However, the equally surprising life satisfaction data for Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan would render self-censorship in Uzbekistan as the only explanation for “Why are they so happy” rather unlikely.

Of course Ataman is right when referring to a ‘double-think lingo’. But one shouldn’t forget that the phenomenon “poor-but-happy” can be seen in other and more democratic countries than Uzbekistan. Also – it is important to note that Uzbeks are only comparatively happy. Most industrialised nations have higher life satisfaction ratings.

Related to this, there is a certain Soviet doublethink lingo that people use and that one needs to understand the correct way. For example, the common bromide «вÑ?Ñ‘ нормалное, вÑ?Ñ‘ под контрол!» (everything is fine and under control) de facto means: «why should I trust you enough to tell you how it really is; so don’t bother me!»

Also, much like in other, non-Soviet Oriental societies, people often reply in function of: their wishful thinking; or what they think that you, or those higher up, would like to hear.

That generally leaves dissidents, emigres, exiles, ex-diplomats and representatives of the business community as the most prominent voices of opinion on events un Uzbekistan, when what we really want (and this is the point of Neweurasia) are the thoughts and opinions of Uzbeks themselves, uncoloured by official influence or fear of the consequences.

A utopian ideal, maybe, but worth persevering with.

Agreed. I actually made that same argument a few posts back:

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.

I think that opinion polls should be taken in context, especially when they are implemented in more difficult parts of the world. Naturally, in Uzbekistan it doesn’t make sense to accept them as the gospel truth. That doesn’t mean they should be discounted, either.

In this case I just thought the fact that the statistics can be backed up by economic theory was interesting and worth drawing attention to.

Anyone who has lived in Uzbekistan knows that there is an all-pervasive climate of fear, including fear of informants. No Uzbek is ever going to willingly offer up their true opinios immediately, not least to something as outwith their normal experience as an opinion polling organisation. And everyone knows that the correct answer is that everything is perfect in Karimov’s Uzbek paradise and they are very, very happy – and that any other answer could be dangerous.

I agree that, in more normal circumstances, perception of well-being is relative to others of whom one has experience. But again, those of us who have lived there know that Uzbeks – pretty well all Uzbeks – are very acutely aware of the ever widening gap between them and Kazakhs in standard of living, and that the once despised, “provincial” Kazakhs are much wealthier. This is a source of much Uzbek angst – but not likely to be expressed to someone asking on the street.

I am not an academic, but have been astonsihed how much academic work on Uzbekistan is based on very dubious data from two sources – either nonsensical government statistics, or equally dubious public opinion surveys. Forgetting the well-financed regime propagandists like Starr and Cornell, even recent work by the usually excellent Fiona Hill has suffered from uncritical reliance on such data.

So no arguments with those points here…