Paper long abstract:

The historical experience of the Soviet Union is covered differently in relatively similar Central Asian states in terms of historical Soviet past. Kazakhstan builds its nation-building model on civic idea, which embraces ethnic differences (with reservation) and promotes the slogan of 'strength in difference'. In contrast, Uzbekistan promotes a very different interpretation, which locates its nation-building project in a single Uzbek ethnicity and operates under the slogan of 'strength in unity'. Historically, these divisions were analyzed based on the degree of authoritarianism: soft vs hard authoritarian principles. Or explained as the differences between Karimov, who was more pro-Soviet vs Nazarbayev who was more pro-western. There is literature that attributes differences to agricultural vs nomadic lifestyles and culture that followed, with former liking the strong hand vs the latter being free spirits.

I argue that we cannot explain why these strategies were chosen without looking at the Telos, a vision of the future that two regimes create to legitimize their power. Uzbekistan, especially under Karimov introduced a backward-looking Telos proposing to resurrect the Golden Age of Amir Timur into the future. As a result, Soviet past was a debilitating experience, which undermined the great trajectory of Uzbek nation. In that sense, Uzbek nation-building model is rooted in what is depicted as the inherent Uzbek ethnicity and its traditions. The regime speaks on behalf of the single ethnically defined nation and requires a political will of the state. In contrast, political regime in Kazakhstan, especially under Nazarbayev, presents a forward-looking vision for the future based on the civic ideals of the nation and aims to create an internationally recognized modern Kazakhstan on par with the global centers of Singapore, Abu Dhabi and New York. Golden Age for Kazakhstan is moved into the future and requires economic integration into the global system. Soviet past is seen as a difficult experience, which forged the nation into a single entity since everyone went through hardships. The regime speaks on behalf of Kazakhstani nation, which embraces all ethnic groups into a single whole.

The paper will rely on two data analysis techniques: discourse and thematic analyses of speeches, official documents and programs produced by two regimes. It will also use qualitative content analysis to support the findings. Although the Uzbek and Kazakh cases will largely reflect Karimov's and Nazarbayev's eras respectively, they will shed light on the changes in the present-day Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan as well.