Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T07:00:02.096Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resource Dependency and Political Opportunity: Explaining the Transformation from Excluded Political Opposition Parties to Human Rights Organizations in Post-Communist Uzbekistan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Brian Grodsky
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While there is significant anecdotal evidence that excluded political opposition parties in repressive states adopt the form of human rights organizations, there is little systematic research into this phenomenon. What does exist tends to be descriptive rather than theoretical in nature. This paper draws from collective action and resource mobilization literatures, arguing that excluded political elites respond to repression by searching for political opportunities both domestically and internationally, and then transform their organizations into units better able to take advantage of those opportunities. The politics of external funding push these organizations towards a human rights and democratization orientation. The article evaluates this argument through an analysis of human rights movements in politically repressive, post-Communist Uzbekistan and considers the impact of this phenomenon on democratization and civil society development.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , 2007 , pp. 96 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Susan Waltz, Human Rights and Reform: Changing the Face of North African Politics, Berkley, University of California Press, 1995; An-Na’im, Abdullahi A., ‘Human Rights in the Arab World: A Regional Perspective’, Human Rights Quarterly, 23 2001, pp. 701–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sheila Carapico, ‘Foreign Aid for Promoting Democracy in the Arab World’, Middle East Journal, 56: 3 (Summer 2002), pp. 379–95.

2 See Franklin, James C., ‘Political Party Opposition to Noncompetitive Regimes: A Cross-National Analysis’, Political Research Quarterly, 55: 3 (September 2002, pp. 521–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 See Albert Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1970.Google Scholar

4 See De Mesquita, Bruce Bueno and Siverson, Randolph M., ‘War and the Survival of Political Leaders: A Comparative Study of Regime Types and Political Accountability’, American Political Science Review, 89: 4 (December 1995, pp. 841–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Political risks facing a (former) opposition are well-described in works on political repression and appeasement under East European Communist regimes. See Szamuely, T., ‘The Elimination of Opposition between the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Congresses of the CPSU’, Soviet Studies, 17: 3 (January 1966, pp. 318–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Walter D. Connor, ‘The Manufacture of Deviance: The Case of the Soviet Purge, 1936–1938’, American Sociological Review, 37: 4 (August 1972), pp. 403–13; Paul E. Zinner, ‘Revolution in Hungary: Reflection on the Vicissitudes of a Totalitarian System’, Journal of Politics, 21: 1 (February 1959), pp. 3–36

6 See Jenkins, J. Craig and Schock, Kurt, ‘Global Structures and Political Processes in the Study of Domestic Political Conflict,’ Annual Review of Sociology, 18 1992, pp. 161–85, p. 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Jenkins, J. Craig, ‘Resource Mobilization Theory and the Study of Social Movements,’ Annual Review of Sociology, 9 1983, pp. 527–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 530; McAdam, Doug and Paulsen, Ronnelle, ‘Specifying the Relationship Between Social Ties and Activism’, American Journal of Sociology, 99: 3 (November 1993), pp. 640–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 644. Also see Marwell, Gerald, Oliver, Pamela E. and Prahl, Ralph, ‘Social Networks and Collective Action: A Theory of the Critical Mass. III’, American Journal of Sociology, 94: 3 (November 1988), pp. 502–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 See Robert Putnam, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1993.Google Scholar

9 Levite, Ariel and Tarrow, Sidney, ‘The Legitimation of Excluded Parties in Dominant Party Systems: A Comparison of Israel and Italy’, Comparative Politics, 15: 3 (April 1983, pp. 295–327 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 298; see also Sidney Tarrow, Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action, and Politics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994.

10 Lichbach, Mark Irving, ‘Deterrence or Escallation? The Puzzle of Aggregate Studies of Repression and Dissent’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 31: 2 (June 1987, pp. 266–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Franklin, ‘Political Party Opposition to Noncompetitive Regimes’, p. 524; see also Gupta, Dipak K., Singh, Harinder and Sprague, Tom, ‘Government Coercion of Dissidents: Deterrence or Provocation?’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37: 2 (June 1993, pp. 301–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 See Susan Pharr, Losing Face: Status Politics in Japan, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1990; James Scott, Weapons of the Weak, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1985.Google Scholar

13 See Tarrow, Power in Movement; and Tarrow, Sidney, ‘“Aiming at a Moving Target”: Social Science and the Recent Rebellions in Eastern Europe’, PS: Political Science and Politics, 24: 1 (March 1991, pp. 12–20.Google Scholar

14 See Milner, Helen, ‘The Anglo-American Oil Negotiations and the International Civil Aviation Negotiations: The Interaction of Domestic and International Politics’, in Peter Evans, Harold Jacobson and Robert Putnam (eds), Double-Edged Diplomacy, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1993, pp. 207–32Google Scholar; Putnam, Robert, ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two Level Games’, International Organization, 42: 3 (Summer 1988, pp. 427–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cooper, Richard, ‘Economic Interdependence and Foreign Policy in the Seventies’, World Politics, 24 (1972), pp. 159–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Doyle, Michael, ‘Liberalism in World Politics’, American Political Science Review, 80 (December 1986), pp. 1151–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 See Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., ‘Transgovernmental Relations and International Organization’, World Politics, 27 1974, pp. 39–62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anne-Marie Burley and Walter Mattli, ‘Europe Before the Court: A Political Theory of Legal Integration’, International Organization, 47: 1 (Winter 1993), pp. 41–76.

