BACKGROUND: In the majority of Central Asian countries, what is desired by the population is often assumed based on the views of governmental officials. This leads to the lack of public confidence in their respective governments. The Asia Barometer survey in the fall of 2005 registered that in most Central Asian countries (except Turkmenistan) the public trusts their central government only to a degree. The highest indicator was in Tajikistan (51.9%), followed by Kazakhstan (47.6%) and Uzbekistan (43.9%). In terms of absolute trust (trust a lot), the highest number of respondents were in Kazakhstan (19.5%) and Tajikistan (17.8%) with the lowest indicator of complete trust registered in Uzbekistan (9%). Interestingly, in Kyrgyzstan, which experienced so-called “tulip revolution” and governmental change in 2005, the number of those who trust Kyrgyz government a lot (11.3%) and to a degree (38.4%) counted together are almost equal to those who do not really trust (33.9%) and do not trust it at all (15%). This largely reflects the situation in Kyrgyzstan where hopes of the population for a more effective central government are mixed with the sense of frustration with the lack of achievements of the new leadership of the country. Similarly, in Uzbekistan where anti-governmental revolts took place in May of 2005, the number of those who do not really (29.5%) or not at all (12.4%) trust the central government also constitute a significant number. In terms of complete and partial trust towards local government, the number of such people exceeds half of those asked only in Kazakhstan (10.3% a lot and 41.4% to a degree), which, as in the case of the public trust towards central government, is most likely influenced by economic growth in the country and improved living standards. Second was Tajikistan (6.3% and 40.1% respectively) and Kyrgyzstan (7.5% and 38%). The lowest number of such respondents was in Uzbekistan (5.9% and 39.4% respectively). Peculiarly, in all regional countries except for Kazakhstan, the numbers for those who fully or partially distrust local government exceeds the numbers of those who fully or partially trust it. In addition, in all Central Asian countries, public distrust towards police and political parties far exceeds trust towards them.

IMPLICATIONS: To a great extent, the patterns of public confidence indicated above are connected to the evaluation by the population of the policies of their governments. In particular, a majority of respondents in Kazakhstan are satisfied (satisfied and partly satisfied) with governmental economic policy (11.5% and 51.6% respectively), its dealing with inter-ethnic (11.8% and 50.4%) and religion-based (15.3% and 50.3%) conflicts. Dealing with the inter-ethnic and religion-based conflicts by the governments are also policies which cause full or partial satisfaction in Uzbekistan (10.1% and 41.6%) and Tajikistan (10% and 39.4%). However, economy-related governmental policies such as economic policy are the ones which cause high public dissatisfaction in Uzbekistan (54.3% partly dissatisfied and 18.1% completely dissatisfied), Tajikistan (51.2% and 16.8% respectively) and Kyrgyzstan (46.1% and 31.9% respectively). In addition, governmental policies towards eradication of unemployment are considered by the majority to be completely dissatisfactory in Kyrgyzstan (65.5%), Uzbekistan (55%) and Tajikistan (45.9%). The number of people who mentioned governmental policies towards eradication of political corruption to be partly or fully unsatisfactory consisted absolute majority in Kazakhstan (50.1% and 23.9% respectively), Tajikistan (41.6% and 45.4%), Kyrgyzstan (37.8% and 46%) and Uzbekistan (39.3% and 25%). Similarly, the fight against crime causes dissatisfaction in Kazakhstan (55% partly and 28.9% completely dissatisfied), Kyrgyzstan (28.4% and 57%), Tajikistan (42.8% and 18.4%) and Uzbekistan (36.9% and 22.9% respectively). The failure of the CA governments to deal with these and related challenges is a source for great public concern. One of the top concerns among the population in Central Asia is poverty and fear of unemployment which were selected as such by absolute majority of respondents in Kyrgyzstan (75% and 76% respectively), Uzbekistan (70% and 74%), Tajikistan (65% and 69%) and Kazakhstan (59% and 58%). Significant numbers of those asked in Uzbekistan (59%), Kyrgyzstan (55%) and Kazakhstan (51%) also indicated their concern about crime. Physical integrity-related threats such as threat of terrorism (77%), conflicts and wars (61%), health (63%) and human rights (49%) were emphasized in Uzbekistan by a far larger margin of respondents than in other regional states. These concerns are further linked to respondents’ expectations