McNair Paper Number 47 Chapter 4, January 1996
CONCLUSION
The path on which the states of Central Asia have embarked is long and treacherous. World history, indeed current reading of a newspaper, is littered with examples of countries that attempted to reform and failed. The states of Central Asia, ironically enough, owe their very existence to a state that failed to reform and transform itself successfully. The challenge now remains to overcome the serious obstacles for these new countries, rebuilding the economy, feeding their people, and ensuring a relatively better quality of life, which includes providing clean ecological conditions, clean water, and better health care. As witnessed by events now underway in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the former Czechoslovakia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, and Chechnya, the roles of etho-nationalism and religion are indeed becoming unmanageably powerful. In Muslim Central Asia, the conflict thus far has been limited to Tajikistan and Nagorno-Karabakh; the question is, however, how long this will last before it surfaces in other neighboring countries.
The future dynamics of the new great game in Muslim Central Asia will be determined by a number of developments, both within and in the immediate vicinity. The first and foremost variable is the scope of political and economic developments in these countries in the coming years. The intensely assertive foreign policy of Russia, and indeed the future of democracy in that country, will also influence the dynamics of this new great game. In the new great game, the Central Asian states are playing an important role in determining the modalities of political and economic exchanges. Their fate is no longer determined by outside actors and events out of their control. Since these political and economic exchanges are so important, the prospects for the survival of the CIS become equally important. If the Commonwealth survives, the process of politico-economic change within the polities of its member states is likely to be more manageable and less unpredictable. The future of Russia is also important, because it is inextricably linked to the
developments in domestic politics of Muslim Central Asian states. For instance, if the authoritarian rule is challenged in one or more of these countries, as was done in Tajikistan, then the response of the government is most likely to be increased repression of the forces of change. If such a response were to lead to an outbreak of violence, then the response of Russia to such a development would become very significant. As previously noted, if Russian participation in defeating the nationalist-Islamic forces in Tajikistan became a pattern, then the prospects for political stability of Muslim Central Asia are likely to become grim.
A related issue is the relationship between political and economic pluralisms. The Chinese and South Korean models underscore the possibility (not the inevitability) that economic development and pluralism must precede the measures enhancing political pluralism. At the same time, the Gorbachev experience points to the dangers of allowing political and economic pluralisms simultaneously. When introduced simultaneously, in all likelihood political pluralism would get out of hand and even create acute pressures on the political system, resulting in a cataclysmic change, with unanticipated or even deleterious consequences. At the same time, no one really knows how long any government can disallow political pluralism but promote economic pluralism, before the absence of the former would create so much pressure on the government that it would not only undermine the pace of economic pluralism but also create political instability.
Another issue is the role of Islam in the Central Asian states. The political leaders of these countries remain extremely wary of the potential power of Islam in their societies. As former Communists, they not only least understand Islam but, in almost all instances, tend to parrot the purported threats of "Islamic fundamentalism" to their rule. It behooves them to first define what exactly they mean by this pejorative phrase. If they define it as "Islamic radicalism or extremism," then they should also understand that extremisms of all sorts thrive only under conditions of economic misery and political repression. Almost all Islamic parties in Central Asia are currently not part of any extremist movements. If these parties underscore the role of Islam in the social and political lives of their societies, this should not be automatically depicted as extremism. As a pragmatic political strategy, the Muslim Central Asian countries must allow free participation of Islamic parties in the political process, because, if allowed to participate in the process of government, they would have little chance of indulging in extremism. Only by letting them become players in the political arena would these leaders expose them to the realities and complexities of governance, in which simple-minded extremism plays no role.
Regarding the significance of the role of the three major actors of their neighborhood, the pendulum of advantage is likely to swing between Iran and Turkey, with Saudi Arabia playing an important role in heightening the Islamic consciousness of Muslim Central Asia. There is little or no relationship between this enhanced Islamic consciousness of these republics and their acceptance of religious extremism or anti-Americanism. The future of all extremisms is likely to be determined by the future capabilities of these countries to grow and prosper economically.
Among the three Middle Eastern actors, Saudi Arabia's role is very important because it is aimed at giving religious orientation to the Central Asian Muslims. Iran faces some disadvantages, because of its Shiite nature, but its advantage becomes apparent in the political aspect of Islam. Islamic government has been established in that country recently and as a result of revolution. The Central Asian Muslims witnessed the making of this phenomenon up close, seeing its ups and downs, its aspirations, and its furies. They cannot remain indifferent to the possibilities of adopting an Islamic government. Afghanistan, one of their neighboring states, is well on its way along this path, although the route has been bloody and turbulent. No Muslim Central Asian country necessarily has to undergo the Afghani example to adopt an Islamic government, unless the existing government becomes determined to foreclose any compromise with indigenous Islamic forces. The Saudi and Pakistani examples are also present in their region and are more relevant to the Sunni masses of Central Asia, especially in the sense that the establishment of Islamic government in those countries has not been as in Afghanistan. The Turkish secular model is also useful, although whether the Central Asian states would accept the Kemalist legacy in its totality is questionable. What Kemalism did was to find a scapegoat in Islam, and it adopted Westernism and its attendant secularism as a panacea for its social, political, and economic decline. The Central Asian states have not experienced the peaks and nadirs of the Ottomans, and are not looking for scapegoats. In fact, they appear eager to acknowledge their Islamic heritage by increasing their systematic orientation to it. Once this orientation is complete, they have to decide how much of Islam they would like to incorporate in their polities.
The future incorporation of the Turkish secular model or the Iranian Islamic model is not likely to be determined in these states in the near future, and there is not likely to be one model for all these countries. The Muslim population in Central Asia has to come to grips fully with its Islamic identity first; only then will it be in a position to judge the path that each nation must take. The present flirtations with the Turkish secular model by a number of Central Asian countries are only manifestations of the elite's preferences. Whether such preferences are going to emerge as more or less a stable and across-the-board phenomenon will be determined in the next 5 to 10 years. Even then, one cannot state with certainty that such a trend would last for a long time. The dust on this issue is far from settled yet.
The mid-1990s is a time when pan-Turkism or pan-Slavism is lurking on the horizon. There is also a suggestion of the potential rejuvenation of Eurasianism (Yevrazist). This phenomenon envisages a potential union between the Slavs and the Turkic steppes, which is based "on mutual respects and not [on] assimilation or absorption."(Note 1) These tendencies, especially their darker sides, will gain an upper hand only if economic hardships are prolonged in the CIS, but especially if they become worse.
After gaining independence, Muslim Central Asia is not likely to remain either politically or economically subservient to Moscow, growing Russian assertiveness in that area notwithstanding. To ensure their independence, these states are scrambling to integrate themselves into international and regional economic arrangements. In this regard, the United States and Western Europe have the potential to play a crucial role. What these actors must do--especially the United States--is to help these countries stabilize themselves economically.
In its endeavors to help the CIS, the West must focus on a "balanced" investment of its economic assistance. A balanced approach to investment means that no one state should be allowed to take a lion's share by depriving especially the nonindustrial states of the CIS. If the Central Asian Muslim states were to make steady economic progress, the chances are that they would avoid all types of extremism, political as well as religious.