An Analysis On the Authoritarian Nature of the Turkmenbashy Regime

Öz

The patrimonialistic or sultanic character of the Turkmen regime, as outlined in this research, the Turkmen leader Saparmurat Niyazov’s distinctiveness was determined in a way that also included his country’s social structure. Although the tribal social structure and the communist form of government were identified as the two historical roots of such a regime, this study focused on the Turkmenbashy era in order to narrow the scope of research and analysis. In this regard, the study began by sketching a brief theoretical framework based on Weberian analysis. The discussion then moved on to the “rentier state” and “rentier economy” arguments. The creation of civil society and the nation’s tribal nature were identified as a result of this argument. Finally, the arbitrariness of the interaction between Turkmenbashy and primary institutions was examined. The impact of the leader’s cult of personality was also evaluated in the last part.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Saparmurat Niyazov
• Turkmenistan
• rentier state
• authoritarianism
• patrimonialism

Kaynakça

1. Al-Bassam, K. (1997). The Evolution of Authoritarianism in Turkmenistan. Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratisation. Volume 5, Number 3 (Summer 1997) pp: 386-403.
2. Anderson, L. (1990). “Policy-Making and Theory Building: American Political Science and the Islamic Middle East”, in Hisham Sharabi (ed.), Theory, Politics and The Arab World: Critical Responses. New York: Routledge.
3. Bohr, A. (2003). Independent Turkmenistan from post-communism to sultanism. In Oil, Transition and Security in Central Asia. Edited by Cummings, S. Routledge.
4. Bromley, S. (1994). Rethinking Middle East Politics. Austin: University of Texas Press. Cummings, N, S (2008). Niyazov’s Turkmenistan: a sultanistic regime? www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/events/jointsessions/paperarchive/grenoble/ws2/cummings.pdf
5. Earle, L. (2005). Community development, ‘tradition’ and civil society strengthening in Central Asia. Central Asian Survey. Volume 24(3). pp: 245-260. Routledge.
6. Edgar, A, L. (2004). Tribal Nation. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
7. Geis, P, G. (2004). Between Tribalism and Patrimonialism. In Cenral Asia on Display. Edited by Paleczek, G and Katsching, J. pp. 53-67. Wien: Lit Verlag.
8. International Crisis Group (ICG) Report November 2004. Repression and Regression in Turkmenistan. Asia Report No: 85.

9. Knowlton, M. (2006). Turkmenistan. New York: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark.
10. Kommersant. (2005). Turkmenbashy Declares Democracy. 11.04.2005. In www.kommersant.com
11. Kuru, A. (2002). The Rentier State Model and Central Asian Studies: The Turkmen Case. Alternatives. Volume: 1, Number:1 Spring 2002. pp. 51-71.
12. Oğan, G. (2007). Türkmenbaşı sonrası iktidar mücadelesinde taraflar ve politikalar. Stratejik Analiz. February 2007. pp. 60-67.
13. Radio Liberty. (2000). Turkmen Report: April 8, 2000. Radio Liberty. https://www.rferl.org/a/1347117.html
14. Roy, O. (1999). Kolkhoz and civil society in the independent states of Central Asia. In Civil Society in Central Asia edited by Ruffin M, H and Waugh, D. pp: 109-122. Washington: Washington University Press.
15. Starr, F, S. (1999). Civil Society in Central Asia. In Civil Society in Central Asia edited by Ruffin M, H and Waugh, D. pp: 27-33. Washington: Washington University Press.
16. Weber, M. (2005). Bürokrasi ve Otorite , trans. by H. Bahadır Akın, Ankara: Adres Yayınları.