Leadership Succession in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan: Regime Survival after Nazarbayev and Karimov

The electronic face of authoritarianism: E-government as a tool for gaining legitimacy in competitive and non-competitive regimes

“…Long-running Uzbek president Islam Karimov repeatedly demonstrated his strong grip to power throughout the last two decades and enforced a very personalistic rule of the regime (Ambrosio, 2015). However, the simplistic, not very modern and slowly working website of the president's press service is rather underwhelming, particularly when compared to the impressive web presences of the Kazakh or Russian president.…”

Mapping Kazakhstan’s geopolitical code: an analysis of Nazarbayev’s presidential addresses, 1997–2014

“…True economic diversification remains elusive, and Kazakhstan's global economic integration is largely limited to its energy sector, which constitutes one-fourth of its economy and 80 percent of its exports (Solovyov 2014). Finally, Nazarbayev was bom in 1940 and a succession crisis looms over the country (Ambrosio 2015). Historically, authoritarian regimes have about a 50-50 chance of managing a successful transition and avoiding regime collapse.…”

What Has Changed in Uzbekistan? Explaining Post-Karimov State-Building

“…Nevertheless, the government remains inherently authoritarian with its heavy reliance on security servicesretaining vast power to suppress dissent and pluralism (Human Rights Watch, 2019). Ambrosio (2015) aptly notes that, post-USSR political evolution in Central Asia has shown that regimes are not just the ruler. Rather, it is a whole system with formal and informal rules (Ambrosio, 2015).…”

“…Ambrosio (2015) aptly notes that, post-USSR political evolution in Central Asia has shown that regimes are not just the ruler. Rather, it is a whole system with formal and informal rules (Ambrosio, 2015). Indeed, as suggested by subsequent sections, there is a whole bunch of obstacles to fundamental democratic reforms in Uzbekistan, including but not limited to underdevelopment of the middle class, the robust authoritarian legacy, compounded by limited reach of external democratic centers, as well as low living standards of the population and lack of a vibrant civil society.…”