Paper short abstract:

This paper examines continuities, adaptions and innovations in elite electoral processes in Central Asian states between the Soviet and post-Soviet period.

Paper long abstract:

This paper examines continuities, adaptions and innovations in elite electoral processes in several Central Asian states (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan) between the Soviet and post-Soviet period. We argue that the authoritarian leaders of these states have utilized menus of manipulation developed during Soviet times to manage potentially challenging electoral processes, adapting these menus to changed circumstances, including the new reality of nominally pluralist political landscapes. The continuities highlighted by this analysis, particularly in the means used to manufacture implausibly high turnout figures and overwhelming vote shares for incumbents and ruling parties, illustrate patterns of autocratic governance practice in Central Asia and the continued relevance of Soviet legacies in understanding electoral processes in the region even more than 30 years after the end of the Soviet period.

These “menus of manipulation” are varied, drawing on continuities with Soviet practices but also adapted to present-day realities. The current regimes most resemble the Soviet Union with respect to their management of participation and electoral processes. Despite post-Soviet voters’ supposed choice of candidates, their ability to vote is essentially meaningless in terms of changing the government, though it is meaningful as a means to legitimize the status quo.

We find that the presence of an opposition – if only of the most nominal and ephemeral kind – has also resulted in practical adaptations when it comes to elections. The illusion of an opposition must be sustained in the contemporary period in a way that was unnecessary in Soviet times. Illusionary or weak opposition parties nonetheless still need to be managed. Central Asian regimes do this by manipulating the timing of elections, support bases and the opposition itself. These, we argue, represent new variations on an old theme.