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

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!

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

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!

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?)