The Covid-19 pandemic has sharply demonstrated the ineffectiveness of public administration in the countries of Central Asia. In a situation when the authorities actually stepped aside from solving suddenly arisen problems, volunteer organizations were forced to fill this vacuum.
Analysts from Central Asian countries at an expert meeting held by the analytical platform CABAR.asia expressed their views on the prospects for the development of civil society in the region.
According to Yevgeny Zhovtis, director of the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law, civil societies have not been shaped yet in all Central Asian countries.
“There are discrete, important manifestations, and not in all states, in the form of political parties and groups, first of all, opposition independent labor unions, independent civil organizations, independent media of civil activists, etc.,” Yevgeny Zhovtis said.
But, in general, according to him, a hybrid of nascent civil societies mostly concentrated in large cities and traditional societies mainly represented in rural areas.
Evgeny Zhovtis noted that civil societies are formed and developed in democratic political systems, where such societies are more or less equal subjects of politics and decision-making.
“And in authoritarian states and dictatorships of society, there are ruling elite groups, who are objects of state policy, assistants to the state, but not partners,” Yevgeny Zhovtis said.
According to him, strong and dynamic civil societies are the most effective management tools, because they provide critical feedback,” adjustments to government policy and even a peaceful change of government to adjust the vector of development.”
“In Central Asia, both modern states and modern civil societies are still at the stage of development, but with different paces,” noted Yevgeny Zhovtis.
Various institutional arrangements are being created for feedback channels of society and the state, consultative platforms, working groups, etc., public discussion of draft laws, reports of authorities to the population, etc.
“But states are still authoritarian, and societies are still more traditional than civil ones,” said Yevgeny Zhovtis.
The situation with COVID-19, like a litmus test, shows problems, including “the inefficiency of the state apparatus, its excessive bureaucracy, delays in decision-making, and lack of public confidence in the state”.
“And of course, in these cases, traditional societies, and the beginnings of civil societies, are moving to the practice of self-organization to solve pressing problems, including the COVID-19 pandemic. But the key issue for the Central Asian states remains one – the issue of creating favorable political-legal conditions for the development of strong civil societies, without which sustainable development and competitiveness of countries in the 21st century is unlikely, if at all possible,” said Yevgeny Zhovtis.
Sergei Marinin, one of the authors of the study “Civil Society and the COVID-19 Governance Crisis in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan” and a member of the CABAR.asia School of Analytics, noted that the pandemic has caused a governance crisis in both countries. Both governments did not have sufficient resources to adequately address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sergei Marinin recalled that NGOs of Kyrgyzstan in modern political history have always played an important role in the process of monitoring the activities of state power.
However, in his opinion, after 2010, the non-governmental sector of the Kyrgyz Republic found itself in a difficult situation and, in fact, is now on the brink of survival.
The pressure on civil society increased especially due to the increased influence of Russia, when in 2016 amendments to the laws “On non-profit organizations” and “On state registration of legal entities, branches (representative offices)” were adopted in the Kyrgyz Republic.
The governance crisis in Kyrgyzstan following the arrival of the coronavirus in the country has boosted the volunteer movement. Subsequently, some of the volunteers even were involved in local politics by taking part in the elections to the city council, which became one of the key results, according to the authors of the study, of the development of civil society.
According to Muslimbek Buriev, another author of the study “Civil Society and the COVID-19 Governance Crisis in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan” and a member of the CABAR.asia School of Analytics, the Tajik authorities have long ignored reports of infection and did not impose immediate quarantine.
The authorities also did not provide sufficient information about the spread of the pandemic, which is why activists even created a special website about the facts of deaths from COVID-19.
Muslibek Buriev noted that, unlike Kyrgyzstan, Tajik civil society does not play a big role in governing the country.
“NGOs are forced to constantly coordinate their projects and initiatives with the state. Everything depends on it,” Muslimbek Buriyev said.
He added that recently, one can notice cases when the authorities involve NGOs in the development of state programs, but such cases are rare.
“In general, one of the most important factors is the existing distrust of NGOs, since the latter in their activities go beyond the control of the state,” Muslimbek Buriyev said.
