I agree. The same situation exists in with the exiled Uzbek opposition BTW. Exiled oppositionists are seldom welcomed with open arms after the regime that chased them falls. I have seen that in Bosnia when I worked there just after the war and we have seen it more recently in Iraq when the US tried to promote the exilee crook Ahmed Chalabi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi).

There is what Peter outlines and also, many people in the country feel they have nothing to learn form peope who were sitting safely aborad while they were suffering at home.

No, IMO, at present there are 3 possible scenarios:

1) a ‘republican dynasty’ à la Syria and Azerbaijan: Niazov is succeeded by his son Murad (unlikely) of by his (alleged) relative Berdymukhamedov (much more likely);

2) ‘Somalia light’: since the state and Niazov regime were basically one man, a power struggle starts between different apparatchiks and regime satraps and their respective micro-regional bases, some covertly proxied by Russia/the US, leading to state implosion;

3) ‘mini Putin’: a so far unknown regime figure comes forward, gets the thing in hand and runs a milder form of dictatorship.

“Karimov will certainly be disconcerted by yet more evidence that the sacred cow of leadership change is not alien to the region.”

That is perhaps the biggest psychological impact of Niazov’s death: it show them that they are not eternal. Just like the Andijan uprising showed that this much hyped ’stability’ in Uzbekistan is a fallacy. Yet, the karimovites and both their local and foreign cronies might not get off with a heart attack: http://www.enlineadirecta.info/fotos/ak47.JPG , http://www.ratatouille.nl/images/sp_galg_1.jpg

“The Pres” by Flickr user blogjam
Turkmenistan’s authoritarian and, to put it lightly, eccentric President Sapurmurad Niyazov died suddenly of a heart attack in the early hours of December 21st. Niyazov renamed himself Turkmenbashi, …