Securitization of an Imaginary Threat as an Authoritarian Legitimation Instrument: The Cases of Belarus and Uzbekistan. July 2021 GUID: 2458329A DCU ID: 19108281 CU ID: 22199053 Presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the 
 Degree of International Master in Security, Intelligence and Strategic Studies Word Count: 22 451 Supervisor: Donnacha Ó Beacháin Date of Submission: 31.07.2021 Abstract This research explores how the securitization of imaginary and exaggerated threats is used as a legitimation instrument in hegemonic authoritarian regimes. Approaching the task through the cases studies, this thesis will situate the securitization practice within the performance mechanism of authoritarian legitimation and apply it in two hegemonic autocratic regimes - Uzbekistan of Islam Karimov and Belarus of Alexander Lukashenko. This dissertation picks qualitative research design. Methodologically, discourse and content analysis will be used to test the theory that will be developed in this project. The arguments presented in the thesis draw upon the primary sources such as speeches, official statements, and memoirs. The dissertation will also refer to the secondary sources in order to synthesise arguments provided by the existing literature related to the issue in question. This research project...

This thesis explores the reasons behind the stagnation in the transition to democracy in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. According to their constitutions, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are democracies. In actuality, however, there is little evidence to support that these are democratic systems. These states' post-Soviet constitutions outline them as democracies - yet they lack a free press; freedom of association is suppressed; religious freedom is limited; and free speech is constrained as well. While these two countries hold popular elections, much of their electoral processes are under the control of the executive branch of government - calling into question whether or not Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan really hold fair and competitive elections. In sum, in both of these states, democracy is de jure rather than de facto. Why is this so? Why are Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan not the democracies in practice that they are on paper? Many scholars and policy-makers blame the stagnation in these states' democratic transitions on the firm hands used by the countries' presidents to maintain their current power and even to increase it. Other scholars point out that Central Asia has never been democratic and thus does not know how to be so. These scholars refer, in particular, to the region's history as part of the Russian Empire and later, as part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Using frameworks drawn from Dahl's Polyarchy (1971) and Huntington's The Third Wave (1991), this thesis finds that not only are Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan straying from their constitutional democratic starting points, no single factor is to blame for the stagnation in the transitions to democracy in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Rather, it is the combination of multiple factors - both internal and external - that provides the most comprehensive explanation of these states' failure to become full-fledged democracies. Combining the elements of strong dictator-like presidents with a lack of democratic history is but the tip of the iceberg. Internal factors such as political culture and external factors such as the influence of the international community also play major roles in the current state of affairs in these Central Asian states.

The objective of this thesis is to analyze the authoritarian Karimov regime in post-Soviet Uzbekistan on a comprehensive basis and shed light on the domestic and international factors that has shaped this regime. The thesis consists of three main parts. The first part of the study defines the concepts of democracy and authoritarianism and provides the criteria to determine if a regime is democratic or authoritarian. The second part applies the theoretical framework developed in the first part to Uzbekistan. The third part deals with the factors that helped Karimov to strengthen his authoritarian rule in the country. The main argument of this study is that the incumbent leadership in Uzbekistan has failed to take steps to establish democracy in the country in post-Soviet period. The changes that were introduced proved to be only decorative, they lacked substance. The president of the country, Islam Karimov, has aimed at consolidating his own authority rather than establishing democracy and that his attempts to realize this aim resulted in the strengthening of executive branch in Uzbekistan at the expense of legislative and judiciary, silencing of the opposition forces, curtailment of the civil and political rights of the citizens, restriction of autonomy of civil society organizations and media.

This diploma thesis deals with the creation of Uzbekistan's foreign policy. It attempts to answer three main research questions: What were the chief goals of Tashkent's foreign policy? What were the factors that influenced the creation of Uzbekistan's foreign policy? Which factors and causes played the decisive role in the case of Uzbekistan's most significant foreign policy turnovers in 2001, 2005 and 2012? It claims the principal aims of Uzbekistan's foreign policy were threefold. Firstly, it was the preservation of Uzbekistan's independence. Secondly, it was the strengthening and securing of Karimov's regime. Finally, it was the attempt to become the regional leader in Central Asia. Subsequently, the study maintains that the foreign policy formulation was altered by four processes or challenges which the regime in Tashkent had to cope with. These were namely the challenge of geopolitical position, establishing of a viable political system, transforming the command economy, and the threat of radical or political Islam. Uzbekistan's pendulum diplomacy between the US and Russia is a new term coined for the purposes of this study. I argue that Tashkent was prone to change abruptly its strategic partner in order to secure its three strategic imperatives. Hence, there occurred three turnovers of...

No description available.

No description available.