Suchergebnisse

"The author provides a comparative analysis of Central Asian leadership with a special focus on power, nation-building and the legacy of authoritarian rulers. The article deals with their roles, images, status and personal characteristics, their accession to and retaining of power, how they rule their respective countries and the expected effects of their soon-to-be ending presidencies. The author poses questions such as: 'What are the power resources of presidents and their political regimes? What types of leadership exist? Who are those leaders who share a common background that dates back to the Soviet period? Do they shape the common future of Central Asia?' One of his main arguments is that all five leaders are authoritarian rulers, whose apparatus often plays the role of real, albeit informal, state power and keeps control of the other power branches." (author's abstract)

"In a cross-national analysis, the authors analyse an OSCE project that took place in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan: the ODIHR Human Rights Monitoring and Reporting Training. Questions focused on organizational aspects of the seminar as well as on content. Two questions were designed to find out about the link between the participants and the respective OSCE Centres. Several questions were dedicated to the influence of the seminar on the participants' successive work. While the evaluations of the exchange of experience between trainer and participants differed to a great extent, most respondents agreed that the training was successful with respect to adaptability, impact, cost effectiveness and visibility. The competency of the OSCE in human rights issues was judged positively." (author's abstract)

"The author introduces state and regime change in Central Asia as an example for social change in non-European societies. He criticizes the normative character of the concept of transition and relates the political changes in Central Asia to those in non-European societies such as Africa, the Middle East or Latin America, where concepts like personal rule, patrimonialism, or neo-patrimonialism can better explain the dominance of highly personalized and privatized post-colonial state structures, which, only in formal terms, established modern bureaucratic polities. The model of the bureaucratic development state is especially apt for explaining political change in Central Asia. Here the development problem appears to be fundamentally a political one and is, as such, linked to the question of how bureaucratic development state structures can be strengthened in order to overcome patrimonialism and the established primacy of politics in legal and administrative processes." (author's abstract)

"The author focuses on the relationship between the public and the authorities in Kyrgyzstan before the turmoil in March 2005. Since the author is the director of a local NGO in Kyrgyzstan, she was able to provide many interesting insights into the role of civil society - namely political parties, non-governmental organizations and the local self-government. In her view, all political parties lack clear programmes and fail to involve the public. This is why their impact in the political system has been quite insignificant. Civil society does not have any influence on economic, social, nor political reforms in the country either, because policy-making is almost exclusively reserved for governmental institutions. She very much appreciates a first public dialogue with the participation of officials of the highest level, which was initiated by civil society with the active support of the OSCE. Finally, she sees an important factor in the democratization of both political life and political institutions in human rights education and demands a nation-wide training programme for democracy in order to strengthen the political culture especially that of the younger generation." (author's abstract)

"The author analyses the tensions between authoritarian rulers and international actors in Central Asia. She identifies policy patterns used by the presidents in Central Asia with respect to their relations with international actors in order to maintain power. Regarding pre-emptive strategies focusing on arguments and measures employed by the present rulers against international actors, the author carefully studies their behaviour both towards George Soros' Open Society Institute (OSI) and the OSCE. She notes that, as the fear of a potential spread of 'coloured revolutions' seems to be growing, since the events in Uzbekistan in May 2005, Kazakhstan has also begun to restrict the activities of external non-governmental and international organizations." (author's abstract)

Die Region Zentralasien umfasst die Staaten Kasachstan, Kirgistan, Tadschikistan, Turkmenistan und Usbekistan. Die modernen zentralasiatischen Gesellschaften weisen eine Reihe von Besonderheiten auf, die demographische (Bevölkerung, Urbanisierung, ethnische Dynamik) und wirtschaftliche Dimensionen postsowjetischer Entwicklung sowie die innenpolitische Konsolidierung der zentralasiatischen Länder betrifft (politische Systeme, Traditionalismus, elektorale Probleme). Die Länder der Region können die Probleme ihrer Wirtschaftsentwicklung nur kooperativ bewältigen, wobei die "Eurasische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft" und die "Schanghai Organisation für Zusammenarbeit" (SOZ) eine wichtige Rolle spielen. Die multilaterale Zusammenarbeit der zentralasiatischen Länder ermöglicht eine Konsolidierung der Region und stärkt ihr außenpolitische Potential. SOZ und NATO müssen ihre Politik koordinieren und Konfrontationen vermeiden. Insgesamt sieht die Bilanz der postsowjetischen Entwicklung in Zentralasien ambivalent aus. (ICE2)

