ABSTRACT
Political transition in Central Asia, as in most of the former Soviet republics, has taken a path decidedly unlike that of previous waves of transition in other parts of the world. This path is quite distinct even within the context of the former Soviet republics. As the previous chapters have indicated, political transition in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan was imposed from above, Moscow, as a result of Gorbachev's reforms. The Soviet era ruling elite of newly independent Tajikistan was incapable of maintaining its rule in the early days of independence while, by contrast, the former Communist leader of Uzbekistan has managed to hold on to power and maintain it to the present day. The employment of nationalism by the elite was one of the means of protecting the unity of their nations and countries during the socio-political and economic transition. As we have seen, for the post-Communist elite in Central Asia ‘national unity’ came before the question of democratization. 1 In Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, the primary objectives were dealing with the ethnic and stateness issues. Therefore, the forms of nationalism employed in the newly independent Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are a reflection of political context and the elite's attempts to deal with it. Toft argues that recognizing the different meanings of territory can allow a better understanding of the different behaviors of states, 2 and this is a particularly important approach in the cases of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The employment of nationalism and question of territory is the reflection of elites’ attempts to address the issues these countries faced after the declaration of independence.