Based on the results of the study, the authors have developed several recommendations for the authorities and civil society.
Among them – permanently include civil society organizations (CSOs) in the structure of the bodies responsible for crisis management, simplify the registration procedure for CSOs, etc.
According to Rustam Kypshakbayev, coordinator for Central Asia at the Geneva Center for Civil and Political Rights, the coronavirus pandemic did not create a qualitatively new civil society in Kazakhstan but caused the emergence of new civil initiatives or the popularization of existing ones.
“Despite the fact that the state continued to apply old practices, nevertheless, it used the pandemic to narrow the civil space less than we expected,” said Rustam Kypshakbayev.
In March 2020, authorities declared a state of emergency for the first time after the first confirmed cases of coronavirus. This led to the restriction of the rights of citizens to move and hold peaceful meetings.
Despite a number of restrictions, parliamentary elections (January 2021) and local elections (August 2021) were held in Kazakhstan.
The authorities did not change their behavior during the pandemic and continued to persecute civil and political activists, and the number of political prisoners increased.
However, Rustam Kypshakbayev drew attention to the fact that during the pandemic, the attitude of citizens towards the ruling party has changed.
In particular, the League of Young Voters of Kazakhstan questioned the results of the parliamentary elections. According to the League, the ruling Nur-Otan won only 48% of the vote, not 71%, as it was indicated in the official data. Thus, the ruling party failed to gain more than half of the votes and for this reason the parliament had to form a coalition government.
“This erosion of the super-majority is a relatively new phenomenon in Kazakhstani politics,” Rustam Kypshakbayev said and added that before the pandemic, the ruling party was relatively fair, gaining a majority in the elections.
Also, the attitude of citizens of Kazakhstan towards peaceful rallies has changed. According to a survey by the Demoscope bureau (October 2019), it turned out that 43% of citizens have a positive attitude towards the gatherings, 41% of citizens are “indifferent” or found it difficult to answer, and only 16% were against the meetings.
According to Rustam Kypshakbayev, these data contradict the previously dominant thesis about the political “passivity” of citizens of Kazakhstan.
According to him, these changes in society are best reflected in a quote from the editor of the Kazakh edition of PROTENGE, Jamila Maricheva, who stated that earlier the topic of rallies was very marginalized, and the media that covered the rallies were perceived by readers as “marginals”.
“And now there are a lot of media that talk about the rallies. […] And now those media that do not talk about rallies on social networks feel uncomfortable, because readers share this information with them, readers consider it important,” said Jamilya Maricheva.
According to Rustam Kypshakbayev, in general, the pandemic has shown the strength and possibilities of mobilizing civil society.
“It is clear that the pandemic will have long-term consequences,” he said.
In particular, during a pandemic, the fallacy of the old stereotype that “a centralized state is effective in times of crises, when it is necessary to quickly respond to rapidly changing conditions,” was revealed.
According to Tatiana Chernobil, a consultant for the international human rights organization Amnesty International in Central Asia, the pandemic has become a window of opportunity, including for civil society organizations.
“The state was forced to accept the service function of civil society for its own insolvency, and civil society took on this function and successfully coped with it,” said Tatiana Chernobil.
At the same time, she said, the pandemic has led to a decrease in the control functions of civil society.
“What will happen to our civil societies in the future? Will we be able to keep this activity of civil society? And will this activity turn into a control function – a genuine function of civil society,” Tatiana Chernobil asked.
According to Evgeny Zhovtis, in the modern world the situation is changing rapidly and the role of societies, including civil ones, will constantly increase.
“And I think there is a moderately optimistic future around the corner,” says Evgeny Zhovtis.
Sergei Marinin is more pessimistic about the future of the region.
“There is an active retraditionalization, there are some religious groups that will also actively promote their interests, the influence of nationalism [is increasing], which will directly affect the development of civil society in Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia as a whole,” said Sergei Marinin.
He also noted that the prospects for the development of civil society in Central Asia will be negatively affected by the withdrawal of the Americans from Afghanistan and the possible increase of influence of Russia.