Anita Sengupta

Conclusions: The Politics of Symbolism

This looks into the significance of political symbolism in the face of official ‘images’ that state portrays and their credence both within the states and in the international community. In post Soviet Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan the function of symbols and myths in the production of the ‘image’ of the state has acquired various possibilities. Neither the symbols themselves, nor the images that they supported however remain uncontested. The two abiding ‘images’ that the two states portray are indicative of the way they wish to position themselves in the global arena. Uzbekistan positions itself as an ancient civilization at the crossroads of history while Kazakhstan promotes itself as a significant geostrategic player and a multicultural and multi-ethnic society. While both images are actively promoted by the state and reinforced by diplomatic campaigns, they are also occasionally challenged by alternative reporting and reflections that influence external perception of the states. International reporting about the Andijan incident in 2005 and Borat are examples that affected the image of the Uzbek and Kazakh states respectively. On the other hand there are certain enduring images of the states, the blue domes of Samarkand for instance, that are clearly identified and utilized by the state but have very little to do with recent state propaganda. The ‘images’ themselves have faced contestation from within as alternative images have gained salience particularly in the peripheries and from the marginalized but also in the global arena. It therefore argues that the extent to which these images have impacted on the international standing of the states still remains debated.

The Making of ‘Brand’ Uzbekistan as Symbolic Capital

This chapter looks into the shaping of post-Soviet Uzbekistan where the projection of aspects like a common ancestry and history play a significant part in creating the image of an ancient state with a homogeneous people. In this, the performative role of the state in the face of the reality of a multiplicity of histories and identities in the region is evident. In fact in a number of cases it results in rhetoric or policy that takes note of this multifarious heritage and recognizes its significance in the wake of a homogenizing global tendency. However, imperatives of state building within the global arena is also evident in the irony of a state that proclaims its existence as an ancient state, retrieves its Turkish identity yet speaks of its promises and potentialities in the language of the newborn. Therefore one finds in this phase of transition the juxtaposition of a cultural rediscovery of the past and a projection of the state as a developmental state. The chapter highlights the fact that while parts of the nationalist discourse was intended for a domestic audience, part of it was aimed at the international arena with the aim of capturing global attention. Public diplomacy and the creation and promotion of ‘national’ images were attempts to raise the prestige of the country and primarily aimed at the international business community and the global political leadership. The images and rhetoric that accompanies Independence Day celebrations in Uzbekistan, for instance, not only articulates the existence of a cohesive state, for the domestic audience but a prosperous one attractive for both international tourism as well as investment. Similarly, the rhetoric of ‘nation under threat’ is not just a projection for unity within the state but also a call for international recognition of the fact that Uzbekistan is both a victim and part of a global ‘fight against terrorism’.

Astana as the Global Brand in the Heart of Eurasia

This chapter looks into the official projection of Kazakhstan as the heart of Eurasia. It focuses on state rhetoric where the logic of governance has placed foreign policy at the epicenter of propagandist discourses seeking identity redefinition. The integration of nation building and foreign policy making has emerged as a critical narrative for regimes throughout the region where foreign policy evolved into a recurrent element of official propaganda. The external policies pursued by elites in these states intend to redefine public perceptions of the spatial and temporal dimensions of statehood to reinforce the domestic power of the incumbent regimes. The incorporation of foreign policy making within nation building, in these contexts, are however germane to regime building and post Soviet leaders assigned foreign policy a temporal dimension in which the states’ external outlooks acted as the link between the past and the present. In Kazakhstan, strategies of identity redefinition channelled through the spatialization and historicization of foreign policy were carried out through the progressive readjustment of the focus of foreign policy rhetoric. The progressive intensification of Kazakhstan’s Eurasianist rhetoric was accompanied by the acceleration and intensification of identity making where the leadership channelled a substantive portion of its identity shaping efforts through its Eurasianist discourse. The final section of the chapter moves on to an examination of Astana as a national brand. This is interesting as it shows how a materially constituted locus of power can become a socially constructed label or idea. The making of the city points to how a provincial town became a capital city and was elevated to global status.

Regional Strategies and Global Image in an Era of Branding

This chapter examines the image that the states portrays of itself as a integrated part of global and regional organizations, in the Kazakh case, and of itself as an ‘independent’ entity moving in and out of multilateral structures, in the Uzbek case. When the world was analyzed in the categories of bipolar interaction the presence of regional or sub regional subsystems was subordinate to the logic of a global division into two worlds. This exclusivity is today challenged by visions reflecting contemporary geopolitics which is likely to recreate the context within which regions and ‘regional’ organizations are perceived. The creation of globalized spaces also inevitably implies the creation of a degree of cultural ‘compression’. The resulting de-territorialization is then taken to fundamentally transform the relationship between the places that one inhabits and cultural practices, experiences and identities. It is within this context that the chapter examines multilateral initiatives in the region and in particular Uzbek and Kazakh attitude to these initiatives that reflect their regional and global perspectives and in turn conditions their global ‘image’. The chapter begins with an introduction to initiatives in the years immediately after the independence of the republics.

