Are Central Asian leaders learning from upheavals in Kyrgyzstan? Paul Kubicek * Department of Political Science, Oakland University, Rochester, MI 48309, USA article info Article history: Received 30 November 2010 Accepted 24 February 2011 Keywords: Central Asia Political reform Regime change Tulip revolution Patronage politics abstract Kyrgyzstan has experienced two violent overthrows of its government in recent years. Some hoped or feared these events would inspire or spark political change elsewhere. This article examines what the relevant lessons of those events are and if other Central Asian leaders, especially those in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, have learned these lessons and made adjustments to preserve their rule. It argues that while many of the lessons from Kyrgyzstan have already been incorporated into policy, the toughest task for rulers in the region is managing patronage politics, something that was done poorly in Kyrgyzstan. Copyright Ó 2011, Asia-Pacific Research Center, Hanyang University. Produced and distributed by Elsevier Limited. All rights reserved. Whereas leadership succession and regime change have been topics debated by observers of post-Soviet Central Asia, both phenomena remain more prospective or hypo- thetical than real. The two largest post-Soviet Central Asian states, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, have seen no leadership change since becoming independent states nearly two decades ago. Tajikistan’s president has retained his post since 1992. ‘Turkmenbashi’, Turkmenistan’s ‘president for life,’ died in office in 2006, but his successor has not fundamentally changed the nature of the country’s repressive political regime. Only Kyrgyzstan, which during the 1990s had the distinction of being the most liberal of the Central Asian states, has seen leadership change: the so-called Tulip Revolution of 2005 that ousted President Askar Akayev and the still-unnamed events of 2010 that forced his successor, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, from office. Whether either of these episodes constitutes fundamental regime change can be debated, but both featured popular mobilization and violence and sent shockwaves throughout the region, as the obvious question was whether the events in Kyrgyzstan could occur elsewhere. Thus far, the answer appears to be no. Whereas lead- ership change à la Turkmenistan will, of course, be inevi- table, the leaders of Central Asian states look, superficially at least, quite secure, safe from ouster by the ballot box, palace coup, outside intervention, or popular mobilization and ‘revolution,’ despite the fact that these states suffer from a variety of economic and social ills and, by some measures, political instability. 1 This paper analyzes what the reaction in the region has been to the upheavals in Kyrgyzstan, specifically assessing if leaders in other countries have learned lessons from Kyrgyzstan and made adjustments in their policies and behaviors. Of course, ascertaining what leaders may or may not have learned is a difficult businessdleaders may not make explicit reference to events that prompt ‘learning,’ and drawing lines of causality from one set of discrete events to another is not easy. At best, one often has to infer * Tel.: þ1 248 370 2363; fax: þ1 248 370 4299. E-mail address: kubicek@oakland.edu. 1 According the World Bank Governance indicators, in 2008 Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan all ranked in the bottom quarter of all countries for political stability. Data available at http://info.worldbank. org/governance/wgi/index.asp. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Eurasian Studies journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/euras 1879-3665/$ – see front matter Copyright Ó 2011, Asia-Pacific Research Center, Hanyang University. Produced and distributed by Elsevier Limited. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.euras.2011.03.002 Journal of Eurasian Studies 2 (2011) 115–124