1. I still believe, however, that comparisons to Turkmenbashi are apt when:

a. Executive orders or directives in Tajikistan seek to interfere overmuch in private choices, just as they have done in Turkmenistan. This would include laws against gold teeth and forcing name changes upon people (rather than persuasion). Certainly reports suggest that the name change is to be taken as a suggestion, which is one reason I wrote an update post.
b. Executive orders by two different presidents in two different republics are stated similarly and have similar effects (gold teeth, for example).

2. Gold teeth are not really an issue. The issue is the amount that law extends into private choices and private relations. For instance, Rahmon could have TAXED gold teeth with a luxury tax and left his personal opinion out of the law. If Mr. Rahmon continues to issue laws based upon his private opinions, then it becomes difficult for Tajikistan’s citizens make long-term choices, which is bad for human security, business development, and many other sectors of civic life.

3. The laws against gold teeth and big parties appear to be a kind of sumptuary law, where people are enjoined to live more parsimoniously and not flaunt wealth or bankrupt themselves with a show beyond their means. These are not bad ideas–in fact, people in the U.S. for instance, need to stop going into debt for frivolous things– but I am not sure they should be a law. I am guessing that as a law they do not offend you, but they would offend most U.S. citizens.  In the U.S., we would think that government was interfering too much. Instead of obeying excessively personal government edicts, we prefer to bad-mouth our credit card companies as we work to pay off debts for big celebrations, etc. Maybe this is a cultural difference between your country and mine, or a difference of opinion between the two of us as individuals.

4. I agree that big powers have an inflated view of their role. That is part of two theoretical constructs of post-World War II international relations theory in the United States and elsewhere, called Realism or Structural Realism, depending on some nuances. If you look at my post “The West’s Checklist”, you will see that others who study Central Asia as a region and as very different Republics will say the same. I have also read some European theorists who think that Realism by itself is just not “realistic”. I am inclined to agree with the Europeans, and you, and others who think Realism is only part of a working set of assumptions. And actually, Realism also says that neighbors count the most, but we forget that part.

5. Last of all, in your comments you have underscored the importance of the Tajik Civil War in Tajikistan’s development for all of us. I sincerely thank you for that.

Thanks for writing, and all the best,
Bonnie

1. Tajikistan went through a civil war that took the lives of thousands and made thousands homeless. President Rahman was able enough to manage and bring rival factions together, while major powers simply ignored Tajik war, even contributed to it getting enflamed. Turkmenbashi has never seen such a catastrophe. Tajikistan was indeed a failed state which Rahmon could bring to peace, consolidated power and even removed threats of disintegration posed by Russia/Uzbekistan (Khudayberdiyev’s defeat)

2. Democracy and democratic movements started in Tajikistan at the same time as it started in the Baltic and Caucasian former Soviet Republics, much ahead of any other Central Asian country. In fact such movements and traditions have never started in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, even the so-called IMU is a Western havoc rather than real force opposing Karimov’s regime.

3. Rahmon made peace with his rivals, other Central Asian countries brutally suppressed and imprisoned or even eliminated any kind of opposition. Tajikistan is only Central Asian country that has Islamic party, other parties are functioning openly and freely, despite shortcomings. But these shortcomings can be seen even in US or Uk or any other European country. There is no such condition in any other Central Asian country. Even so-called democratic parties and movements in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan are not mature enough and are all formal.

4. Tajikistan was the most marginalised and discriminated republic in Soviet Union, in fact tajiks were outcaste in the USSR and still Russian behaviour towards Tajiks is racist and xenophobic. Tajiks were deprived of their major lands, major centres of civilization, they were forcibly assimilated into other folds, culturally genocided.

6. Tajikistan did not inherit anything from Soviet Union, except the share of its debts. Others gained lots of inheritance.

7. Tajikistan is geographically and geopolitically maginalised, if we had the resources that Turkmen or Uzbeks have, we would be far better developed than many developing countries, even Russia.

8. Tajikistan has no oil and gas like its neighbors, It is in fact isolated by the neighbours, especially Uzbekistan’s inhuman and fascist “beggar-thy-neighbour” policies. The West has never paid attention at Tajikistan considering it a poor and not important, but in fact Tajikistan played major role in defeating taliban which changed the whole geopolitics in the region. The West always kept blind eyes on atrocities of Uzbekistan just because of oil and gas resources, until recently it kicked the batt of yankees out. Tajikistan despite being small and non-important, still will play a role in future of the region, it fairly playing game with India-pakistan, China-Russia, US-Iran. Considering that Tajikistan is the only Persian SECULAR country, it will influence directly on affairs of Afghanistan and Iran, both being religious and antiwestern. Without Tajiks and YTajikistan US indeed fails with its pashtun and pakistani “friends” in Afghanistan.

Finally, in politiocs and geopolitics, not always bigger powers play greater role, look at history how small powers numerously defeated empires. This is what Westerners fail to see and acknowledge.

Bests,
Faramarz