ANALYZING THE ROLE OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS IN INFLUENCING POLICY CHANGE IN POST-COLONIAL UZBEKISTAN

Résumé fourni par la source

Uzbekistan is a country in the post-colonial environment of Central Asia, which has undergone a stage of rigid isolationism before passing to the stage of authoritarian modernization. This article examines how social movements have been changing to affect policy change in this particular geopolitical region. However, the traditional position regarding Central Asian states has been associated with a place where civil society is convulsed, but recent developments have indicated a complex negotiated partnership between the grassroots movements and the state reform. The study uses a case study analysis of the qualitative research, namely, the anti-forced labor campaign in the cotton industry and the emergence of digital environmental activism in 2016. The synthesis of data was done based on the International Labour Organization (ILO) reports, legislative amendments in the Oliy Majlis (Parliament), and the social media sentiment analysis. The results indicate that there are strong relations between international advocacy and domestic policy changes. According to the statistical data, cases of forced labor decreased since the Cotton Campaign, from an estimated 2 million in 2015 to almost zero, which contributed to the removal of the global boycott. In addition, the research finds that about 65 % of the modern urban policy changes (that touched on historical preservation) were instigated by the digital blogging movements as opposed to official politics. The study is concluded, the social movements in the post-colonial Uzbek countries are influential, not directly challenging the political system, but following the economic liberalization priorities of the state. This instrumentalized activism represents one of the main forces of policy change, implying that social movements in the area are becoming key factors of state-based modernization instead of conventional revolutionary power.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.