By Samantha Brletich, Eurasia Contributor
Once known for its repressive dictator Saparmurat Niyazov, or “Turkmenbashi,” Turkmenistan is making an effort to embrace democracy. The former Soviet state has discovered new potential in the world markets since its discovery of natural energy sources. By overhauling the constitution Turkmenistan is looking to diversify its economy and show foreign investors, especially those in Europe and in North America that they are a reliable economic partner.
The new Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov has been criticized for his slow pace of implementing reforms. After Niyazov’s death in December of 2006, Berdymukhhamedov came to power proposing great reforms and change. During the first year there was no significant action, but that has recently changed. Turkmenistan rewrote and adopted the new constitution on September 26, imposing pro-democratic reforms. Some 2,500 tribal leaders unanimously approved the constitutional measures.
Under Niyazov, the legislative body was hand-picked by him. Now, the powers that once rested with Nizayov have been transferred to an elected 125-member Parliament. The new constitution backs multi-party politics and multi-party pluralism. Property rights are granted and pro-market reforms are put into place creating a warmer investment climate. Berdymukhammedov also said that there will be parliamentary elections, which will be monitored. The new constitution locks the presidential term at five years and reserves the power of appointing regional governors to the President. Despite these new reforms, freedom of press and expression is still heavily regulated, although there have been reports that Berdymukhammedov was going to expand the country’s internet capabilities and the amount of users. Although, not tantamount to free speech, it allows Turkmens access information.
Even with these reforms, the new “Turkmen democracy” may not be the democracy that the United States and the West approve of. Turkmenistan’s democracy resembles that of Russia’s, with much of the power reserved to the executive branch of the government. In addition, the new constitution has already been met with caution and scrutiny. Many feel that the constitution lacks components vital to a functioning democracy, such as a constitutional court and freedom of expression and that the document was designed to please foreign investors. Essentially, the document was not created for the people, but for the elites and to open up markets to stimulate economic reform. If presumed true, Berdymukhammedov would be following Kazakhstan’s Nazerbayev and his model of economic reform before political reform.
This may mean nothing to the West, as Turkmenistan’s natural gas supply overshadows any type of government-type conflict. With Turkmen’s natural gas markets now open, and with a stubborn and resurgent Russia, Turkmenistan’s amount of foreign investors and energy trade partners is more than likely to increase at an unpredicted rate leaving the economy overrun with countries and corporations. However, with the Bush Administration still in power, the emphasis on a more extensive Western-style democracy still exists. But, harsh criticism from Washington is unlikely since the United States and Europe hopes to diversify their energy markets and search for new sources of energy.
Nevertheless, Turkmenistan’s move towards democracy is favorable to the West. Acting as an economic ally, Turkmenistan stands to gain more than it would lose by developing amicable relations with Europe and the United States. This provides a counterweight for Western states against a “Resurgent Russia” that they seem concerned about.
The opening of Turkmen markets has the potential to damage Russo-Turkmen relations and hurt Russia’s economy. With Russia being ruthless on payments and on the natural gas supply to Europe including many former Soviet republic and satellite states—Ukraine and the Czech Republic—many are more than likely to flock to Turkmenistan for gas. Turkmen gas will be cheaper and there will be less politics involved. This would threaten Russia’s energy supremacy in Central Asia and in Europe weakening Russia’s status as an energy abundant state.
Turkmenistan is the only Central Asian state that is not a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The SCO is binding and has built-in cooperation partners and alliances. Turkmenistan joining the SCO would impede upon growth and development. This is the exact opposite of what Turkmenistan is trying to achieve. Becoming a SCO member would hurt Turkmen-Western relations because the SCO is often viewed as the modern-day Warsaw Pact opposing NATO. It would benefit Turkmenistan not to join, because their new constitution provides the opportunity to break away from Russia once and for all. The remaining four Central Asian Republics, by being part of the SCO, are reliant on Russia and feel that being friendly with Russia will benefit them more than being friendly with the West. Their participation and membership shows Russia that its former Republics still need a helping hand. Still, Turkmen-Russian relations remain stable.
So what does this mean for Central Asia? Wealth accumulated from Turkmenistan’s energy markets has the potential to aggravate Uzbekistan who seeks dominance in economic and military power.
Turkmenistan may also overshadow Kazakhstan as the beacon of reform in Central Asia. If Turkmenistan’s new reforms are successful, the other republics will be under increased pressure to reform their governments. The pressure will be immense since pro-democracy movements in the past have failed and since Turkmenistan has been considered an extremely repressive regime. It will be a case of: “Turkmenistan did it, why can’t you?” For example, Kyrgyzstan’s Tulip Revolution was (and still is) considered one of the greatest political movements in all the Former Soviet Republics since the dissolution of the Soviet Union because it took place east of the Urals. Current President Kurmanbek Bakiyev at first was responsive to the needs of his people. In 2007, he failed to implement constitutional reforms, and now there are open verbal political attacks against Bakiyev’s government. Such dissent is necessary and required for a fully blossomed democracy to exist. But, it would be naïve to believe that this dissent will serve any purpose in transforming Kyrgyzstan into a democracy that it once was during the Tulip Revolution.
All of the Central Asian governments still have remnants of Soviet-style authoritarianism in their systems. Yet, hope lies in those countries whose leaders were not installed by the Soviet government: Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan. The only reason why this occurred is because the leader was ousted or died. The continuous presence of former Soviets in Central Asian states need to be done away with if these Central Asian countries want to progress and decide for themselves. Each nation is putting itself at a great disadvantage by staying close with Russia. Though they need the security and the foreign investment that comes from a relationship with Russia, in the long run it is detrimental to their development. Indeed, it is extremely difficult for the three remaining Central Asian republics to make democratic reforms. They lack the infrastructure, resources, and support from other countries and their authoritarian leaders are the biggest obstacle to true reform.
It is clear that Turkmenistan by any standard is not yet a democracy. The country continues to crack down on dissidents and has firm controls on the media. This extends to religion and political opponents. It is too early to see whether democratic reforms will survive in a country that has such an extensive history of authoritarianism and repression.
