По всем вопросам звоните:

+7 495 274-22-22

УДК: 323.1 (51) DOI:10.33920/pol-01-2107-02

National identity policy of Central Asian countries

Isra Shengul Chebi National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic No. 10, Block A, Trabzon, Republic of Turkey, E-mail: scebihan@gmail.com
Aitiev Shukhrat Anvarovich Osh State University 331, Lenina St., Osh, Kyrgyz Republic, E-mail: aytiev@gmail.com

This study interprets the modern understanding of ethnic and national identity. It is noted that there is an important connection between ethnic and national identity, created on the basis of nation-building processes. Since the 1990s, the following things have raised identity politics to an important position in international relations: nationalism, which was at the top of the international agenda; new nations and state-building processes; problems of ethnic identity, which have become an important issue on the agenda in relations between states and international organizations; a new quest for democracy that develops through the recognition of differences; growing cultural conflicts in many regions from Asia to the American continent, and social movements based on identity. In this context, the international relations theoretics, who increased their ties with political theory in a way that accelerated especially in the 1990s, are rebuilding the relations of the discipline with identity politics.

Литература:

1. Akaev A. Strategy of socio-economic development of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan and priority tasks. Bishkek, 1997, pp. 12–51.

2. Materials of the XXII Congress of the CPSU. Gospolitizdat, 1961. — Р. 46.

3. After Khrushchev, Brezhnev came as chairman of the USSR and together with Brezhnev at the party congress of 1981, the concept of «rapprochement of the nation» appeared. 26th Congress of the CPSU, February 23 — March 3, 1981. Verbatim report, Volume 1. pp. 74–75.

4. Dzhanguzhin R. Ethnopolitics of Kazakstan and its Constituent ethnohistorical and Political Myths, 2002, www. iicas.org/articles/15_08_02_3_ks.htm, p. 28.

5. Sustov A., The formation of the independence of the Central Asian states — 1991–2005: dissertation for the degree of Candidate of Historical Sciences. Nizhny Novgorod State Agricultural University named after N. I. Lobаchevsky. Yaroslavl, 2006. P. 14.

6. Ahmet T. Kuru, Between the State and the Cultural Building, Asian Ethinicty, Vol. 5/1, Feb. 2004. Р. 71–90.

7. Anderson J., Constitutional Development in Central Asia, Central Asia Survey, Vol. 16, No. 3, September 1997. Р. 302.

8. Akayev A. Kırgız Devlet Geleneği ve Manas, Çev: Safiha Ibrahimova, Ergeşbay Rahmanov, Tuğba Şimşek, DA Yayıncılık, Istanbul, 2003. p. 26.

9. Berg G. Fragner, Sovyet Milliyetçiligi: Orta Asya'nın Bağımsız Cumhuriyetlerine Ideolojik Kalan Miras, Orta Asya ve Islam Dünyasında Kimlik Politikaları, 20. Yüzyılda Milliyetçilik, Etnisite ve Emek, Der: Willem van Shendel, Erik J. Zürcher, Çev: Selda Somuncuoğlu, Iletişim Yayınları, Istanbul, 2004. pp. 7–8.

10. Erol Kurubaş, SSCB Sonrası Türk Cumhuriyetlerinde Yeni Uluslaşma Süreçleri Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme, Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika. C. 2. No. 5. — 2006. pp. 112–133.

11. Simon G. Nationalizm and Policy toward the Nationalities in the Soviet Union: Totalitarian Dictatorship to Post-Stalinist Society, Boulder, CO, San Francisko ve Oxford, 1991.

12. Glenn J. The Soviet Legacy in Central Asia, St. Martins Press. New York, 1999. pp. 48–49.

13. Mim Kemal Öke, Halim Nesihoğlu, Gökhan Bacık, Geçiş Sürecinde Orta Asya Türk Cumhuriyetleri, Alfa Basımevi. İstanbul, 1999. p. 100.