Introduction: Image, Influence and Legacy

This chapter argues that the relationship between politics and cultural symbols/‘images’, became particularly relevant for states that emerged in the wake of the disintegration of the Soviet Union in Central Asia. These were essentially states that had not seen the development of an independent movement prior to the implosion at the centre, and their emergence raised questions about the legitimacy of the state/nation not just from within the state but also from the global arena. How the ‘new’ states legitimized their existence as separate entities and redefined themselves in a new form, both internally and externally, therefore assumes importance. In the course of this redefinition competing images were articulated and new discourses were generated. Nation building and nationalist rhetoric, therefore, was intended as much for the international public as the domestic audience whether it was the projection of Kazakhstan as the ‘Heart of Eurasia’ or Kyrgyzstan as the ‘Island of Democracy’. Though not as well articulated the image that the Uzbek state presented was that of an ‘ancient state at the crossroads of civilization’. Here, the shaping of a ‘post-Soviet’ future, through the performative role played by the state in the arena of culture, historical memory, images and rhetoric, assumes significance. While most states actively promote an international ‘image’, in the Eurasian space the Uzbek and the Kazakh cases are interesting since they provide remarkable contrasts that are largely reflective of their heritage. This chapter focuses on a brief review of the history of the state in the Central Asian region since it points not only to the long history of statehood in the region, but also to the fact that the nature of the present state can only be understood in terms of an understanding of these pre-existing state forms.

Reconstructed Pasts and Imperatives of Branding

The emergence of new states after the demise of the Soviet Union entailed both a reconfiguration of political space and a re-forging of collective identities within the borders of the states. In a sense this was inevitable. Defining the national self not only accomplishes a symbolic break with the previous political community but also sets out the parameters of statehood with regard to cultural rights. Yet, defining the parameters of this particularism is fraught with difficulties as the new states tend to be bundles of competing traditions gathered accidentally into concocted political frameworks. This chapter examines this paradox in two senses. It begins by examining two different kinds of margins in the two states. In Uzbekistan, this is a margin that exists within the state whereas in Kazakhstan this is a margin that is intruding from outside in the form of migrant labours from the other Central Asian states. In both the ‘image’ that the state projects of itself has been compromised. In the Uzbek case by the questioning of a centralized unified entity and in the Kazakh case by the questioning of a ‘tolerant’ state whose image has suffered because of the resistance to this intrusion. The concluding section examines the image of societies with multiple faiths and identities that both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan portray and relates this with the imperatives of nation building. As “post-Soviet” states, both Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan have been faced with reconciling multiple traditions of faith, with the imperatives of their ‘image’ as states with a singular faith and the chapter examines how the states have negotiated these multiplicities.

The Turkish Model at Crossroads

Chapter 6 looks at the reemergence of the model in the wake of the events in the Middle East in early 2011. The chapter examines how in the light of the search for alternatives the Turkish Model is once again projected as viable for the states that are now looking for alternatives.

Eurasianism or Neo-Ottomanism: The Neighborhood in Turkish Foreign Policy

Chapter 4 deals with how the “confronting of the past” that was discussed in the previous chapter becomes significant for an understanding of the present and the future. The notion that Turkey’s promise as a regional and global player is somehow related to historical legacies is not new. This trend is particularly evident with regard to the Armenian, Kurdish, and Alevi questions but also in the surge of popular interest in the final years of the empire and the early years of the republic. This is also reflected in what is now being identified as the “neo-Ottomanist” policy being followed by the ruling AKP in its foreign policy. Internationally, the delay in EU membership and the Armenian chapter of the Ottoman past has proved to be decisive. Domestically this revisiting is said to be associated with the challenge that diverse groups are mounting towards the dominant narrative of national identity which emphasized the unitary, secular character of the Turkish nation state and displayed a staunch commitment to a Western orientation for Turkish identity and foreign policy.

What Is the “Turkish Model?”

Chapter 2 deals with varied understandings of the “Turkish Model” and how these often failed to deal with the complex realities within Turkey. It is generally agreed that there is no consensus about what the Turkish Model means. Perception about this varies, as do its connotations. Some definitions are based on Turkey’s confinement of Islam to the private domain while others focus on a constitutional system that guarantees Turkey’s secular character and an acknowledgement of the role of armed forces as guardians and protectors of the constitution. Among diverse understandings of the model, American policy makers emphasized Turkey’s secular and multi-party electoral system along with its market economy. From the American perspective, the Turkish military is the balancer against radical groups both from Marxist and radical Islamic ideologies.

Political Dynamics in Eurasia: Background and Context of the Turkish Model

Chapter 1 argues that the Turkish Model was a myth that transferred the ideal of a “secular, democratic, liberal society” as a model for the post-Soviet Turkic world and in the process encouraged a “Turkic” rhetoric that emphasized connection between the two regions based on common ancestry. It examines the inherent paradox in the model and argues that a linear understanding of the model fails to take note of the fact that historically the Turkic connection has assumed relevance at certain junctures and has subsequently been relegated to the background with the recognition of significant differences in the “Turkic” world. However, it remains a useful alternative strategy that is put forward both by Turkey herself and by Western powers as a counterbalance to policy initiatives that are considered detrimental to the maintenance of the status quo in the region.