in respect to their governments. When asked about policies respondents regard as requiring an increase of governmental investments, even if it meant paying additional taxes, a majority of those asked indicated retirement pensions increase in Tajikistan (56.2% large increase and 31.3% some increase), Kyrgyzstan (53.9% and 33.3%) and Uzbekistan (51.5% and 39.4%). The number of those respondents who emphasized large or some increase in governmental investments for unemployment benefits was the highest in Kyrgyzstan (35.1% and 37% respectively) and Tajikistan (35.4% and 36.3% respectively). Interestingly, only in Turkmenistan did the number of respondents who suggested that the government should considerably increase its spending on healthcare (53.1% of those asked) and education (61%) exceed half of those asked, by far the largest among regional states. In terms of governmental expenditures for law-enforcement functions, high numbers thought these should not increase but remain the same in Kazakhstan (45.1%), Uzbekistan (44.9%) and Turkmenistan (42.3%). Likewise, support for keeping military expenditure stable was highest in Turkmenistan (50.9%) and Uzbekistan (46.9%). The last two indicators on law enforcement and defense perhaps to some extent also reflect the view of the population towards police and the army, which also connect to the public confidence towards these institutions. What is obvious from the figures above is that the population seeks an enforcing governmental social security package with further injections of public funds. On the other hand, public expenses aimed at enhancing the implementation of laws and defense expenditures are not enjoying primary support by the population. This can mainly be explained by the perception among the population that these issues, although generally important, are secondary with respect to the task of maintaining higher socio-economic standards of everyday life.

CONCLUSIONS: Issues of public confidence, evaluation of governmental policies and people’s expectations from their government are intrinsically connected to the question of public participation in the governance of their respective countries. However, the Asia Barometer poll demonstrates that people in Central Asia resent political participation because of disbelief in their ability to influence events in their respective countries, and apathy towards politicians. When asked if they are satisfied with the state of democracy in their country, only one third of those asked in Kazakhstan (36.4%) suggested that they are relatively satisfied with it. Comparable figures were 28,9% in Tajikistan, 28,4% in Kyrgyzstan, 26.3% in Turkmenistan and 14.8% in Uzbekistan. Meanwhile, the number of those relatively dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the state of democracy in Tajikistan (22.7% relatively dissatisfied and 10.7% very dissatisfied) and Uzbekistan (22.4% and 19.8% respectively) exceeded the number of very satisfied and relatively satisfied respondents in these countries. The absolute majority of those asked in Kazakhstan (29.4% strongly agreed and 49.1% agreed), Kyrgyzstan (29.1% and 43.1%) and Uzbekistan (25.9% and 47.4%) agreed that people do not have the power to influence political decisions. In addition, an absolute majority in Kazakhstan (29.1% strongly agreed and 52.3% agreed), Uzbekistan (25.1% and 48.8%) and Kyrgyzstan (37.8% and 43.5%) subscribed to the view that governmental officials do not pay much attention to what people think. In such a situation, public reactions to such governance takes various forms. For instance, interesting responses were received when respondents were confronted with the question about what should the person who needs a governmental permit do if the response of the official handling the application is ‘just be patient and wait’. In the majority of cases more than one third in Uzbekistan (38.5%), Kazakhstan (35.6%), Kyrgyzstan (33%) and Tajikistan (32.1%) responded ‘use connections’, with another considerable group in Tajikistan (27.6%), Uzbekistan (19%) and Turkmenistan (17.3%) choosing to bribe an official. This once again symbolizes people’s response to a lack of opportunities for public participation in governance by their attempt to improve their living conditions through personal social networks, friends, relatives and most importantly connections in relevant institutions responsible for a provision of goods and services.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Dr. Timur Dadabaev (affiliated with the University of Tokyo) is presently Imam Bukhari Scholar at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies and Visiting Research Fellow at the Developmental Studies Committee, University of Cambridge.