I view – and have viewed – elements of the Soviet Union with a significantly different lens to the one that I was provided with at university for some time now. Given the current instability and inequality in their (and indeed our) economies it’s easy to see why Tajiks in particular speak fondly of a time with jobs for all, affordable housing, and cheap energy. The lack of an established national identity –in contrast to Eastern Europe – and complete absence of civil society meant that the nations of Central Asia were in many regards easy to assimilate into the Soviet Union, especially after the brutal and destructive campaigns of collectivisation carried out in Kazakhstan.
However, it would be utterly reprehensible to suggest that a system which provides jobs, energy, housing, and transport for its population, can then imprison those who disagree with it, restrict basic rights, and squander vast amounts of GDP on. Furthermore, given the opportunity I could never have lived in the USSR. I would suffocate under its uniformity, clamour for the books I was not allowed to read, dream of the countries I would never see, and be forced to hold my political tongue. However, the Soviet Union was not simply the ‘Evil Empire’ as Ronald Reagan once so famously claimed and to view it as such is to insult one’s intelligence and frankly the simplicity of argument personified. The Soviet experience would have varied much depending on where you were from, but I’d happily wager and defend the notion that in Central Asia (on which this blog focuses) the USSR did more for the needy than Reagan’s administration did in the US. The Polish, German, Czech, Baltic, Ukrainian, and Hungarian experiences were far, far worse, not to mention those of the Russians themselves, but for Central Asia the Soviet Union was a true double-edged sword.
The terrible reality is that the positive aspects of Soviet social policy (free education including university, universal health care and literacy, free housing, gender equality and cheap energy) largely disappeared overnight leaving only a series of painful and dangerous trends. My visit to Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan exposed me to these almost instantly.
The Kyrgyz Model; Ethnic nationalism subdued
‘Under the Soviet Union we were 15 nations, but we were one’. So runs a common rant in Central Asia, normally said with a slight watering of the eyes in-between numerous shots of vodka; the cause of the tears is most likely a subtle combination of nostalgia and high spirits. Either this professed socialist-based unity was not as strong as believed or the ethnic divisions between the Central Asians are more formidable still.
While Osh in southern Kyrgyzstan looks like many a Soviet-built city in many regards it still retains a very different, vibrant character. Low level houses are more common place than the high-rises of other cities, and the centre has a bustling bazar (market). However, these low level houses are emptying, and the bazar losing its buzz; their Uzbek inhabitants and traders have to a large degree been frightened away by the intense ethnic riots of 2010.
There are many theories of how these brutal events (estimates put the number killed as high as 500 by Amnesty initially but later at 470) unfolded but one thing is clear; the Kyrgyz Government itself was heavily involved (as laid out by independent the Kyrgyzstan Inquiry Commission into events) in if not orchestrating, then at least strongly encouraging the violence through the provision of men, arms, vehicles (even rumoured to include armour link), alcohol, and drugs. Of the many arguments and accounts I heard the strongest rationale for why a government would attack its own people runs something like this…Uzbeks as the traditional business owners in Osh had seen their influence diluted in percentage terms by Soviet policy that first placed Osh in the newly created Kyrgyzstan instead of Uzbekistan, and later by the settlement of ethnic Kyrgyz in the city along with a plethora of other groups. Members of the Kyrgyz ruling elite had long since had their eye on the substantial business interests of the Uzbek population and inspiring a race riot aimed at driving this now heavily minority group away was a simple task with clear benefits. That they underestimated what they would unleash seems probable, as does the notion that they were unconcerned when they realised this.
Even by the time I visited in the summer the market still looked freshly destroyed. Much of it has been left to rot and the worst is seen in the areas outside the centre that were once heavily populated by Uzbeks. Some of the houses in the Cheryomushkee and furkat areas still carry a shameful ‘UZ’ for Uzbek daubed in blue paint and sport a pile of rubble outside, itself often covered somewhat pathetically by a UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) tarpaulin.
Even amongst the sights that fill your head and heart with despair in Central Asia, Osh was a step up so to speak. But I remain unsurprised that this could have happened. I have long been exposed to the racial musings of people in Central Asia, which come often from well-educated and otherwise liberal-minded individuals. Back in 2008 this included jokes about Obama speaking monkey, but much more common place are comments and downright racist slurs against their neighbours. In this no group is worse than another, and spectacularly I’ve even heard comments about how Uzbeks/Tajiks/Kyrgyz/Kazakhs (I don’t hear as many jibes about Turkmens as it goes) are dogs or the fleas on dogs, directly after rousing and emotional calls for racial equality based on the terrible and often violent experiences of Central Asians at the hands of Russians.
