Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:28:22.167Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Shifting Identities and Loyalties in Kyrgyzstan: The Evidence from the Field

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Ainura Elebayeva ,
Nurbek Omuraliev  and
Rafis Abazov
Ainura Elebayeva
Affiliation:
International University of Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyzstan
Nurbek Omuraliev
Affiliation:
Bishek Humanitarian University, Kyrgyzstan
Rafis Abazov
Affiliation:
Center for Social Research of Kyrgyz Academy of Science, Kyrgyzstan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The main objective of the ethnic policy of the government of Kyrgyzstan in the post-Soviet era was a consolidation of all people and ethnic groups on the territory of the Republic into the Kyrgyzstani nation. Such a goal is important for any nation that has just gained independence, but for the Kyrgyz Republic it was an especially important task for several reasons. First, the multiethnic composition of the country: in 1991 the Kyrgyzs, or the titular nation of the Republic, constituted roughly 52% of the population, there were around 22% Russians, and the Uzbeks represented 13% of the population. Second, interethnic relations in the Republic were especially tense at the beginning of the 1990s because of the interethnic conflicts in the southern regions of the Republic in 1989 and 1990.1 Third, the Kyrgyzs themselves lacked national cohesiveness and they often defined themselves as members of different tribes or tribal groups with distinct dialects, dress, and political affiliations.

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , June 2000 , pp. 343 - 349
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 Association for the Study of Nationalities 

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

Notes

1. Interethnic conflicts on the communal level between the Kyrgyz and Tajiks in 1989 and the Kyrgyz and Uzbeks in 1990 led to numerous casualties. For details, see Rafis Abazov, “Central Asian Conflicting Legacy and Ethnic Policies: Revisiting a Crises-Zone of the former USSR,” Nationalism and Ethnic Policies, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1999, pp. 62–90.Google Scholar

2. Martha Olcott, “Central Asian's Catapult to Independence,” Foreign Affairs, Summer 1992, pp. 108–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. The authors have no intention of discussing in detail the Soviet and post-Soviet concepts of ethnicity in Kyrgyzstan. For details of the debates on this issue, see Ainura Elebayeva, ed., Razvitiye mezhnatsional'nykh otnoshenii v novykh nezavisimykh gosudarstvakh Tsentralnoi Azii (Development of Interethnic Relations in the Newly Independent States of Central Asia) (Bishkek: Ilim, 1995). See also the view of President Akayev in “President Kyrgyzstana vystupaet za ravnopravnoe razvitie vsekh natsyi,” Delovoi Mir, 21 December 1993.Google Scholar

4. For the official position of the government and the President, see the speeches by President Akayev in Slovo Kyrgyzstana, 4 December 1992 and 30 March 1999.Google Scholar

5. On such scenarios, see Boris Rumer, “The Gathering Storm in Central Asia,” Orbis, Vol. 37, Winter, 1993.Google Scholar

6. For the text of the Law on Languages, see “Zakon Kirgizskoi SSR 'O gosudarstvennom iazyke Kirgizskoi SSR,” Sovetskaya Kirgizia, 29 September 1989, pp. 1–2. The Law was supplemented by a Resolution which gave clear deadlines for implementing the Law on Languages in the Republic. For the positions of the various ethnic groups and political parties on the issue, see Ainura Elebayeva and Michael Gubouglo, eds, Grazhdanskiye dvizheniya v Kyrgyzstane (Civil Movements in Kyrgyzstan) (Moscow: TsIMO, 1991).Google Scholar

7. Slovo Kyrgyzstana, 5 January 1995.Google Scholar

8. Article 5 of the first Kyrgyz Constitution, adopted in May 1993 and later amended in 1996, provides the Russian language the status of the “language of interethnic communication” and the Constitution guarantees that there should be no discrimination of the rights of citizens on language bases. See Article 5, in Konstitutsia Kyrgyzskoi Respubliki (Bishkek: Uchkun 1996), pp. 57–58.Google Scholar

9. The population of the study covered the adult population of the capital city, Bishkek. The sample size and proportional representation were determined according to the official demographic statistical data published by the National Statistical Committee (see Demograficheskiy spravochnik (Bishkek: National Statistical Committee, 1997). A covering letter highlighted the significance of the study and gave instructions how to fill in the questionnaire. The questionnaire had 12 questions. It was distributed and collected personally in Bishkek by a group of research fellows from the Centre for Social Research with the help of university students in June-July 1997. The researchers received back and considered valid for further analysis around 92% of the questionnaires. The study sample consisted of Kyrgyz (34.5%), Russians (47.3%), Ukrainians (4.35%), Tatars (2.4%), Uigurs (2.1%), Kazakhs (1.7%), Koreans (1.7%) and others; 46% males and 54% females. Full description of the research is available upon request from the Centre for Social Research, Academy of Science, Bishkek, the Kyrgyz Republic.Google Scholar

10. Graham Smith, Vivien Law, Andrew Wilson, Annette Bohr and Edward Allworth, Nation-Building in the Post-Soviet Borderlands: The Politics of National Identities (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

11. The suggested answers were as follows: (1) citizen of Kyrgyzstan; (2) citizen of the world; (3) citizen of the Soviet Union; (4) don't know; (5) other.Google Scholar

12. In May-June 1990, discord between local communities of Kyrgyz and Uzbeks turned into disastrous turmoil in the Kyrgyz provincial town Uzgen, and spread to the region's administrative centre, Osh (both are very close to the border with Uzbekistan). This created instability in both Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. The conflict was based on this communal disagreement, rather than on political or religious differences. It was the bloodiest event that occurred at that time, with official estimates of 220 dead and 1, 000 hospitalised (unofficial estimates gave 600–1, 200 as killed during the turmoil). Fears that such events might happen again existed throughout the 1990s.Google Scholar

13. See, for details, National Human Development Report of the Kyrgyz Republic (Bishkek: UNDP, 1996, 1997, 1998).Google Scholar

14. Ainura Elebayeva, ed., Razvitiye mezhnatsional'nykh otnoshenii v novykh nezavisimykh gosudarstvakh Tsentralnoi Azii (Development of Interethnic Relations in the Newly Independent States of Central Asia) (Bishkek: Ilim, 1995), pp. 246–247.Google Scholar