reform-oriented.
The Center's conclusions were groundless. In October 2015 the US Secretary of State John Kerry launched in Samarkand a new format C5 +1 (the US + Central Asia.) The format is designed to enhance the US role in the region, against which, though it may seem strange, the former Soviet Central Asian republics have nothing against. This clearly expressed the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Tajikistan Sirodjin Aslov, who in his speech before colleagues said that the presence of the US in Central Asian economies will boost the economic development and stability in the region.