14. Olcott M. National Consalidation: Ethnic, Regional and Historical Challenges. Harvard International Review. Vol. 22. No. 1. Winter/Spring 2000. pp. 50–55.

15. Güler N., Geçiş Sürecindeki Türkmenistan’ın Siyasi Yapısı: Türkmenbaşı Modeli, Avrasya Dosyası, C. 7, S. 2, Yaz 2001, pp. 97–110.

16. Paul Kubicek, Orta Asya’da Topluluklar Arası Etnik İlişkilerin İdaresi: Teori ve Uygulama, Avrasya Etüdleri, C. 3, S. 3, Sonbahar 1996, pp. 85–101.

17. Richard Pipes, The Formation of the Soviet Union: Communism and Nationalism, Cambridge, MA, 1957.

18. ROY, Oliver Yeni Orta Asya’da Ulusların İmal Edilişi, Çev: Mehmet Morali, Metis Yay., 2009.

19. Steven Sabol The Creation of Soviet Central Asia, Central Asian Survey. Vol. 14 (2), 1995. P. 238.

20. Treacher A. Political Evolution in Post-Soviet Central Asia, Democratization, 3/3, Autumn 1996. pp. 306–327.

21. Yılmaz Bingöl, Central Asia in Transition: To Liberal Democracy or Ethnic Nationalism? Submitted to the First International METU Conferance on International Relations, Ankara, 3–5 July 2002.

In 1991, when the USSR broke up into separate countries, these countries received their sovereignty and also faced problems and weaknesses of national structures. After that, these republics faced the problem of organizing people within their borders with a process that would force them to live together and unite. The main issue at this new stage was the need to maintain relations with Russia, but at the same time, it was necessary to destroy the Soviet influence, which destroys the national character of the past and the need to break off relations with Russia. There were also issues related to the fact that these efforts do not correspond to international global development trends.

This paper analyzes the evolution of scientific national views in the post-Soviet space. The policy of the Soviet era had a great influence on the formation of the activity of the Central Asian region as a nation. The question «Is the process of nation formation in Central Asian countries a priority, i.e. the current existing nations have formed separate states, or the main element of the nation was formed within an already formed state?» is of particular importance.

The post-USSR national identity policy of Central Asian countries was subject to evaluation from different angles. As mentioned earlier, the current national identity in Central Asia was revealed as a new political unit within the framework of the conscious policy of the Soviet Union. Under the influence of this situation, the existing countries of Central Asia, which previously did not have a nation or the consciousness that they were united, adopted national identities such as Kyrgyz, Kazakh, Uzbek, Turkmen and Tajik within the framework of the Soviet system, and this process created the necessary conditions for the creation of a nation in the modern sense. The influence of the emphasis on «national identity» in Central Asia on the identification of the nation is increasing in the process of publicity («glasnost») and restructuring («perestroika»), in particular after independence. The Soviet system was aimed at raising the individual in the socialist republics of Central Asia to the type of homo sovieticus. Therefore, the concept of the ideology of the nation is undesirable, taking into account the ideological structure of the USSR. In this sense, the leaders of the USSR preferred the creation of nations as less harmful to supranational definitions of identity, such as Islam and Turkic affiliation [12]. They believed that the structure they had created by dividing Central Asia would create a transition period and that nationalism would be destroyed by the developed socialism [19]. In other words, the main goal of Soviet policy was not the creation of national states that would be independent in the Central Asian region [13]. Theoretically, with the official doctrine of the Communist Party, there were assumptions that national differences and nations would gradually disappear. But as a result, the system, ironically, failed to achieve the goal of creating the Soviet people.

Для Цитирования:
Isra Shengul Chebi, Aitiev Shukhrat Anvarovich, National identity policy of Central Asian countries. Социальная политика и социальное партнерство. 2021;7.
Полная версия статьи доступна подписчикам журнала
Язык статьи:
Действия с выбранными: