Comments on: Foul Mood

By: turkmenistan.neweurasia.net » In Slow Succession

turkmenistan.neweurasia.net » In Slow Succession — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:23:52 +0000

[…] However, Heydar Aliev set a precedent in the region by performing a similar operation in handing over power to his son, Ilham. Although Geydar Aliev died in 2003, a personality cult in his honour still persists, an outcome that could easily be replicated in Turkmenistan. Indeed, as with Heydar Aliev, the issue of Niyazov’s succession may be forced by ill-health. Niyazov’s health is subject of much speculation and some suggest that he may not have many more years to live. Inevitably, rumours about Saparmurat Niyazov’s succession are often speculative and fanciful in view of the scarce information that observers have to go on. Yet it is not hard to feel that Murad Niyazov’s suitability for his father’s position is severely questionable. To begin with, as Noviye Izvestiya’s article notes, he has little political capital upon which to base his putative authority, and his job hitherto in energy (and possibly arms) trading in Vienna does not position him ideally to amend this problematic situation. In an exchange on this site some months back, Turkmen blogger Karakum also observed that “while Heydar [Aliev] was always more of an asset for Ilham, Murad’s father is and will be his strongest political liability”. Karakum also suggested that Murad Niyazov was not an “indecent person”, yet there is no shortage of gossip about embarrassing indiscretions. The most notable example of these is the rumour that he once spent $12 million in the course of one night’s gambling in a Spanish casino. Such background information thus makes the potential for Murad Niyazov to rule his country highly unlikely. Were he to want to take over the reins, however, one aspect that plays in his favour is time. The implacable rate of cadre turnover is emptying the Turkmen halls of power of most presidential hopefuls. In the event that no viable candidates were to emerge and that Saparmurat Niyazov’s health was indeed to worsen as rapidly as some hypothesise, the playing field would be wide open and Murad could feasibly stand to benefit. […]

By: karakum

karakum — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 05:51:40 +0000

I recall that the “opposition sites” have written extensively about her (career, family, etc.) so you might want just to check their archives. Being woman, she is considered handicapped to challenge Niyazov, yet is good for providing counterbalance to Akmurad Rejepov.

BTW, if anyone interested, the Russian translation of this discussion on my blog is generating some additional insights.

By: The Dag

The Dag — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:16:15 +0000

Yeah, thanks for a great conversation. Its always nice to chew the fat on Turkmenistan. Even though we range from “outsiders” to “area studies students” to “Turkmen” to “NGO employees who think they’re smart”, its nice to know we can throw together quite a good debate on a difficult subject.

Karakum, you don’t seem to be at a loss for information that is somewhat hard to come by. So I have a question for you, hopefully you’ll know. Kurbanbibi Atajanova, who you mentioned before as a local leader/opinion shaper/etc., has been the Prosecutor General in Turkmenistan for a while now (since 1995? i’m not sure). She seems to be Niyazov’s hatchet woman in most matters, but I was impressed to hear that she has been active for over ten years. That is a pretty good shelf life for someone that close to the President. You don’t have to go into details if you don’t want to, but I was hoping you could give me some background information on her, especially how she came to that position and has managed to hold it for that long. She is a very interesting figure (not to mention quite scary), and obviously a person of high importance.

By: karakum

karakum — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 03:41:51 +0000

I posted the Russian translation of this discussion on my own blog (except Peter’s last comment, which I didn’t see before).

Justed wanted to thank all for incisive comments; I enjoyed it enormously and learned lot from each of you. I also want to thank Peter for providing “open political forum” and facilitating “public discourse”!

By: Peter

Peter — Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:49:49 +0000

I’m not sure what it is we disagree about any more.
I think that the legacy of Soviet politics has been negative in many, if not most, respects. The way that it eventually disintegrated is instructive in studying Turkmen prospects. We may disagree on this matter, but I actually don’t quite understand how.
Cultural reconstruction _is_ a question when identity is forged, the way Niyazov’s regime has done. I don’t know if it is moralistic or patronising to say that, but there you are. There’s tons more to discuss on this subject, and I realise further nuance and factual detail is needed, but it is good to have it on the table, so to speak.

By: karakum

karakum — Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:43:15 +0000

That’s what you think. More conventional view is this: analyzing the past is helpful, judging it not.

Even trying to broaden the scope of your argument by referring to other studies, is not going to help strengthening it.

My friendly advise to the area students burdened by cold war era cliches and making attempts to put perspective on our future: if you want to be listened to don’t even approach us with your suppositions on the soviet history, of which we are proud.

And please, don’t moralize about “the cultural reconstructions of the country” - this is on the agenda of all leaders in any country at any given time.

By: Peter

Peter — Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:28:05 +0000

I think that judgements about the past are at the heart of perspectives on the future. If we disagree about the emphasis of historical surveys, that’s another matter.
Incidentally, a book on Turkmen cultural history that you have spoken praisingly about, Adrienne Lynn Edgar’s Tribal Nation, is particularly useful for us outsiders as a starting point in this type of study. Beyond the regime-change that we have spoken about, the future leaders of Turkmenistan will have to undertake the cultural reconstruction of the country. And that is what I really intended to say with the comments above.

By: karakum

karakum — Sun, 26 Feb 2006 13:16:05 +0000

You will excuse me for not knowing that this discourse is within the “Western contemporary culture studies point of view”.

Besides, you seem to having made judgments about our past, I am not sure if that helps in discussing perspectives on the future.

By: Peter

Peter — Sun, 26 Feb 2006 00:15:44 +0000

There is no doubt that Soviet intervention was complex, but it was imposed. Therefore, whatever you want to call it, it was interference of some kind. Solutions and perspectives on the future of the country must inevitably take this into account. From the Western contemporary culture studies point of view, imperial imposition is often interpreted as a destructive process. One may or may not agree with this, but addressing these matters is also crucial to understanding the future of Central Asian identities.

By: karakum

karakum — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:49:30 +0000

Well, let’s get the definitions straight.

Turkmenistan is actually the result of (arguably successful) socio-political engineering, designed mostly in Moscow, but implemented through coopting the Turkmen elite. This was complex and complicated intervention, it came not without costs but gave birth to a modern nation. Peter, you don’t want to even go there. With all respect, let’s not mix opinions with facts.