Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Politics and Geopolitics / Great Arab Revolution / Articles
Uzbekistan - the lessons of the Arab revolutions
Material posted: Publication date: 30-06-2011

What is the cause of the "Arab revolutions" in the opinion of experts and political scientists of CIS and foreign countries, and Arab countries? What is the point of view of the author of this article about and what its recommendations are able to avoid something similar in Uzbekistan and other Central Asian countries in the near and long term?

Preface. The newly created reactionary organization called the "Popular Movement of Uzbekistan" (NDU), as I wrote in my previous articles, was created on 23-24 may 2011 in Berlin. Created by a number of opposition Uzbek immigrants (40-50 people) under the impression of the Arab "revolutions" that occur since the beginning of this year in the middle East and North Africa. So that the NDU, which is established as "delegates" never delegated to the Uzbek people, but assigning a name in the name of his reactionary organization, has set itself not only the goal of implementation in our country of the "revolution" like the Arab. But also announced that the implementation of such a "revolution" too will use the same methods, ways and means, as in the Arab countries. Namely: the information war by using the most advanced Internet technology through social networks such as "Facebook" and "Twitter", as well as over a cellular network; the money of Western sponsors and the unrest that they are these ways and methods are going to organize.

For this reason, before to analyze and to prove the failure of ideological dogma (from the Greek. dogma – a doctrine) "mastermind" and "leader" of this reactionary organization "Muhammad Solih" set out in his speech at the founding Congress of the NDU decided to concentrate on questions regarding the "Arab revolutions". Analyze what you read in the media, including the Internet, about the causes of the "Arab revolutions". To share with readers my hypothesis about this, and also, most importantly, their own idea of the way to avoid in the modern world, including in Uzbekistan, such revolutions.

1. What is the cause of Arab "revolutions"? The answer to this question cannot be unambiguous. Because among experts there is still no single opinion on this issue. For example, E. Primakov believes that: "For the American political elite events in Egypt were a shock -- the impact of modernization factors on Arab youth was underrated – the organization who brought people to the protests in Egypt, was established in the Internet. As for Saudi Arabia, I don't think there will ignite similar events, he said. Is there a device state otherwise, a rich country. In addition, king has gone on a unprecedented action has given money to the people. The vast majority of Saudis are well equipped" [1].

According to journalists of the edition "New York Times", the ideological father of modern Arab revolutions could be 83-year-old political scientist from Boston's gene sharp, for many years already studied the issue of non-violent resistance of authoritarian regimes [2].

According to analyst Boris Kagarlitsky, the experts today are not able to correctly identify the causes of the Arab revolutions, because there is something completely new, something that does not fit into the usual explanatory scheme. But the main reason for popular discontent, in his view, related to the effects of the crisis and the ineffectiveness of the neoliberal economy. The Egyptians, Tunisians and Libyans, despite the differences of these economies, needs – to improve social conditions. And B. Kagarlitsky argues that "the proletariat and propraetorian out onto the street, because the plebs want to become a demos, that is, to participate in political decision-making" [3].

According to political scientist J. Shklovsky events "are global and can affect any country, primarily the Eurasian continent. They must closely monitor Afghanistan and Pakistan, a Muslim extremist organization seeking to expand its influence throughout the Arab world and China, increasingly opposing the U.S. influence in the region and seeking to make a zone of its interests of oil-producing regions and Central Asia. But in the events absolutely no part of the Islamic political organizations, including the Muslim brotherhood, Hizbullah, Hamas, "Hizb ut-Tahrir". But in all these protests is a clear splanirovano, the use of virtually all new technologies of information warfare, especially disinformation. The use of disinformation takes place with extraordinary ease, that even the highest officials of States in order to facilitate explanation of their actions deliberately distort the situation. That is, for example, only one phrase of the President of the United States: "In the past we have seen Gaddafi hanged people, and killed a thousand men in one day", in his address to the nation on the events in Libya. Who can confirm this statement?" [4].

