Good question, bratan. I will actually answer it for the whole readership, who might also be interested. OK let’s run the gamut in greater Central Asia:

*Nazarbayev: last Kazakh SSR boss who stayed in power, re-elected in semi-Soviet style elections, buys off legimacy for now with oil- and gas-driven economic growth and ethnic stability;

*Karimov: last Uzbek SSR boss who stays in power through a neo-Stalinist police state, ‘legitimated’ by ritual Soviet-type ‘elections’;

*Niyazov: last Turkmen SSR boss, stays in power through a neo-Stalinist police state;

*Rakhmonov: was not the last Tajik SSR boss but a kolchoz head in Dangara and an MP; installed by a Moscow-backed coup that shattered a coalition government; his regime was long protected by the presence of Russian troops; ‘legitimates’ itself with dodgy ‘elections’ and by exploiting the civil war trauma among the population;

*Aliev junior in Azerbaijan: succeeded his father after pro forma elections (creating a ‘republican dynasty’); Aliev senior was a former politburo member and KGB cadre installed after the Moscow-engineerd overthrow of the democratically elected Abdulfas Elçibey; like his Kazakh counterpart, junior buys legimacy with oil-driven economic growth though here, he might drift away from those who helped bring his father into power (looks more to the West and Turkey);

*Akayev and Bakiev: the former was a Soviet academic and apparachik (though not the last Kyrgyz SSR boss), elected relatively democratically a couple of times; the latter came to power after social upheaval and coup that were meant to repeat the ‘color revolution’ scenario, yet he was not the choice of the ones who backed the ‘revolution’ (the West had clearly bet on Rosa Otunbayeva);

*Karzai in Afghanistan: installed by the US, protected by US&NATO troops.

So, what do we learn from all this boys and girls? Of the 7 cases, three leaders (Karimov, Nazarbayev and Niyazov) are former SSR — as such, they were part of the Soviet-colonial compradore elites — heads who stayed in power. It were these people, and their cronies and entourage, who actually benefitted most from independence, not the population. Why? Because through independence, they were promoted from provincial Soviet satraps to elite on an independet state with everything that this implies: control over raw materials and other assets, access to IFI credits etc.

Two others (Rakhmonov and Aliev senior, succeeded by his son) came in power through Moscow-backed coups. Yet another (Bakiev) was more an ‘accident’, so to say: he came to power in a US-backed ‘color coup’ yet is clearly oriented towards Russian while the Akayevs were eating in all meadows. As for Karzai: yes he is a direct US stooge.

Ataman Rakin, who installs in the power “local elites” in the first place? Try to answer for yourself. For the same reason there is NO REAL DEMOCRACY in USA. And has never been in place. It’s just a reality show for rednecks and simpletons, and serves superficial purpose.

Genuine Democracy has existed in Ancient Greek Athenes, and even then, it coexisted with slavery.

Yes, agree with the latter part. It’s purely academic of course, but I would say that Russia, as a civilisational sphere, rests on two pillars/components: a) the Byzantine empire and b) the Golden Horde. See, a common misperception in the West is, that Russians are Westerners. They’re not. Yes, physically, they look like Europeans. And there is a lot of *physical-material* ‘westernisation’ in Moscow and other cities and what all, and certain enterpreneurs and intelliogentsia consider themselves as a part of Europe. But one has to look beyond that.

(K stati, ty sam Rossiyanin?)

“which has been engaged in crusade for total destruction of factories and plants in former Soviet Asia for the last fifteen years.”

Again, here I think that local “elites” were instrumental. The ones who are now bellowing about “sovereignity” ,
“independence” and what all for it suits them for the moment. *They* were the ones who looted the region and sold out everything. Look, I’m no friend of ‘the West’ and the IFIs but there’s one thing that I do *not* accept: and that is this first-league bollocks that “‘the Americans’ have destroyed the USSR”. It had become ‘modnii’ to say that, but it is most clear that the USSR destroyed itself.

One does not need to be a Sovietologist or a PhD. in economics to know that the Soviet system certainly brough good things too (infrastructure, literacy, health care, social security) but it was an artificial system that simply did not worked, period. Much of the Soviet economy was already largely disfunctional by the mid-‘80s.

“But Russia still will have better intentions for Central Asians out of self preservation, because it needs stability around its borders, in contrary to USA, with motto “the worse in Asia the better””

I don’t agree that Russia stands, by definition, for stability. In fact, in terms of shit-stirring in the former Soviet space, Russia – or, at least, certain groups in the Kremlin, the military, Gazprom etc. — lavishly matches what, say, certain European ex-colonial powers (not to say France – ooooinnnkkkk!!!) did in Africa: the engineering of separatist rebellions in Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia; the escalation of the war in Tajikistan+Chechnya; the ‘90s coups in the Azerbaijan and Georgia; the ‘gas blackmail’ against Ukraine; etc.