16 See David P. Forsythe, Human Rights in International Relations, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2000; Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1999; David Held, Global Transformations, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar

17 See Gerald Marwell and Pamela Oliver, The Critical Mass in Collective Action: A Micro-Social Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993; McCarthy, John and Zald, Mayer, ‘Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory’, American Journal of Sociology, 82 1977, pp. 1212–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Michael Lipsky, ‘Protest as a Political Resource’, American Political Science Review, 62 (1968), pp. 1114–58; Timur Kuran, ‘Now Out of Never: The Element of Surprise in the East European Revolution of 1989’, World Politics, 44 (October 1991), pp. 7–48; Susanne Lohmann, ‘The Dynamics of Informational Cascades: The Monday demonstrations in Leipzig, East Germany, 1989–91’, World Politics, 47 (October 1994), pp. 42–101

18 See Mancur Olson, The Rise and Decline of Nations, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1982.Google Scholar

19 See McCarthy and Zald, ‘Resource Mobilization and Social Movements’; Hanna, Michael T. and Freeman, John, ‘Where Do Organizational Forms Come From?’, Sociological Forum, 1: 1 (Winter 1986, pp. 50–72 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lawrence G. Hrebiniak and William F. Joyce, ‘Organizational Adaptation: Strategic Choice and Environmental Determinism’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 3 (September 1985), pp. 336–49.

20 Dimaggio, Paul J. and Powell, Walter W., ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’, American Sociological Review, 48: 2 (April 1983, pp. 147–60, p. 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Ibid., p. 155.Google Scholar

22 Jenkins, ‘Resource Mobilization Theory’, p. 530.Google Scholar

23 Waltz, Human Rights and Reform, p. 157.Google Scholar

24 Gyimah-Boadi, E., ‘Civil Society in Africa’, Journal of Democracy, 7: 2 1996, pp. 118–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 125. See also Waltz, Human Rights and Reform, An-Na’im, ‘Human Rights in the Arab World’, Carapico, ‘Foreign Aid for Promoting Democracy in the Arab World’.

25 Backer, David and Carroll, David, ‘NGOs and Constructive Engagement: Promoting Civil Society, Good Governance and the Rule of Law in Liberia’, International Politics, 38 2001, pp. 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Ottaway, Marina and Chung, Theresa, ‘Toward a New Paradigm’, Journal of Democracy, 10: 4 1999, pp. 99–113, p. 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Waltz, Human Rights and Reform, p. 155.Google Scholar

28 An-Na’im, ‘Human Rights in the Arab World’; see also Otero, Gerardo and O’Bryan, Janice, ‘Cuba in Transition? The Civil Sphere's Challenge to the Castro Regime’, Latin American Politics and Society, 44: 4 2002, pp. 29–57 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Christine Bell and Johanna Keenan, ‘Human Rights Nongovernmental Organizations and the Problems of Transition’, Human Rights Quarterly, 26 (2004), pp. 330–74.

29 An-Na’im, ‘Human Rights in the Arab World’, pp. 728 and 716 (respectively). As a result of this politicization, Carapico finds that in the Arab world ‘foreign funding in the name of things like human rights, civil society, and women's issues sparked controversies, competition and legal complications almost everywhere, as citizens, rival political factions, and ruling party elites questioned the new sorts of political intervention’ (see Carapico, ‘Foreign Aid for Promoting Democracy in the Arab World’, p. 391).Google Scholar

30 Keck and Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders; see also Forsythe, Human Rights in International Relations.Google Scholar

31 See Putnam, ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics’; Milner, ‘The Interaction of Domestic and International Politics’.Google Scholar

32 See, for example, Sevima Sali-Teric, ‘Civil Society’, in ‘International Support Policies to SEE Countries – Lessons (Not) Learned in Bosnia-Herzegovina’, Open Society Fund Bosnia & Herzegovina, 2001. available at http://www.soros.org.ba/en/dokumenti/ostali/book/; Henderson, Sarah L., ‘Selling Civil Society: Western Aid and the Nongovernmental Sector in Russia’, Comparative Political Studies, 35: 2 2002, pp. 139–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Susan Dicklitch and Doreen Lwanga, ‘The Politics of Being Non-Political: Human Rights Organizations and the Creation of a Positive Human Rights Culture in Uganda’, Human Rights Quarterly, 25: 2 (2003), pp. 482–509.

