Race to the Bashi
In the coming years, perhaps decades, Turkmenbashi will undoubtedly live on in the form a suffix tacked on to any Central Asian ruler who does something vaguely authoritarian and eccentric. A while back, Ian from Beyond the River rightly criticized me for falling into that trap when Tajikistan President Rakhmon enacted several weird decrees that shoved the government in teenager’s social lives (though I wasn’t the only one).
Well, no less respectable a source than the Economist proposed the latest Niyazov successor — Kazakhbashi! Perhaps in memory of the recently deceased dictator of Turkmenistan we should take a “Bashi of the year” poll annually. (Bakiyev will really have to step it up to even make it past the primaries.)
Some are inclined to see the sunny side of the recent amendments to Kazakhstan’s constitution, among them our own Arthur, as well as the US Government. I tend to agree more with the Economist’s take; “One step forward, two steps back.” Nazarbayev is playing the democratic world quite brilliantly (to his credit), and so long as the US sticks with its rhetoric emphasizing democracy above all else - despite having so many obvious geostrategic concerns with no direct relation to democracy - Nazarbayev can play this game all day long.
At a presentation I heard someone (I forget who - Martha Olcott?) argue that Nazarbayev would likely wait to see what Putin does in 2008, and then follow Russia’s lead. I guess that theory is out.
on May 25th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Repeat after me - I am a democrat. Brilliant!
on May 25th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Ok, so before everyone starts grouping me in with The Heritage Foundation, whom I detest, let me clarify my position:
I was not trying to say in my post that the President for Life Amendment was good. I was only trying to say that it was not very surprising, and that the other Amendments might have some positive aspects to them. Even the change giving the President the power to dissolve Parliament is not really a change– after all Nazarbayev already did it once in the early 1990’s. He could have done it easily again if he had wanted to, and the vast majority of Kazakhstani’s would have supported him (again, this is intimately tied to the President’s control of the media, and thus public opinion).
I think since I posted, Adam Kesher and others have done a good job illustrating that probably the whole package is garbage, though I maintain that once Nazarbayev dies, some of the new powers given to the Parliament and local government may play out in useful ways.
That being said, I was actually rushing over here to post the Economist article, but James beat me to it. Kazakhbashi Lives! (And if Putin decides to pass a similar reform, which many hoodwinked Russians are clamoring for, can we start calling him Putinbashi? Or maybe Russobashi? Ideas?)
on May 25th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Putin would just be a Tsar…
on May 25th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Sorry Arthur, I didn’t mean to imply that you were blindly advocating for the reforms or anything like that; I was just citing your post as an example of the “glass is half full point of view.”
And yeah, I don’t think Putin is eligible for Bashi of the Year. If we start opening it up to just anyone, we will soon have chaos. Chaos!
on May 25th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
In my part of the woods, there are alot more interesting words for what Putin is… :>)
on May 25th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Dear James,
I read the post at Beyond the River and I think it’s a good countervoice. However, if calling Mr. Rakhmon Tajikbashi is a trap, then I’m still stuck in it with no burning desire to free myself.
If Mr. Rakhmon wants to release capital from expensive cars, wedding celebrations, et cetera, into the local economy, can I advise that these monies are being transferred in the local economy and can therefore be aggregated for investment by the caterers, tent-renters, and gift shops who derive income from this custom? The service and retail sectors of the economy?
On the other hand, the continued non-transparency of Tajikistan’s budget and its leader’s bank accounts do not allow us to judge the amount of capital flight that is taking place if these officials bank elsewhere, say, in secret bank accounts in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands.
Regardless of these legitimizing reasons spouting from the bashi’s apologists, it still has Niyazovian (what a word) aspects to it. The worst one is that the people must take the blame for poverty when the government is practicing sleight of hand and failing to practice policies that lift the economy and continue to develop a market-based economic equalization.
By the way, Mr. Nazarbaev has also written a book, first in Russian, that has recently been translated into Kazakh. However, I doubt that Mr. Nazarbaev’s rhetoric matches the colorful rhetoric of Mr. Niyazov. . .
Stand by your Tajikbashi,
Bonnie
on May 25th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Dear Bonnie,
I agree that Rakhmon’s decrees were rather Bashi-esque (despite all the counter arguments we both received by commentators to those posts). In this post, I was more giving Ian a shout out for his prescient insight that we are now doomed to suffer a proliferation of Bashi comparisons. Therefore, I suggest we just settle the suffix war democratically and annually with a “Bashi-off.”
I doubt, however, that either of us would seriously defend an outright comparison of Rakhmon and Niyazov, even if some individual actions are indeed reminiscent.
I am sure we can agree that in the end it is sort of a stupid debate, if an amusing one.
Best,
James
PS - Tajikbashi solidarity forever!
on May 25th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
You bet: in fact, I think we should have an annual event, complete with caterers, dance floor, and large band and require evening dress. Call it the ‘Race to the Bashi’ Bash 2008, and I will be there in my green and pink silk gown with gold Niyazov profile pendant and the correct amount of dental work. Proceeds go to charity: which one? The winning Bashi gets to pick?
You’re right (on a serious note) that the pattern of Bashi-ness is WAY oversimplified, and does tend to trivialize the real concerns. I stand, ultimately, corrected by all those who disagreed with the simplification. . . . thank you . . . .
Bonnie
on May 26th, 2007 at 12:27 am
Of note to all, a good article in the latest New Yorker on the legacy of Niyazov by Paul Theroux.