Log in to star items.
- Convenors:
-
Mirlan Bektursunov
(Hokkaido University (HU), The National Institutes for the Humanities (NIHU))
Nurzada Ymanbekova (National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic)
Tetsu Akiyama (Hokkaido University of Education)
Send message to Convenors
- Chair:
-
Mirlan Bektursunov
(Hokkaido University (HU), The National Institutes for the Humanities (NIHU))
- Discussant:
-
Pavel Shabley
(Kostanay branch of Chelyabinsk State University)
- Format:
- Panel
- Theme:
- History
Abstract
This panel examines the transformation of Kyrgyz political and social institutions from the late Russian imperial period through the early Soviet decades, with a particular focus on how pre-existing structures—especially traditional institutes of governance, lineage organization, and patterns of nomadic mobility—were not simply displaced but reconfigured within new state frameworks. Bringing together three studies that span the imperial and Soviet eras, the panel challenges linear narratives of modernization that assume a rupture between “traditional” and “modern” forms of governance.
The first paper (presented in Russian) analyzes the impact of the Russian imperial electoral system on the institution of the manap, hereditary lineage chieftains who played a central role in Kyrgyz political life. It argues that the Russian Empire’s self-imposed mission to “civilize” local nomads by introducing competitive elections did not merely modernize local governance. Rather, this policy destabilized traditional authority and generated new forms of corruption, factionalism, and administrative manipulation. The resulting crisis of legitimacy, visible during the Central Asian Revolt of 1916, reflected both resistance to colonial rule and attempts to restore alternative governing norms more attuned to local political experience.
The second paper explores how early Soviet political institutions became arenas for the transformation of lineage politics. Focusing on factional struggles between “nationalist” and “socialist” elites, it demonstrates that genealogical networks continued to structure political competition, even as they were reframed through the language of class and socialism. These rivalries unfolded within a colonial administrative hierarchy dominated by European cadres, further complicating the relationship between local agency and imperial power.
The third paper shifts the focus to the 1920s–1930s, examining how overlapping processes of Soviet state-building and national delimitation in Central Asia produced new forms of mobility across and within borders. It explores how various forms of mobility, both internal and cross-border, emerged in the context of the overlapping processes of Soviet construction and national state-building. It conceptualizes this period as a moment of “transnational Kyrgyzstan,” in which movement—of people, ideas, and administrative categories—was central to the making of Soviet Central Asia.
Together, these papers argue that both imperial and Soviet reforms did not eradicate existing social structures but instead reshaped them, producing hybrid forms of governance, mobility, and political practice that persisted across regimes.
Accepted papers
Abstract
The early Soviet transformation of Central Asia is often portrayed as a moment when modern national identities replaced older social structures rooted in tribe and lineage. Yet such narratives risk overstating the rupture produced by Soviet modernization. In early Soviet Kyrgyzstan, the emergence of national institutions did not displace genealogical politics; rather, lineage networks continued to structure political authority, factional alignment, and access to state power. This paper examines the rivalry between the so-called “nationalist” and “socialist” camps among Kyrgyz political elites in the 1920s and argues that their struggle functioned as a ritualized political arena in which lineage hierarchies were renegotiated within Soviet institutions. Drawing on archival documents, secret police reports, and Kyrgyz genealogical records, the paper shows that the two factions reflected different positions within lineage society. The “nationalist” camp drew heavily from established manap (hereditary lineage chieftain) descent lines, whereas the “socialist” faction included more activists from historically subordinate or less entrenched lineage branches. For many of these actors, socialist discourse offered a political language through which internal genealogical competition could be reframed as class struggle. With the creation of the Soviet Kyrgyzstan, lineage rivalries that had previously unfolded at the local level were elevated to the republican scale. Political elites mobilized supporters through genealogical networks that extended across regions, producing factional alignments rooted in lineage constituencies. At the same time, Kyrgyz factional struggles unfolded within a colonial administrative structure dominated by European cadres. Despite their rivalry, leaders of both factions periodically called for unity among Kyrgyz activists to counter European influence within the Soviet apparatus. By examining these dynamics, the paper argues that early Soviet nation-building in Kyrgyzstan proceeded through the transformation rather than the disappearance of lineage politics. The Soviet political arena became a space where genealogy, nationalism, and socialism intersected, producing hybrid political practices that challenge conventional narratives of Soviet modernity in Central Asia.
Abstract
(In Russian) This paper examines the transformation of the Kyrgyz traditional governance institutions during the Russian imperial period. The study analyzes the methods of selecting traditional ruling cohort, such as hereditary lineage chieftains (manaps) and judges (biis), and their interaction with the imperial-era electoral system. Especially, the paper focuses on the impact of the newly introduced electoral procedure on the Kyrgyz tribal structure, as well as to such competitive phenomena as «party division», «vote buying», «kyzyl put» (a household excluded from elections due to non-admission to another volost), and «otoo tutun» (a household temporarily included during elections).
The origin of the manap institution and its role in the political and socio-economic life of Kyrgyz society have been consistently studied in historiography. These studies span the imperial era (Ch. Valikhanov, A. Vyshnegorsky, A. Talyzin, K. Pahlen, B. Soltonoev, O. Sydykov, etc.), the Soviet period (P. Kushner, S. Abramzon, M. Gavrilov, M. Aitbaev, K. Usenbaev, etc.), and the post-independence years (V. Ploskikh, A. Jumanaliev, D. Saparaliev, T. Asanov, R. Joldoshev, etc.). While previous scholarly works focused on the political status of the manap institution and the activities of prominent manaps, this study provides an analysis of the institution’s weakening under internal and external factors, with emphasis on the role of the colonial electoral mechanism in degradation.
The paper supported by new archival documents, historical sources and as well as folkloric materials. As this research demonstrates, the introduction of the imperial electoral mechanism facilitated the deterioration of the traditional manap institution and created conditions for the formation of corrupt mechanisms in local administration. Therefore, during the 1916 Central Asian revolt, the Kyrgyz’s rejection of the colonial electoral model and return to the elections based on the khan tradition can be seen as a response to the crisis of a politically imposed system and an aspiration to regenerate their traditional governance.
Abstract
The period from the late 1920s to the 1930s was a time when the nation-building of the national republics, established after the demarcation of the national republic borders in 1924, progressed substantially under the simultaneous implementation of collectivization and nationalism. This paper aims to clarify the dynamics of nation-building from the perspective of human movement, using Kyrgyzstan during this period as a case study. First, we will examine movement within the republic. Personnel were dispatched to various parts of the republic with the aim of building a Soviet state. Second, we will deal with movement within the Soviet Union. In the process of forced collectivization, many of the former ruling class and the wealthy were exiled outside the republic. Conversely, refugees resulting from collectivization and the resulting famine in neighboring republics such as Kazakhstan also flowed into Kyrgyzstan. Finally, there is the escape from the Soviet Union. There were cases of people attempting to escape persecution associated with collectivization by fleeing to foreign countries, including China. In summary, this paper demonstrates that the construction of national republics, which progressed from the late 1920s to the 1930s, was not a self-contained, closed, and static process within each republic, but rather a dynamic one.