Right, this is the way it is. Russia, like the Anglo-Saxons and China, all have their interests to consolidate. They need control over raw materials, cheap labor, markets and trade routes for their survival in the global economy. This is colliding (nota bene, I don’t believe in that naïve liberal adagium that ‘trade’ and ‘communication’ foster peace and understanding but that is a different story). At the same time, at the base level, people move, are socially mobile or realise that they are kept in poverty – so there’s a lot of frustration and expecations.

I agree that WWIII is not a matter of ‘if’, but ‘when’. Humanity has come to the point where it will be confronted with itself. Initially, it will be fought by proxy (regimes, companies, armed groups, or indeed NGOs,) but will turn into a direct confrontation later. Like it or not, despite all rethoric, Central Asia — like the Middle East, Afrfica and pockets in the West, Russia and China themselves — are set for instability.

“When Gog and Magog are let loose and rush down from every slope, and the True Promise is very close, the eyes of those who disbelieved will be transfixed: “Alas for us! We were unmindful of this! No, rather we were definitely wrongdoers.” (the Holy Qur’an, Surat al-Anbiya: 96-97)”

That is a phase we will have to go through. But, pretty much like a heavy summer storm, it can, and will, also clear up things and open new perspectives. Something new, better.

“As the Dajjal (Antichrist) spreads corruption, God will send the Messiah, ‘Isa son of Maryam … every believer who feels his healing breath will disappear. ‘Isa will meet the Dajjal at the gate of Ludd [near Jerusalem] and will destroy him. . . .” (Salih Muslim)

I have grander picture of Russia. Russia is a successor of Golden Horde, ruled by Ghengiz-khans descendants, and still remains an Asiatic empire. China too, has been under rule of Ghengiz-khans descendants. China and Russia have much in common. The next clash of civilizations will be between West and Russia + China and Islamic countries sympathetic towards latter bloc. I’ve no doubts after recent Litvinenko scandal. I do not see Russia siding with West, as it broke its own word to Russia not to expand NATO eastwards in early 90s.

“First, the term “western democracy” or western-style democracy is nonsensical rhetoric, created to justify a Kremlin movement away from a liberal media controlled by corporations or individuals.”

Well apart from that let us agree that there is a practice of parliamentary democracy that did not only originated in Europe, but that today is also the dominant form of governance in what is called ‘the West’ (the EU; US+Can, Aus+NZ) despite the existence of different ‘model’ or practices withing it (‘Anglo-Saxon’, ‘Rhinelandic’, ‘French’, ‘Nordic’).

Borat:

“The idea behind Madumarov’s speech was about “Sovereign” vs “Managed” Democracy.”

Bwah, now they come up with that rethorical trick. The Kyrgyz “elite” was not that worried about its “sovereignity” when it came to pocket IFI $$$, sell out the country and turn it into a big brothel. I agree that IMF, WB, EBRD etc. + all these EU consultants helped wreck the country. Yet, who let them in? Who collaborated with them and got the ‘vzyatki’? Who put all their kiddies, nephews and former mistresses in IFI, EU projects and offices?

What I always say in such cases is, that the first colonial posts and the slave trade in Africa in the 18th century could *never have materialised without the active collaboration of local tribal chiefs*. I know that you don’t like to comparison but it is time to face reality! So if you don’t want Kyrgyzstan to end up as yet another basket case country, best is to get rid of your neo-Soviet/pseudo-partiotic “elites’ first.

Kuda:

“America has no interest in the welfare of Kyrgyz citizens instead only the welfare of its own citizens. (… ) The US don’t give a damn about Kyrgyzstan.”

Yes that is very true, my friend. But just one question: do you think Russia does? I’m asking this because over the last couple of years, I clearly noticed that the Kyrgyz are so naïve — or is it thick?– to think that ‘help’ and ‘salvation’ will now come from ‘Russia’ or ‘Putin’. Just like they expected everything to come from ‘the West’ in the early ‘90s and then could not understand why it went wrong, why expectations were not met and why there were strings and conditions attached.

I understand that at least, the Kyrgyz feel they *know* the Russians from the Soviet time and through Russian TV, language, labor migration etc. — whereas ‘the West’ is too far out of its element in that part of the world. Yet, do not mis-estimate this: Russia is back in the southern Soviet periphery as a *neo-colonial power*, in a wider shift that will unavoidably lead to a clash with ‘the West’/China and eventually WWIII (as it is written).

It has no intention whatsoever to ‘uplift’ people — former colonial subjects, in fact — who the both Muscovite establishment and indeed many ‘ordinary’ Russians consider as inferior, ‘tretii sort’, cheap, expoitable labor in the best case.

Tangri biz menen!

My role model country is USA, under the guise of \”democracy\” it plunders the riches of naive third world nations. I am a bit of megalomaniac and have, probably, Ghengis-khan\’s blood running in me. I totally approve of USA\’s and World Bank\’s modus operandi, as long as, they stay off my Kyrgyzstan.

Ok, you have a right to your opinion. So what steps would you take to improve Kyrgyzstan right now? What’s your model country?

DEMOCRACY is welcome in Kyrgyzstan, NEO-COLONIALISM is not. That is the key message of Madumarov’s speech.