Even in the face of such persecution I still winced at hearing Kyrgyz described as dogs by ethnic Uzbeks in Osh, and wanted to throttle the Kyrgyz taxi drivers who told me how the Kazakhs were really just gypsies (the irony of nomad-nomad discrimination seemingly lost on these ‘men’). It’s all so predictable, all so normal for Central Asia, and the good old Soviets managed to take the traditional family and ethic differences and make them into national identities. Never will you find a region with less cooperation despite having such a homogenous population that shares religion, cultures, cuisine, dress, music, languages, appearance, and histories that are so strikingly similar.
The Kazakh model; Economic Lunacy
After the depression of Osh I sunned myself (well maybe not too well) on the shores of Issyk Kul, wandered through walnut forests in Arslanbob, and stuffed my face full of laghman in Bishkek. In sum, it was great but there is something about visiting an area so clearly scarred by the effects of ethnic violence and mutual distrust and racial prejudice that sticks in the mind. So off I set to Kazakhstan, land of um, Borat. I’ve mentioned it before but it really bears no resemblance to the picture drawn by Mr. Borat, other than perhaps the prevalence of prostitution and deep-seated political hatred of ‘assholes Uzbekistan’. Indeed after the low costs of travelling in Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan was a bit of a shock to the wallet.
I met up with another former Mazar resident in Almaty (pleasure as always Honza!) for beers and shisha (as you do) and started exploring the ritzy, ego-driven, almost Orwellian sights of the country. Almaty itself is a predictably Soviet Central Asian city with wide avenues, plenty of trees, but with far more miniskirt sporting blondes than I was used to from Dushanbe, but not Portsmouth. I did the usual tour and then settled into the baths for a few hours complete with three saunas and a large ornate plunge pool area. There was also the highly unusual experience of having to cup myself while a large Kazakh man in a small hat beat me with birch leaves; from the stinging sensation experienced in other areas I was happy with my choice to follow the local example in cupping. Good for the pores they say…
But then there was Astana. There have been few examples in history where one man or a small group of men has had the power to move the capital without so much as a ‘lads, we’re moving the bloody capital’. Nursultan Nazarbayev has been the de facto dictator of Kazakhstan since independence in 1991. Ok, so he’s not as terrible as some bad lads out there but just try being a journalist in Kazakhstan, or even just an opposition politician (not that there really is a clear opposition). Such is Nazarbayev’s power and unrestricted access to the country’s considerable natural resources that not only was he able to move the capital but was able to fill it with some of the world’s wackier structures; so strange are these that this has prompted some similarly strange people to speculate that Nazarbayev is a member of the Free Masons/New World Order).
Only in Ashgabat (the intensely strange and sinister capital of Turkmenistan) had I felt so strongly that a city had been developed primarily for the entertainment of one man. I can think of few other explanations for the Bayterek, a huge tower with what I assumed was a Christmas tree bauble; a cultish pyramid on the edge of the city that changes colour at night; the Khan Shatyr tent structure that keeps warm even in the -30 winters of the steppe but is filled with pure tack, including a monorail that runs past plastic aliens; and of course the presidential palace built White House style at the end of a two mile promenade littered with fountains, lights, and of course tack with the Khan Shatyr tent at the other end.
The utter lack of political alternatives, civil society groups, and experience of democratic processes under the Soviet Union allowed one man and his closest cronies swallow up much of the countries resources wholesale, dominate the corridors of power, and dictate policies on almost childish whims. Astana has been developed in the middle of the steppe, remains half-empty, and was ultimately created to reduce the influence of the Russian population in Almaty (the former capital). While this has occurred with much of the country still lacking efficient infrastructure, faced with systemic poverty, and with no democratic recourse is particularly frustrating.
For men who grew powerful in the Soviet Union such a concentration of power and resources is as natural as acting independently from their citizens. True, market reform has been more forthcoming and things are easier for the average person than in other places but that’s not enough when it could be so much better.
And so to Iran…
Well, there you have it. Sorry it took me a few months to get round to this but then you were never really concerned were you? Nah, didn’t think so. Only one exciting adventure left to regale you with but then what could be more exciting than Iran? You certainly don’t want me to blog about my time in the UK since I’ve been back…watch this space.































Recent Comments