Post-violence regime survival and expansion in Kazakhstan and Tajikistan Erica Marat College of International Security Affairs, National Defense University, Washington, DC, USA ABSTRACT Kazakhstan’s and Tajikistan’s governments were able to successfully strengthen their reach and their capacity to control the population in the wake of deadly violence against regime opponents. Yet the process of deepening authoritarianism was not a straightforward affair. Both countries expanded their coercive capabilities – they upgraded policing in rural areas to improve intelligence gathering on the local population and predict the rise of any anti- government activities. While doing so, however, leaders of both countries sought to frame their actions as an inclusive process that was sensitive to the grievances of the affected populations and the general public. This article adds to the growing body of literature on authoritarian state responses to insurgency by showing how authoritarian regimes create narratives, engage civil society and look for political advantage to expand the coercive apparatus. KEYWORDS Kazakhstan; Tajikistan; violence; mobilization; police; authoritarianism Authoritarian regimes have endured throughout post-Soviet Central Asia. The resilience of Central Asian authoritarian regimes has been attributed to their ability to dominate nation- building discourses (Cummings 2013; Schatz and Maltseva 2012; Kudaibergenova 2016; Lewis 2016), to buy off economic elites (Laruelle 2012; Markowitz 2013) and to design effi- cient security apparatuses to pre-empt mass mobilization (Way and Levitsky 2006). Such measures have created a climate of political loyalty among elites, marginalized opposition forces, and weakened collective dissent among the population. While domestic conditions and authoritarian tactics vary, the leaders of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have managed to remain in power for decades. The literature agrees that, over time, authoritar- ian regimes tend to strengthen, becoming more sophisticated and elaborate, while the autocrats’ efforts to control potential opponents may extend beyond state borders (Lewis 2015). Yet, amid the seeming predictability of authoritarian rule in these states, there have been events that challenged authoritarian control and forced leaders to seek new ways to sustain power. These events are usually provoked by the government’s own responses to grass-roots mobilization, responses that deployed tougher-than-usual means of repres- sion against individuals who might already have – or will now get – broad sympathy from society. In all three states, violent repression took place due to the regime’s incompetence This work was authored as part of the Contributor's official duties as an Employee of the United States Government and is therefore a work of the United States Government. In accordance with 17 USC. 105, no copyright protection is available for such works under US Law. CONTACT Erica Marat Erica.Marat.civ@gc.ndu.edu CENTRAL ASIAN SURVEY, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2016.1246415