Very interesting analysis was made by the political scientist V. Polosin. In his article [5] with reference to "PuppetWorld" says that "the current Arab "revolutions" are perpetrated under the pretext of establishing democracy and the overthrow of despots, but their real aim is to initially create chaos and a vacuum of leadership in order to offer an emergency solution: to make a puppet that will obey the Rothschilds. "The Rothschilds want Muslims have moved from the political oppression of brutal dictators to economic slavery under the control of banker Lord Rothschild... Citizens have the freedom of speech and Association, but become economic slaves.

All these "revolutions", most likely..., coordinated at the highest levels of the International crisis group (International Crisis Group) Rothschild. Mohammed ElBaradei, who is being touted as the new leader of Egypt, is a Trustee of the International crisis group. Another member of its Board of Directors is the notorious Zbigniew Brzezinski. Another very well known Mr George Soros sits on the Executive Committee.

In 2007-2008, the Soros-funded organization Freedom House launched the program "New generation lawyers". The program, funded by middle East partnership, was designed to support young civil society activists working for peaceful political change in the middle East and North Africa. In Tunisia, the campaign was headed by "Lawyers against corruption". As reported the website of Freedom House, a group of "journalists, lawyers and other activists advocating for democratic reform," met with then-Secretary of state Condoleezza rice within her trip to Washington on International human rights day, 10 December 2008

In may of 2009 with a group of activists and dissidents have already met the new Secretary of state – Hillary Clinton. Freedom House reported on its website that the group also visited the "state of U.S. officials, members of Congress, media and think tanks... On his return to Egypt the children received small grants to implement cutting-edge initiatives, such as advocacy of political reform through social networks Facebook and SMS-mailings". And in 2010, the Institute "open society" Soros funded grant, titled "Possible thanks to "Twitter" to find the path to democracy? The prospect of mediocirty in Africa". Recall that Facebook and Twitter have become major means of organizing the revolution in Egypt.

Thus, we obtain the following "oil painting": "the national endowment for democracy" and George Soros has invested millions of dollars in the preparation of North African teachers, lawyers, journalists and young activists. With 2009, i.e. a year before the current turmoil, they are more than 2 times stepped up their training program.

In fact, these young people in exchange for grants and the prospect of a career said, sit in their countries and wait until "h-Hour". When it came, came from Soros disposal: guys, go out in the streets and take the power. They came out, and in two countries already have. There they will form the basis of the new administration, being de facto agents of influence of the Rothschild clan" [5].
However, according to the expert from Palestine Nayef, Hawatme [6]: "Every Arab country where protests have, has its own peculiarities, but all of these movements the main requirements are the establishment of a secular democratic state, a civil society based on social justice".

N. Haveto disagree with those who believe that the events in the Arab world is the U.S. administration. It is, as he claims, the result of "systemic crisis in the Arab countries – political, economic, social, ideological... it was not sudden, but developed over recent decades".

The cause of all this, he said, is "the poverty of a considerable part of the population in Arab countries, lack of work, and with it the hopes for the future among young people, social injustice, was not noticed or was driven in."
And this politician alleges that: "the Requirement to solve the existing problems come from young people, who, especially in Egypt, using social networks like Facebook and Twitter to postpone a desire for changes from the virtual world into the real world and bring the masses of the people" [6].

But the main conclusion, which made me put forward his own hypothesis about the causes of the "Arab revolutions" and the idea of prevention in the countries of Central Asia, including Uzbekistan, such a revolution, is the following statement from the article Vladimir Polosin, which States: "the Arab "revolutions" are on the same circuit as, to a certain extent, non-violent "color revolutions". They have successfully passed the Georgian "rose revolution" of 2003, the Ukrainian "orange revolution" in 2004, "revolution of cedars" in Lebanon, "the Tulip revolution" in Kyrgyzstan in March 2005, as well as the "Jasmine revolution" in Tunisia. The Iranian "green revolution" in 2009 was a failure" [5].

For I based on the analysis of causes, consequences and prospects, various revolutions in the world, including the February and October revolutions of 1917 in the Russian Empire; the "color revolutions" in the CIS countries, as well as the two revolutions in Kyrgyzstan, has long come to the conclusion that the Republican form of government in many countries of the world and especially in our conditions, has not justified itself [7].

