Central Asia: from dark matter to a dark curtain?

ABSTRACT

This article answers the question of why Central Asia studies has not contributed more fully to the study of comparative politics since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It argues that during the Soviet period, Central Asia remained a dark matter to Western scholars specializing in Sovietology and who lacked access to the region. Although in the 1990s Western academics saw the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’, expecting Central Asia to join the liberal world order, these hopes declined after the 2000s when not only the transition paradigm failed, but also because a consolidated form of authoritarianism closed access to the field. In conclusion, this article offers the most promising fields for the development of the study of comparative politics across and inside Central Asia.

KEYWORDS:

• Central Asia at 30
• Sovietology
• transition
• authoritarianism
• comparative politics

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the editors of the special issue, two anonymous reviewers, and the administration of KIMEP and Near East Universities for support during the writing process. The author is also grateful to the Kurultay Organizing Committee members for inspiring conversations and discussions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 I am not the only one to use cosmic reference for studies of Central Asia during Soviet times. William Fierman equated it to ‘Marsian Studies’ (Fierman 2018), and Jerry Hough called the Soviet Studies ‘astrological’ and also ‘dark’ (Hough 1987).