Brookings scholar Fiona Hill and University of Maryland Ph.D. candidate Kevin Jones put out an analysis of the current political situation in Uzbekistan this summer in The Washington Quarterly enitled Fear of Democracy or Revolution: The Reaction to Andijon. Their article serves as the most current general synopsis of the political situation in Central Asia’s most populous country, and also forwards a few policy recommendations.

Their thesis is that Karimov’s grip on power is tenuous because of the abysmal economic situation in Uzbekistan, not because of popular disaffection with the lack of political rights. Because there is no feasible opposition group capable of taking power from the current regime (at least none that offer an improvement on the status quo), Western powers should pursue a policy of limited engagement with Uzbekistan, working in tandem as much as possible with China and Russia.

The article also raises some interesting questions about the scheduled presidential elections in 2007, and demonstrates convincingly through historical example how messy even planned successions often are. For example, even when the successor is chosen by the ruling regime, the regime change is almost always followed by extensive purges. While Karimov may not be likely to appoint someone new in 2007, he can not govern forever, and eventually this question will have to be addressed.

Perhaps most interestingly, Hill and Jones point out that democracy is not necessarily what Uzbekistan needs; more strategic policies might do the trick:

Although the country’s intelligentsia and civil society groups may have clear aspirations for a different political system, they are out of step with the basic concerns and desires of the population. Hardship can just as easily be alleviated by an authoritarian government that emphasizes populist policies, increases pensions as well as minimum wages, and launches employment and education programs as by a democratic government. In states such as Russia and Venezuela, for example, high world oil prices have boosted government revenues, enabling the state to redistribute resources to the population as well as to key elites.

Or how about Kazakhstan? While not populist in the same way as Hugo Chavez, Nazarbayev has kept his political system closed while pursuing smart(er) economic policies than many of its neighbors. Kazakhs are certainly not disaffected with their government the same way Uzbeks are. In a recent W.P. Carey Forum in Washington D.C., the Kazakh Foreign Minister Kassymzhomart Tokaev even said straightforwardly that Kazakhstan would open up its economic system first and expand politics later. Fareed Zakaria recently made this argument very clearly and accessibly in The Future of Freedom.

One complaint I had with the article was its reliance on one particular finding from the World Bank / UNDP / Brookings surveys of 2004. Jones and Hill repeatedly mention the statistic of Uzbeks not being overly concerned with political rights, just the economy. I don’t question the usefulness of these surveys; this figure might very well be correct, and does make good sense (most people care more about having enough to eat than reading a free newspaper). I do, however, wonder how likely the average Uzbek would be to express his or her true feelings about the government to a Western-funded interviewer. It is very easy to be overly critical when nitpicking public opinion polls, but especially in cases like this, the context of the interview must be taken into account. One would also note that the interviews were conducted before Andijon.

This article is not going to please everybody. For the human rights group types, it seems to advocate the status quo – limited engagement, evolution not revolution, and cooperation with China and Russia. For the Karimov-apologist types, it suggests limiting engagement in the short-term and hints at a future with regime change a possibility.

Either way, it provides an excellent primer on the current state-of-affairs with sober policy recommendations, and is worth a read. Uzbekistan has fundamentally changed course, and the article answers the how, why, and whereto.