Ask these questions: what massive economic challenge facing the countries of Central Asia? And is able to solve this problem a new Republican government of Kyrgyzstan and the current authorities of other countries in the region? — that's what I responded to them in his article: "What is the more efficient form of government in Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia: Republic or monarchy?": Now in Kyrgyzstan has a population of about 5.5 million people. By the end of 2008, i.e. before the global financial crisis made the country's gross domestic product (GDP) reached to 10.38 billion dollars. USA and was per capita approximately 1935 dollars. USA. This allowed him to take in the world ranking in terms of life 110-th place. To ensure a decent life for the Kyrgyz people, comparable with other developed countries, the GDP per capita of this country should not 1935 dollars, and the amount 15 times higher, i.e. about 30 thousand dollars. USA. And for this, the annual GDP of Kyrgyzstan should be not to 10.38 billion, and at least 165 billion dollars. USA (excluding population growth).

So before Kyrgyzstan as well as other countries in the region, after acquiring their independence faces a daunting economic challenge, requiring: catch up and overtake the developed countries of the world, but not like in Soviet times – by gross indicators of public production and on the level and quality of life of their populations. But we can say that with this task the authorities Republican authorities of all post-Soviet countries, including Kyrgyzstan, still failed. The explanation is obvious: production and technical potential, which went to our countries from the Soviet past, was not only retarded, but also seriously worn requiring deep modernization or complete replacement, which means virtually no. Attracting foreign loans, capital and investment required and requires a lot of effort, time and, most importantly, no revolutions and coups, and stability, which is not always enough in the heat of a pseudo-democratic games...

Thus, there is a very serious question: are you able to manage this task for one elected term of his reign, say, in 5 years, the newly elected Republican organs of state power – Parliament, President and government of Kyrgyzstan or any other country in Central Asia?

I as an economist, devoted to the study of Western economic science and world experience of macroeconomic regulation not only his doctoral dissertation (1994), but other work published in subsequent years, this question can be answered thus: with such a great economic task, not only of the newly elected state authorities of Kyrgyzstan, but the authorities of any other country in Central Asia and the CIS, where there is a Republican form of government. Not only for one 5-year term, but even 10 such terms, even if we assume that the annual GDP growth rate of these countries will be very high and will amount to not less than 10%. That's why I in one of his works [8] back in 2006 wrote: "Some economists say Russia, for example, the poor level of living of the population of the EU – Portugal – can catch up for some 47 years, and more backward countries of the CIS is on average 150-200 years. But they, when talking about such issues, to put it mildly, or disingenuous, or mistaken in calculations. Because, first, these terms are not small, and secondly: for 150-200 years their standard of living can be for some of the CIS countries in General unattainable, as is the case now, for example, between us and primitive people, still living, say, in Africa. Since that time, developed countries will not sit idly by, waiting for them to catch up.

The average GDP growth rate that has taken shape in the CIS countries, largely typical for industrialized countries. So apparently and the implication that positivity of socio-economic development in some countries of the CIS. However, figuratively speaking, is still no absolute understanding of the fact that between one-step economic midget and a step of economic Gulliver is a huge difference between the scale of measurement is not the same.

It means the CIS countries to become economic Gullivers, you need to develop in this way and not at the pace of GDP growth, which have emerged in recent years, but much higher, measured in times or hundreds and thousands percent."

...How to solve the problem? So how can you solve the major economic challenge that requires our countries to catch up and overtake developed countries in terms of level and quality of life of their populations? To this question I can answer as follows: on the basis of the development of the strategic Project of the industrialization or modernization of the economy and all aspects of life in our countries, which should be designed not for 5-10 years, and longer-term – 25-30 years. And, maybe for the longer term, say, 40-50 years. Moreover, such a Project should provide legal mechanisms for its implementation, do not allow any shocks, i.e. coups and revolutions like the one that twice took place in Kyrgyzstan.

And what may be associated legal mechanisms of provision of stability during the implementation period of this Project?
In my opinion, with the form of government, namely: the replacement of the Republican form of government to the monarchical form of government, that can provide national leader life-long leadership of the country in which it is possible to realize any long-term economic Projects, including those that may be initially unpopular. This will ensure the continuity of power without shocks, as is the case in developed countries, such as Australia, Britain, Denmark, Norway, Canada, Luxembourg, etc.