"The author analyses the relationship between the OSCE and its Central Asian participating states. She recapitulates four different stages in the development of this relationship. With a special emphasis on the implementation of the concept of comprehensive security, she sheds light on specific, political, strategic and instrumental challenges. In her view, the OSCE will only be able to make contributions to the reform processes when the governments accept it. The attitude of the different regimes depends to a great extent on the balance of OSCE security dimensions at the project level on the ground. Given the still authoritarian character of the regimes in Central Asia, however, an important issue for the Organization is the compatibility of anti-terrorist activities with human rights. In comparison to other institutions, the core strength of he OSCE lies in its political capabilities to work both with the authorities and with civil society on the ground and, at the same time, on an international level in the areas of promoting dialogue, conflict prevention and conflict management." (author's abstract)

Die These, dass der Umbruch in der ehemaligen Sowjetunion auf geradem Weg zur Etablierung demokratischer Regime führen würde, hat lange die Transformationsforschung dominiert. Die Realität des politischen Wandels in den postsowjetischen Staaten lässt sich jedoch nicht durch das Drei-Phasen-Modell politischer Transformation - Liberalisierung, Demokratisierung, Konsolidierung - erklären. Im Umfeld der Präsidentschaftswahlen in Kirgistan (2005), Kasachstan (2006), Tadschikistan (2006) und Usbekistan (2007) muss eher konstatiert werden, dass die zentralasiatischen Herrschaftssysteme einen Grad politischer Konsolidierung erreicht haben, ohne gleichzeitig das Kriterium der Demokratisierung zu erfüllen. Ziel des vorliegenden Artikels ist es zu zeigen, dass es nach der Unabhängigkeit in der gesamten Region zu einer zunehmenden Konzentration der Macht in den Händen der Präsidenten und dadurch zu einer "Personalisierung des Staates" gekommen ist. Dabei werden die unterschiedlichen Strategien des politischen Machterhalts dargestellt; darüber hinaus wird gefragt, mit welchen Entwicklungen in Bezug auf die Nachfolge dieser Herrscher in den kommenden Jahren zu rechnen ist. Im ersten Teil des Artikels werden unterschiedliche Herrschaftsauffassungen dargestellt und zur Region Zentralasien in Beziehung gesetzt. Im zweiten Teil wird die am Machterhalt orientierte Politik der Präsidenten exemplarisch an der Einbindung regionaler und tribaler Gruppen in den zentralasiatischen Staaten sowie an der Präsidentschaft in Kirgistan verdeutlicht. Der dritte Teil beschäftigt sich mit den möglichen Nachfolgeregelungen in den Staaten der Region. Es wird argumentiert, dass dort die Etablierung von Dynastien statt Demokratien am wahrscheinlichsten ist. (ICA2)

"The author discusses the turmoil in Kyrgyzstan in March 2005 and the Andijan massacre in Uzbekistan in May 2005. She provides information on the course of both events as well as on the political and socio-economic background. She argues that, after the March events and the presidential elections on 10 July 2005, the situation in Kyrgyzstan has been characterized by destabilization and a fragile security situation. As regards the events in Andijan, she highlights the reality of insufficient information and an ongoing 'information war'. She compares several reports of international institutions and international non-governmental organizations. Looking toward the future, she underscores the importance of the rule of law for the internal and external security of both countries." (author's abstract)

Die Bilanz der Sowjetzeit in Zentralasien ist gemischt - einerseits wurde die Region aus Moskau alimentiert, andererseits ausgebeutet und kontaminiert. Die ersten Phase der Unabhängigkeit der Staaten der Region (Kasachstan, Kirgistan, Tadschikistan, Turkmenistan, Usbekistan) fand bei den ausländischen Staaten wenig Interesse. Das änderte sich nach dem Terroranschlag vom 9. September, als der Region eine strategische Bedeutung im Zuge des Kampfes gegen der Terrorismus zufiel. Die dritte Phase der Entwicklung Zentralasiens ist von der Schwäche der politischen Systeme der Region geprägt. Die deutsche Regierung stellt die politische Stabilität der Region an erste Stelle, das Strategiepapier der EU nennt ebenfalls Sicherheit, den Abbau von Spannungen, Handel und Energieversorgung als oberste Ziele. Kasachstan könnte eine energiepolitische Alternative für Europa werden. (ICE2)

"The author surveys international reactions to the turmoil in Kyrgyzstan in March 2005 and the Andijan massacre in Uzbekistan in May 2005. While she discusses the behaviour of the neighbouring Central Asian states in the first part of the article, in the second part she analyses the responses of China, Russia and the United States, which are competing for influence in Central Asia, especially in the energy sector. In the third part the author examines the development of a post-Soviet multilateralism into a multi-vector one and the co-operation and integration of it into the framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the Shanghai Co-Operation Organization (SCO) and the OSCE. She also reflects on the mostly Western international organizations such as the European Union (EU) and international financial institutions such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). Finally she discusses the reactions of international human rights organizations." (author's abstract)