Abstract:This paper aims to reconstruct widely accepted concepts of the top-down authoritarian nature of Central Asian politics in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan through a comparative study of the pro-democratic movements that emerged in the late 1980s. By analysing data from interviews with the cultural elites of the late Soviet perestroika period and data on the indigenous nationalist movements such as Erk, Zheltoksan, Birlik and others, we question why such nationalist movements did not “survive” or emerge as a significant political platform as promised in post-independence Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, and why they failed to change the political outlook of one party rule or the dominance of one nationalising regime. Furthermore, we analyse how such nationalist movements had an opportunity to turn into semi-democratic movements but failed to transform after their agenda (arguably, independence) was achieved, leaving “communists-turned-nationalists” to continue their policies in newly formed countries. Thus, the paper also looks at how these cultural elites eventually contributed to the local “authoritarianism” and lack of plurality in views and identifications.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is to explore why Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in Central Asia failed to form a diversified political pattern after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, but instead fell into authoritarian rule. Specifically, through a comparative study of the democratic movements that emerged in these two countries in the late 1980s, the author analyzed why these movements failed to become important political forces and also failed to change the dominance of the one - party system or the mono - ethnic regime. ### Main problems: 1. **Failure of democratic movements**: Why did these nationalist movements fail to become important political platforms in independent Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan and failed to change the status quo of the one - party system or the multi - ethnic regime? 2. **Role of cultural elites**: These movements originally had the opportunity to transform into semi - democratic movements, but why did they fail to continue the transformation after achieving their goals (such as independence)? Instead, those who "turned from communists to nationalists" continued to implement their policies in the newly - established countries. 3. **Formation of authoritarianism**: How did these cultural elites eventually contribute to local "authoritarianism" and lead to the homogenization of views and identities? ### Research methods: The author attempts to answer the above questions by interviewing cultural elites before the disintegration of the Soviet Union and combining data analysis of native nationalist movements (such as Erk, Zheltoksan, Birlik, etc.). The study also explores the interaction between these cultural elites and political elites, as well as their role in shaping national identity and cultural governance. ### Key conclusions: - Alternative views of cultural elites were either revised by the state or completely suppressed. - Political elites regarded the nationalist narrative as an opportunity to consolidate power and strengthened this narrative through the "father of the nation" image and ensuring the stability of all ethnic groups. - This "failure" has deeper historical roots, which can be traced back to the formation and development of cultural elites and the intellectual class during the Soviet era. - Soviet - era literary intellectuals, as local "translators", were responsible for interpreting and spreading Soviet policies and visions, which enabled them to continue to influence the construction of national identity after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Through these analyses, the author reveals the complex historical and social backgrounds behind the authoritarian regimes formed in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in the post - Soviet era.

Authors and Authoritarianism in Central Asia: Failed Agency and Nationalising Authoritarianism in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan

The Kazakh Steppe and its Political Elite in the Conditions of Revolutionary Transit in Eurasia at the Beginning of the 20th century

The Political Logic of Cadre Rotation in Post-Soviet Central Asia

Democratization, Legitimacy and Political Change in Central Asia

Ideological discourses in post-Soviet Uzbekistan: internationalization of higher education as a threat

Foreign views on the culture of Soviet Kazakhstan: an analysis of historiography

Transformation of the political elite of Kyrgyzstan (1991-2024): Dynamics and analysis

The political aspects of eco-activism in Kazakhstan: challenges and opportunities

THE ACTIVITY AND TRAGIC FATE OF YOUNG UZBEK EDUCATORS IN 1917-1938

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN CENTRAL ASIA

Power distance, sub-ethnic groups, and teams of civil servants: Overlooked factors of administrative reform in Kazakhstan?

The Undiscovered Pages of Kazakh History: A Campaign to Purge Educational Institutions of Socially Alien Elements

Political and economic transformation of the PRC in the third quarter of the XX century: from “new democracy” to “cultural revolution”

Formation of New Life Strategies of the Nomadic Kazakhs the Imperial Frontier of the 19th — Early 20th Century

The revival of traditional culture as an element of the national security policy of the Central Asian countries in the 1991-2010's.

President Tokayev’s Reforms and Diplomacy

THE REBELLION OF 1916 IN KYRGYZ: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES

Why do Authoritarian Leaders do Regionalism? Ontological Security and Eurasian Regional Cooperation

The History of the Development of Education in the Czech Republic and Kazakhstan (1990-1999): A Comparative Historical Analysis

"Represents fertile ground for the development of the recalcitrant spirit of the population". Karkaraly district in the documents of the Omsk gendarme department at the beginning of the 20th century