EurasiaNet Civil Society - Central Asia: Looking at Language Politics

CIVIL SOCIETY

CENTRAL ASIA: LOOKING AT LANGUAGE POLITICS
Richard Weitz 1/28/08

Political shifts and economic factors are exerting considerable influence over language policies in Central Asia. Some nations, especially Uzbekistan, that just a short time ago were vigorously striving to reduce Russia’s cultural influence, are now experiencing a modest revival in the use of the Russian language, some regional experts say.

The shifting cultural landscape was the subject of panel discussion, titled "Directions in Language Policy and Practices in Central Asia and South Caucasus," held January 22 in Washington, DC. The primary speaker, William Fierman, a Central Asia expert at Indiana University, said language continues to rank among the most sensitive political topics in the region.

Fierman frequently touched on Uzbekistan, Central Asia’s most populous state. For much of the post-Soviet era, Tashkent tried to distance itself from Russia politically and culturally, and by the early 2000s, the country seemed solidly oriented toward the West. But the Andijan events of May 2005 prompted an abrupt geopolitical u-turn back toward Russia.

For much of post-Soviet era, Uzbek language policy was synonymous for de-Russification. Most notably, President Islam Karimov’s administration introduced Latin script to replace Cyrillic. "In Uzbek, even before it shifted to the Latin script, there was the decision for example in many Russian words to get rid of the soft sounds," Fierman said. "So you would see the names of the months written without the soft sounds at the end of the word." These differences were designed to reaffirm a distinct Uzbek ethnic identity by breaking with Soviet and Russian practice, said Fierman, who is the director of the Inner Asian and Uralic National Resource Center at Indiana’s Department of Central Eurasian Studies.

Several factors continue to influence language policies throughout Central Asia and the Caucasus. One of the most important variables, according to Fierman, is "the status of the [titular] language during the late Soviet era." In the Caucasus republics, Georgian, Armenian, and Azerbaijani "were used for virtually all domains," including higher education and public discourse, he noted. But "jump across the Caspian and the situation was quite a bit different," he added.

"There was, for example, in Uzbekistan, a fair amount of higher education [conducted in Uzbek] even in the Soviet era," Fierman continued. "But if you go to Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, the amount of higher education that was in Kazak or Kyrgyz was very little. There were [a] very limited number of subjects, the quality generally was poorer, there were not many textbooks for higher education, and the vocabulary was not as fully developed."

Geopolitics is another major factor. And in the wake of changes in diplomatic orientation, language policies have proven somewhat reversible, "as reflected by the fact that Russian is starting something of a comeback today in Uzbekistan," Fierman said during the panel discussion, which was sponsored by the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at Johns Hopkins University.

The same holds true for Turkmenistan, where Russian is being reintroduced into the curriculum of educational institutions, Fierman said. This policy shift coincides with efforts by Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov to widen Turkmenistan’s economic contacts with the outside world.

The authoritarian nature of the Uzbek and Turkmen regimes enabled the relatively rapid shifts in language policy. In an extreme case, Fierman cited a decision made by Turkmenistan’s former ruler, Saparmurat Niyazov, who in late December 1999 mandated the official introduction of Latin script within a few days. Newspapers published January 2, 2000, duly contained articles in Latin script.

"That kind of thing was possible in Turkmenistan � but [such a sudden shift] would not have been possible in Kyrgyzstan or Kazakhstan," Fierman said.

Economics are also heavily influencing cultural developments -- underscored by the language-policy difference in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. "In terms of language status at the end of the Soviet era � Kyrgyz was in better shape than Kazakh," Fierman explained. But Kazakhstan’s wealth in natural resources has allowed it to move forward rapidly with promoting the Kazakh language, whereas Kyrgyzstan, which lacks natural resources, has faced problems in spreading the use of Kyrgyz. "It’s expensive to print new textbooks, to teach people to learn a new language," said Fierman.

Ultimately, demographics may be the weightiest factor in determining language policy. In Kazakhstan, for example, Russian remains an important language. Yet population trends suggest that its significance will decline over time. "For most purposes, if you only have one language in Kazakhstan, Russian is still your best bet, but it’s changing, and it’s changing substantially," Fierman said.

Editor�s Note: Richard Weitz is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.