Why to a monarchical form of government I propose to move to Kyrgyzstan and other Central Asian countries?

First, because the Republican form of government is not justified. It gives a misfire is not the first time not only in Kyrgyzstan but also in many other countries. And in order to verify the correctness of this point of view, it is possible to apply not only to the experience of the CIS countries, but also countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Cambodia, Lebanon, Palestine, Somalia, etc.

Secondly, we can recall the experience of Russia. For example, during the so-called February (bourgeois) revolution of 1917 in Russia was overthrown the tsarist monarchy of the Romanovs. And 1 (14) September 1917, the Provisional government declared Russia a Republic. But this Republic was overthrown on 27 October (7 November) 1917, the Bolsheviks. Then the ruins of the tsarist Empire were created four type socialist Republic, which in 1922 was incorporated into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), which was subsequently increased to 15 Union republics, which included countries in Central Asia. But this is not the strongest in the world the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics broke up in 1991, having appeared on a roadside of world development. And this Empire emerged 15 independent States, but again with a Republican form of government.

The first misfire this former Soviet Republican form of government gave to Russia that could be observed on the example of the Chechen war. Another negative example was observed and is still observed on the background of the Armenian-Azerbaijani, Georgian and Moldovan conflicts. Finally, two color "revolutions" in Kyrgyzstan, which ousted regimes with a Republican form of government.
All of this suggests only one conclusion: the Republican form of government to the countries of Central Asia and other CIS countries is not suitable. As an alternative to the Republican form of government is merely monarchical form of government.

So, as in Kyrgyzstan and in other countries of Central Asia and CIS, you must install the monarchical form of government is Republican form of government, but not revolutionary, but evolutionary. Only then, perhaps, can be called a revolt, rebellion or the seizure of power by the opposition is something like a real revolution that allowed to change in the Kyrgyz Republic form of government...

However, the reader may encounter questions such as: does the monarch need not be of Royal (Tsar, Emperor, Shah, Sultan, Khan, etc.) of a dynasty? Where do we find such worthy people, from among which to choose the most worthy?

To answer these questions, you should first contact the theory of the monarchy, from where you can see that the monarchy from the point of view of the monarchists is the principle of the Supreme Authority, which is based on the performance of the monarch to the will of God. The monarch is to the monarchist – it is primarily a moral authority, not legal. Accordingly, the monarchy is considered a "godly" form of government, while a Republic is "an invention of the devil" [...].

Now in search of an answer to the question: where will we find people of Royal blood or dynasties? – you should turn to the Scriptures and, primarily, to the Bible [...]. From there, you can see that all the people on our Earth are descended from the same ancestors – from Adam and eve. And the kings, kings, etc. were originally the prophets – the heads of the families of Adam kind, i.e. again our first parents. So we can conclude that in the veins of any man of our planet flowing noble blood. The blood of our kings, kings, shahs, sultans, khans, etc. who were our ancestors".

And the last statement gives grounds to say that any citizen of the state has the right to apply for the post of monarch in the transition from a Republican form of government to the monarchical form.

That is why, having learnt that the Parliament of Kazakhstan gave the country's President Nursultan Nazarbayev the status of leader of the nation, which is close to the powers of the monarch I in his article "What is more effective for the head of state: the status of the nation's leader or to be a monarch" [8], in its paragraph 5 wrote the following.

"As published in the media, the Parliament of Kazakhstan, in my opinion, gave now the First President of the Republic of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev, under the guise of the status of "leader of nation" – all the powers of the Monarch. But without the right of inheritance of the crown. However, the deputies of the Parliament of Kazakhstan dissemble or be shy to admit this fact, calling the monarchical status that belongs to N. Nazarbayev the status of "leader of nation". So I agree with the opposition of Kazakhstan, calling on the President of the Republic to reject the initiative of deputies of the Parliament about giving him status of "leader of nation". And on the question of veto on the laws relevant to this status. But, in contrast, urge the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan to do all this with the sole purpose. The purpose of the proper execution of the adopted constitutional laws to include provisions for the replacement of the Republican form of government to the monarchical form of government" [8].

