Thwarted democratization in Tajikistan

Atkin, Muriel

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511559204.009

Cited by 17 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This pitted Imomali Rakhmonov's Russianbacked Kulobi elites against Uzbekistanibacked Khojandi elites. Fighting only subsided in late 1998, leaving Rakhmonov in solid authoritarian control (Akbarzadeh, 1996;Atkin, 1997;Pannier, , 1999.…”

Section: Tracing the Effects Of War In The Post-communist Countriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

War After Communism: Effects on Political and Economic Reform in the Former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia

Horowitz

2003

Journal of Peace Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How did war affect political and economic reform efforts across the post-communist world? War is hypothesized to have a negative political impact through three main mechanisms: distraction from any peacetime political and economic reform agenda; military defeat and disruption, and associated weakening or militarization of state authority; and postwar economic isolation. After controlling for cultural, economic, and institutional factors, statistical analysis confirms the negative effects of war on political and economic reform. The negative effect of war is robust across a range of model specifications and time periods, but is estimated to be stronger for the subgroup of initially democratic countries. The cultural variable of `frustrated national ideals' is the most important control variable. There follow brief case studies of the eight post-communist countries torn by protracted, large-scale military conflict - Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Moldova, Tajikistan, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The case studies focus on how initial conditions - particularly the cultural variable of frustrated national ideals - interact with longer-term effects of war to influence postwar revival of reform efforts. Among the subgroup of initially democratic countries, the dominant pattern is not one of democracy unleashing diversionary war, as it did in Slobodan Milosevic's Serbia. Rather, reform nationalist governments typically wanted to avoid war. But their political constituencies and ideological commitments typically prevented them from making concessions that might have avoided war, or at least stopped it more quickly. This entangled their countries in longer-term conflicts, with correspondingly greater adverse impacts on political and economic reform.

show abstract

Section: Tracing the Effects Of War In The Post-communist Countriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

War After Communism: Effects on Political and Economic Reform in the Former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia

Horowitz

2003

Journal of Peace Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 18. Afterward, the Russian government hailed Tajikistan’s presidential election as proof of Tajikistan’s “progress towards democracy” (Atkin 1997, 303). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Commitment Problems or Bidding Wars? Rebel Fragmentation as Peace Building

Driscoll

2012

Journal of Conflict Resolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After highly fragmented civil wars, order is often secured through the selective co-optation of rebel field commanders and atomized insurgents. This paper presents a formal model of civil war settlement as a coalition formation game between various regime and rebel factions. This approach emphasizes the ability of installed civilian rulers to lure warlords into the state based on promises of future wealth, then use divide-and-rule tactics to pit different warlord factions against one another. Quantitative and qualitative data from Tajikistan, including an original data set of warlord incorporation and regime purges during wartime reconstruction, are used to evaluate the model.

show abstract

“…It is now widely accepted that, held back by meagre opportunities for empirical research during the Soviet Union, and then by the insecurity of the civil war, the study of Tajikistan has now nevertheless produced some insightful introductory surveys (Rakowska-Harmstone 1970, Atkin 1989, 1997, Djalili et al 1998, Chatterjee 2002, often for a policy audience (Akiner 2001, Barnes andAbdullaev 2001), and the accumulation of empirical data Mikulskii 1996, Olimova andOlimov 1999). However, whilst making substantial contributions, these studies have failed to engage with theoretical debates beyond the study of Central Asia or even Tajikistan.…”

Section: The State Of Tajikistan Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%