33 Ibid.Google Scholar

34 Henderson, ‘Selling Civil Society’, p. 140.Google Scholar

35 Sali-Teric, ‘Civil Society’, p. 143.Google Scholar

36 Bartlett, David M. C., ‘Civil Society and Democracy: A Zambian Case Study’, Journal of South African Studies, 26: 3 (September 2000, pp. 429–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 431; David M. C. Bartlett, ‘The Anglo-American Oil Negotiations and the “International” Civil Aviation Negotiations: The “Interaction” of “Domestic” and “International”“Politics” ’, in Evans, Jacobson and Putnam, Double-Edged Diplomacy, p. 207.

37 Henderson, ‘Selling Civil Society’, p. 160.Google Scholar

38 For a brief background, see Freedom House report on Uzbekistan, available at http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2001/countryratings/uzbekistan.htm.Google Scholar

39 Jalcin, Resul, ‘The Formation of a Multi-Party System in Uzbekistan’, Central Asia and the Caucasus, 5: 11 (September 2001, pp. 25–35.Google Scholar

40 Fakhritdinov, Bakhodir, ‘Civilian Movements and Parties in Uzbekistan: Development Trends and Problems’, Central Asia and the Caucasus, 5: 17 (September 2002, pp. 44–53.Google Scholar

41 Jalcin, ‘The Formation of a Multi-Party System in Uzbekistan’.Google Scholar

42 Fakhritdinov, ‘Civilian Movements and Parties in Uzbekistan’.Google Scholar

43 Borisov, Nikolai, ‘Transformation in the Political Regime in Uzbekistan: Stages and Outcome’, Central Asia and the Caucasus, 6: 36 (December 2005, pp. 22–32.Google Scholar

44 Fakhritdinov, ‘Civilian Movements and Parties in Uzbekistan’. For more on the development of governmental parties, see Ergashev, Bakhtier, ‘The Formation of a Multi-Party System in Uzbekistan: Problems and Prospects’, Central Asia and the Caucasus, 6 ((November 2000, pp. 51–9.Google Scholar

45 Todua, Zurab, ‘Radical Islam in Uzbekistan: Past and Future’, Central Asia and the Caucasus, 1: 35 (February 2005, pp. 37–42.Google Scholar

46 Borisov, ‘Transformation in the Political Regime in Uzbekistan’.Google Scholar

47 Todua, ‘Radical Islam in Uzbekistan’. For more on the IMU, see Ruzaliev, Odil, ‘The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan: Lines to Complete the Portrait’, Central Asia and the Caucasus, 3: 27 (June 2004, pp. 21–31.Google Scholar

48 Resisting Uzbek demands, the United States has not classified Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organization. See ‘Foreign Terrorist Organizations’, DOS Office of Counterterrorism, 11 October 2005, available at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm.Google Scholar

49 Todua, ‘Radical Islam in Uzbekistan’.Google Scholar

50 I attempted to locate members on several occasions, primarily asking my local contacts in the human rights, diplomatic and banned opposition communities who was still in Uzbekistan. None of my contacts could give me such information. Members of Hizb ut-Tahrir may or may not exist in significant numbers, but the threat of repression makes them inaccessible, at least to a foreign interviewer.Google Scholar

51 This research is based on elite interviews carried out in Tashkent in winter 2004, funded by a Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad award. Approximately 63 interviews were conducted with the heads of local political opposition parties and human rights organizations, international human rights and pro-democracy non-governmental organizations, as well as Western diplomats.Google Scholar

52 The political party Erk in numerical terms dominates the human rights movement. This is partly a result of internal party fragmentation, since one branch of Erk (under Atanazar Aripov) controls two organizations (‘Mazlum’ and ‘Mezon’), while another Erk splinter groups (under Abduhoshim Gaforov) controls the breakaway ‘Independent Human Rights Organization’ and the ‘Electoral Resource Centre’. The banned opposition party Birlik originally created the ‘Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan’ (which now claims to be apolitical) and, more recently, ‘Ezgulik’. The ‘Committee for the Defence of Human Rights’ is controlled by the leader of the unregistered Agrarian Party, Marat Zakhidov. Only ‘Mothers Against the Death Penalty and Torture’, the ‘Independent Human Rights Initiative Group’ and the registered ‘Independent Human Rights Organization of Uzbekistan’ are unconnected to any of the banned opposition movements. The only major political party without a human rights counterpart is the Free Peasant Party (Ozod Dekhkon), though this party had also forged an informal alliance with the Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan by 2004.Google Scholar

53 Author interview with Per Normark, OSCE Human Dimension Officer, 10 March 2004, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.Google Scholar