Further, in this same paragraph of his article about Uzbekistan, I wrote the following: As for the Republic of Uzbekistan, in it, as I am convinced, change the form of government will not cause serious disagreements in society. Because, if many ordinary people have long been considered the leader of the nation of Islam Karimov – the monarch. The Uzbek text of our Constitution since 1992 contains the term or the word "fukuro", which is translated in Russian language corresponds to the term "citizen", which is one of the key terms of the Republican form of the state rule, but the word or the term "native". And this term, as it is known, is one of the key terms of the monarchical form of government of classical type, both in the West and the East. Which by the way contains, and even the Uzbek text of a draft alternative Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan, which is published on the website of the connoisseurs of Uzbek literature and poetry, which has the name "Democratic party "Erk", Uzbekistan" [...]. And by the way have published a number of emotional articles and comments of my "opponents" regarding articles [...], including a "R. Abdullayev Answer" [ ... ] devoted to analyzing the article "What form of government is more effective for Central Asia: Republic or monarchy" [...].

So that the Uzbek parliamentarians in this regard will be much easier. Because they will probably be sufficient to correct the text of the Constitution of Uzbekistan in Russian and out of both her texts all the words and concepts associated with the notion of a Republican form of government. And to add to the article, which referred to the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the amendments concerning the new title as head of state and the authority of the monarch, his rights and obligations and issues regarding the transfer of the crown in new monarchical dynasty hidden. And in this matter the deputies of the Parliament (Oliy Majlis) of Uzbekistan as a model would, in my opinion, to use the text of the Constitution such industrial developed monarchical state, as the Kingdom of Spain [8].

Thus, we can conclude that the main cause of the "Arab revolutions" is a systemic crisis, which is associated with the unsuitability of the Republican form of government for Arab countries. But the validity of this conclusion may prove not only the fact that the States of the Arab world where a monarchical form of government successfully opposed these revolutions. But the fact that the heads of such States as Tunisia and Yemen, where such "revolution" had been done, found refuge in the most famous monarchical state of the Arab world – in Saudi Arabia. In these monarchic States, such as Jordan and Bahrain, the unrest did not find its continuation, i.e. not outgrown in revolution and were limited to demands to change the governments of those countries, the election of a new Parliament, etc.

So that some Arabs don't want to reach his bright future on state machines, which are not suitable and not able to bring them to the goal, worthy for their ways. Another cause of this crisis lies in the wrong interpretation by ideologues and perpetrators of these revolutions the concept of the equality of citizens of the Republic. This is manifested in the fact, as their hatred of the heads of state and members of their families in countries with a Republican form of government, under the pretext that they occupy their positions for too long, they live and their families better than they are ordinary citizens.
Whereas in monarchical States, in which the heads of state hold office for life, and members of their families (and their clans) have certain privileges — citizens of such countries adore them. A vivid example of this fact can serve as one of the great monarchical States of the world like UK, where Queen Elizabeth II, which the present age of 85 years, took his post in the last 55 years. And almost none of the subjects of this Kingdom or its Royal family members for that not condemned. And the Queen's birthday UK celebrated not only twice a year, but as a public holiday.

Moreover the marriage of the grandson of Queen Elizabeth II – Prince William with Kate Middleton is the world of the show or the story, demonstrated by the TV channels of many countries, with admiration watched more than 2 billion people of our planet. And their wedding day on 29 April 2011 was also declared a public holiday in the UK. At the time, both on children, and on all the heads of state of those countries which have a Republican form of government, not only the opposition but also ordinary citizens of these countries, in many cases, looking with contempt. Jealous of black envy their way of life, declaring that they have no right to live better than they are – equal citizens of these republics. Even if the children of the heads of States of such countries worthy for this life and has earned that right with their talent, hardworking, service to their Homeland much better than its ordinary citizens, and many other positive qualities.

This happens now in all the Arab countries with the Republican form of government, such as Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya and even Syria, in which the "revolutionaries" demand the ouster of the heads of these countries with the Republican form of government. In Tunisia, Egypt and partially in Yemen, they have already achieved. And in Libya to do with Muammar Gaddafi – the leader of this country, decided to help "revolutionaries" NATO countries, carrying out bombing this country under the pretext of protecting the Libyan people from its "atrocities". And using now and the Hague Tribunal, which issued orders for the arrest of this politician and his son.

