중앙아시아 튀르크계 국가들의 정치변혁과 내부적 정치역동성 - 아제르바이잔, 투르크메니스탄, 카자흐스탄, 우즈베키스탄, 키르기스스탄을 중심으로 -
Political Transformation and Internal Political Dynamics of Turkic Republics in Central Asia - Focusing on Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan -
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
When newly independent states(NIS) emerged in Central Asia, many Predicted that it would be followed by the democratization of the states. This notion has turned out to be at best premature, at worst misguided. In Central Asia, the first decade of independence has been marked by strong authoritarian presidentalism. To varying degrees, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan have all been dismissed as authoritarian systems, hostile to democracy and the rights of citizens. All Turkic republics in Central Asia adopted presidential systems which eventually opened the doors for powerful individuals to rise to the fore and claim authoritarian powers. Presidents Akaev, Aliyev, Karimov, Nazarbaev, Niyazov all consolidated their grip in very similar ways, and to the determent of political parties and parliaments. Thus, this work examine how the presidents of the Central Asian republics came into office and how they have managed to stay in office in the face of enormous transitional challenges. This article argues that the problem of Central Asian politics is not simply one of presidential might versus feckless parliaments. Rather relationship is something of a sideshow to what is occurring on the main political state, which is dominated by great power brokers(Clans, barons, magnates, tribal leaders) and the networks they control. Consequently, presidents and parties, as well as parliaments in Central Asia are engaged in a constant struggle with these power brokers and networks. In addition, this work also shows the different perspectives(internal/ external) on the Central Asia's Socio-political situation.
Abstract
When newly independent states(NIS) emerged in Central Asia, many Predicted that it would be followed by the democratization of the states. This notion has turned out to be at best premature, at worst misguided. In Central Asia, the first decade of independence has been marked by strong authoritarian presidentalism. To varying degrees, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan have all been dismissed as authoritarian systems, hostile to democracy and the rights of citizens. All Turkic republics in Central Asia adopted presidential systems which eventually opened the doors for powerful individuals to rise to the fore and claim authoritarian powers. Presidents Akaev, Aliyev, Karimov, Nazarbaev, Niyazov all consolidated their grip in very similar ways, and to the determent of political parties and parliaments. Thus, this work examine how the presidents of the Central Asian republics came into office and how they have managed to stay in office in the face of enormous transitional challenges. This article argues that the problem of Central Asian politics is not simply one of presidential might versus feckless parliaments. Rather relationship is something of a sideshow to what is occurring on the main political state, which is dominated by great power brokers(Clans, barons, magnates, tribal leaders) and the networks they control. Consequently, presidents and parties, as well as parliaments in Central Asia are engaged in a constant struggle with these power brokers and networks. In addition, this work also shows the different perspectives(internal/ external) on the Central Asia's Socio-political situation.
참고문헌 (14)
- Atkin,Muriel, "Tajikistan:a President and His Rivals", Power and Change in Central Asia, pp.97~114 (2002)
- Bohr, Annette, "The Central Asian States as Nationalising Regimes. In Nation-building in the Post-Soviet Borderlands. The Politics of National Identities", pp.139~166 (1998), Cambridge University Press
- Brown,Stephen, "The Soviet Legacy and Leader Cults in Post-Communist Central Asia:the example of Turkmenistan", 16th Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia in Wollongong 26 June-29 June 2006. (2006)
- Collins, Kathleen, "Comparative Politics", Comparative PoliticsVol.35No.2pp.171-190, 35(2), pp.171~190 (2003)
- Cummings,N.Sally, "Power and Change in Central Asia", pp.1~23 (2002), Power and Change in Central Asia
- Cummings.N.Sally, "Kazakhstan:Uneasy relationship-Power and Authority in the Nazarbaev regime" (2002), Power and Change in Central Asia
- Denison,Michael, "Identity Politics in Central Asia", Asian Affairs, pp.58~64 (2003)
- Ishiyama,John, "Neopatrimonialism and the Prospects for Democratization in the Central Asian Republics" (2002), pp.42-58
- Lubin,Nancy, ""Views of Leadership in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan,"in Timothy J.Colton and Robert C.Tucker(eds.),Patterns in Post-Soviet Leadership" (1995), Westview Press.
- Luong,Pauline Jones, "Institutional Change and Political Continuity in Post-Soviet Central Asia", Cambridge, ~ (2002)
- Oh,Chong Jin, "Comparative Anlaysis of Nationalizing Process in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan:Uzbekization,Kazakhization", International Area Review, 10(2), pp.109~134 (2007)
- Roy,Olivier, "The New Central Asia:The Creation of Nations" (2000), New York University Press
- Smith,Graham, "Post-colonialism and Borderland identities, in Nation-building in the Post-Soviet Borderlands. The Politics of National Identities", pp.1~22 (1998), Cambridge University Press
- Starr,S.Frederik, "Clans, Authoritarian Rulers, and Parliaments in Central Asia. The Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program. Silk Road Paper", ~ (2006)