54 Author interview with Interviewee 1, member of the political opposition party Erk and high-ranking member of the breakaway human rights organization, Independent Human Rights Organization, 12 March 2004, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.Google Scholar

55 See Henderson, ‘Selling Civil Society’.Google Scholar

56 Author interview with Interviewee 2, member of Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan, 11 March 2004, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.Google Scholar

57 Author interview with Interviewee 3, high-ranking member of political opposition party Birlik and human rights organization Ezgulik, 11 March 2004, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.Google Scholar

58 Author interview with Interviewee 1.Google Scholar

59 Ibid.Google Scholar

60 According to Uzbek human rights activists, foreign donors (almost exclusively the United States and US-sponsored non-governmental organizations) are aware of the advantages opposition politicians receive from this funding, despite official stipulations forbidding use on expressly political enterprises. Interviewee 1 commented, ‘(Western donors) understand very well that we are part of the party. They know well who they are standing behind.’Google Scholar

61 Ibid.Google Scholar

62 Author interview with Interviewee 1.Google Scholar

63 Human rights organization leaders justify their political activities as essential to and inseparable from the human movement, remarking that while human rights organizations can defend people on an individual level, ‘political parties defend the rights of the entire society’ (author interview with Interviewee 3). ‘To make these [violations] stop we have to change the regime’, A high-ranking member of Mazlum (Interviewee 4) agreed. ‘To do this you need a political party’. Even organizations claiming to be apolitical either have (Independent Human Rights Initiative Group) or have had (HRSU) political aspirations. The result is often a lack of differentiation between political and human rights activities. One ‘dual elite’, asked ‘Could human rights organizations cooperate on some particular goal?’, responded, ‘You mean, for example, create a coalition to enter parliament?’ (author interview with Interviewee 5, high-ranking member of the opposition Agrarian Party and human rights organization Committee for the Defence of Human Rights, 4 March 2004, Tashkent, Uzbekistan).Google Scholar

64 Author interviews with Interviewees 3 and 5.Google Scholar

65 This process was ultimately thwarted by the government, which did not allow opposition candidates to run for seats.Google Scholar

66 Author interview with Interviewee 6, high-ranking member of the Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan, 2 March 2004, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.Google Scholar

67 Author interview with Ele Pawelski, Freedom House senior programme officer, rights programme, Uzbekistan, 10 March 2004, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.Google Scholar

68 Author interview with Interviewee 7, high-ranking member of the government-recognized ‘Independent Human Rights Organization of Uzbekistan’, 9 March 2004, Tashkent, Uzbekistan; see also author interview with Interviewee 5.Google Scholar

69 I chose three towns in the most densely populated part of Uzbekistan, the Ferghana Valley (Ferghana, Namangan and Andijon). I then selected other high-population centres in a broader geographical area, including Samarqand, Bukhara, Khiva and Nukus.Google Scholar

70 Author interview with high-ranking member of IHRSU Bukhara Oblast and Erk Bukhara Oblast, 25 September 2004, Vopkent, Uzbekistan.Google Scholar

71 While Adolat was officially transformed into a pro-government party with parliamentary representatives, the fate of its opposition core is unclear. It seems likely that many members of the Islamic Renaissance Party may have been the victims of political persecution. Human rights advocates claim that more than 5,000 prisoners of conscience remain in Uzbek prisons.Google Scholar

72 Author interview with Interviewee 6.Google Scholar

73 See Waltz, Human Rights and Reform.Google Scholar

74 Carothers, Thomas and Barndt, William, ‘Civil Society’, Foreign Policy, 117 (Winter 19992000), pp. 18–24, 26–9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Fisher, William F., ‘Doing Good? The Politics and Antipolitics of NGO Practices’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 26 (1997), pp. 439–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

75 Backer and Carroll, ‘NGOs and Constructive Engagement’.Google Scholar

76 Reuters, ‘Uzbek Leader Scorns “Revolutions” as Nation Votes’, New York Times, 26 December 2004, available at www.nytimes.com.Google Scholar

77 African National Congress (ANC), ‘Report by the President of the ANC, Nelson Mandela to the 50th National Conference of the African National Congress’, 16 December 1997, available at www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/conf/conference50/presaddress.html.Google Scholar

78 ‘Serbian Premier Presents Programme, Cabinet’, BBC Monitoring Europe – Political, 2 March 2004, source: RTS TV, Belgrade, in Serbian 1004 gmt 2 March 2004, available at www.lexis-nexis.com.Google Scholar

79 Ottaway and Chung, ‘Toward a New Paradigm’.Google Scholar

80 Bell and Keenan, ‘Human Rights Nongovernmental Organizations and the Problems of Transition’.Google Scholar

81 Author interview with former member and head of a municipal branch of Otpor, 3 December 2004, Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro.Google Scholar