ABSTRACT
Since gaining independence after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Turkmenistan has been governed by two presidents: Saparmyrat Niyazov, or “Turkmenbashi,” (r. 1986-2006) and Gurbanguly Berdimukhamedov (r. 2006-). Both men emphasized sport and healthy living as foundational in the country’s post-Soviet state-and nation-building. Turkmenbashi mostly emphasized healthy lifestyles rhetorically, through official state speeches; however, he was rarely an active participant himself. He initiated the development of several sporting facilities and complexes in the reconstruction of the capital city, Ashgabat, in the 1990s and early 2000s, including his eponymous Olympic stadium and the “Leader’s Health Path” (Serdaryn Saglyk Ýoly). The latter, a 30-kilometer system of trails on the slopes of Ashgabat’s Köpet Dagi mountains, was where government representatives, public workers, and students were often forced to participate in mass walking exercises, or “ascents” (Šír 2008). In contrast to his predecessor, Turkmenistan’s second president, Berdimukhamedov, promoted sport with more than words and public ceremonies. For him, healthy living and sport were not only foundations of state-and nation-building, but one of the main triumphs of his so-called “Great Renaissance” period. Berdimukhamedov introduced this official designation, essentially demarcating his reign as a special period in Turkmen history (Polese and Horák 2015). In presiding over this “epoch” or era, his slogan, “The health of the nation – the wealth of the homeland!” (Il saglygy – yurt baýlygy!), quickly became the central tenet of the country’s nation-building propaganda. Celebrated today as the founder of sport and physical education reforms in the early 2000s, Berdimukhamedov portrays himself as an example of living a healthy lifestyle. His demonstrative involvement in various sporting activities serves as both a form of self-adulation and the regime’s effort to reinforce his wide-reaching personality cult (on this theme more generally, see Koch, Chapter 7 this volume). And, yet, looking beyond the
rhetoric, we find that public access to sports is actually extremely limited in Turkmenistan: people lack access to proper fields, clubs, coaches, and other basic infrastructure. The neglect of small and less visible projects is symptomatic of the political dynamics in authoritarian regimes, which typically prioritize spectacular events, buildings, and one-man-centered sport (Grix 2008). Nonetheless, according to official state propaganda, the president is personally committed to improving sports infrastructure and the overall health of the country’s citizens. Since coming to power in 2006, Berdimukhamedov has eclipsed his predecessor, Turkmenbashi, by intensifying and expanding the construction of monumental sporting facilities – ostensibly to project Turkmenistan’s modernity, both domestically and internationally. The centerpiece of this effort has been Turkmenistan’s bid for the 2017 Asian Indoor and Martial Art Games (hereafter “Aziada-2017”). Although the government has tried to rally the public around this event and use it to promote national development, it is not targeted at the “masses” in the same way that they have previously been forced to participate in sports-oriented rallies. As this chapter illustrates, the event marks a new form of mass participation in sport in Turkmenistan; the drive for Aziada-2017 has impacted not only the living conditions and organization of daily life, but has also forced the population to participate financially in the event for the first time and on a massive scale. Considering the case of Turkmenistan’s preparations for Aziada-2017, I analyze the connection between sporting events and ceremonies alongside nation-building projects in authoritarian states. While the connection between sport and authoritarianism has a long history, the case of Turkmenistan is exemplary of a personalistic regime, characterized by a strong personality cult around the leader (Kunysz 2012). As this chapter illustrates, this political configuration permeates into the realm of sport insofar as the president’s interests are key determining factors in the country’s sports-related policies. Sporting programs and facilities result primarily from top-down governmental initiatives, which are highly dependent on the personal preferences of the president. In Turkmenistan’s post-Soviet era, developing new sporting facilities has been part of a massive reconstruction of the capital. Defined by spectacular, monumental stadiums, Ashgabat’s new sports infrastructure has been developed primarily for one-time international events. Like many other new buildings around the city, they stand mostly empty. Why, then, has the government invested so much in these stadiums? Apart from their discursive role in nation-building, authoritarian regimes utilize massive construction projects to generate financial profits for the elite (Koch and Valiyev 2015; Müller 2011; Trubina 2014). In Turkmenistan, the president controls the building industry by awarding bids only to family-owned companies or those with strong connections to the regime.