And legal and illegal opposition movement, the Central Asian countries, especially Uzbekistan want to be very similar to their counterparts from the Arab countries of the Middle East and North Africa. Therefore, they put forward similar slogans in their political statements, as I wrote in my article "the Fallacy of the economic dogmas of the Uzbek opposition" [9].

But it seems to me that this was my idea very much "the leader" NDU "Muhammad Salih". Since it was already "prepared" to change my proposed fora of government. So, as he not only lives in a monarchical state such as Norway, but also contributed to the biography are absent in the Soviet period and in the first years of Uzbekistan's independence, serious change. Namely, if he comes from a noble blood – of the dynasty of Khorezm Uzbek beks or that, for example, in tsarist Russia would be consistent with the title of, say, a nobleman or count. He truly clownish antics...

2. And what will happen next in the Middle East and North Africa, after these "Arab revolutions"?

The preliminary answers to this question can be found in the findings of Mohamed ElBaradei, former Head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and a possible candidate for President of Egypt. Now, what about the "revolution" in Egypt he stated: "right now we have disintegration on the social level.

In fact, it seems that after the revolution, Egypt is on the verge of collapse. From the earliest days hottest events on Tahrirchi square Salafists killing Christians. The Church destroyed. Prisons are mass shoots the bandits. The Muslim brotherhood is puffed up from the arrogance. We hear requests to prosecute and punish former President Hosni Mubarak (Hosni Mubarak). People do not feel safe. People buy guns" [10].

3. Conclusion.

In my opinion, to ensure prosperous life for the population, peace and stability in the post-Soviet republics in the long term, these countries of the CIS, including Central Asia, should develop and implement their own Strategic Projects of Industrialization or building of an Industrial society that must be designed for the long term. At least 25-30 years or for the longer term, say, 40-50 years. Moreover, such a Project should provide legal mechanisms for its implementation, do not allow any shocks, i.e. coups and revolutions like those that happened twice in Kyrgyzstan and take place in early 2011 in the Arab countries of the Middle East and North Africa. And so the legal mechanism for implementation of the above Strategic Projects may be only the transition from a Republican form of government to the monarchical form of government through the Constitution submitted for national discussion in accordance with applicable law.

I believe that Uzbekistan has every reason, opportunity and ability to lead by example in such a radical upheaval of the form of government among the countries of Central Asia through the holding of a National Referendum. But the ballots of the referendum will reflect, in my opinion, the following three main questions:

  1. Do you agree with the transition from a Republican form of government to the monarchical form of government?
  2. Do you approve of the draft of the new Constitution of Uzbekistan, which provides for a monarchical form of government?
  3. Do you agree to post the first Chapter of the monarchist States of Uzbekistan was taken by acting President of the Republic?
    It seems that if such a referendum will be held under the supervision of representatives of other countries and international organizations, it will give more legitimacy to the results and carried out the evolutionary process of changing the form of government in Uzbekistan. For I am sure that Uzbekistan has such a thorough reform of state government will be able to get the support of more than 80% of its population.

1. Primakov: Arab regimes and corruption is ruining the Internet / Wealthy countries revolution is not threatened.
2. American "father" of the Arab revolutions (
3. The Arab revolution and the lessons for Russia (
4. Shklovsky. the Main hypotheses of the causes of the Arab revolutions (
5. V. Polosin, the Rothschilds against Arab rulers. The causes and mechanism of revolutions in Arabic
countries (
6. Palestinian experts called the cause of Arab revolutions
7. Abdullayev R. What is the more efficient form of government in Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia: Republic or monarchy?
8. Abdullayev R. What is more effective for the head of state: the status of the nation's leader or to be a monarch?
9. Abdullayev R. the Fallacy of the economic dogmas of the Uzbek opposition (
10. Patrick J. Democratic Dawn — or Darkness? (Arab democratic dawn – or night?)


Rustamjon Abdullayev


RELATED MATERIALS: Politics and Geopolitics
Возрастное ограничение