On Peculiarities of the Foreign Policy of Personalist Regimes (Example of Turkmenistan)
https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2021-12-2-153-169
Abstract
The foreign policy of states is often viewed through the prism of the geopolitical, geostrategic or geoeconomic determinants. It is forgotten that in addition to these factors, foreign policy also has a strong human, or personal, factor. This factor is especially evident in authoritarian regimes of the personalist type, in which decisions, including on foreign policy issues, are made by the leader or a narrow stratum of the elite alone. In this case, the personal factor and personal interests of the leader are not limited to other regulators (institutions, elections, etc.). A foreign policy centered on the interests of the first person in this case may differ significantly from what one would assume when analyzing state policy and the national interests of the country. Since power in Turkmenistan is in the nature of a personalist regime, the article attempts to explore, within the framework of the available (very limited) information, the foreign policy of this country from the perspective of the personal interests of the head of state and the Turkmen elite rather than those of the state. In addition to the theoretical framework of the study and a brief personal profile of both presidents, the article also provides examples relating to the two main factors of interest to the leader of the nation and his elite - economic profit and regime security. Comparing the regimes of the first and second president in foreign policy also demonstrates the continuity of the political culture and system in the country. The study shows that the Turkmen regime combines all features of the theoretical conceptions of personalist foreign policy if we look at them as an interrelated complex. The personal characteristic of the president, his almost unshakable position in decision-making, as well as the interests of his entourage, including his family, play a key role in it. On the other hand, the singularity of decision-making makes it easier for those foreign players who have the necessary information about the country’s leader and know how to lead him to the decision they want without regard to other interest groups or institutions in the country.
Supporting agencies: This research was supported by a Marie Curie Research and Innovation Staff Exchange scheme within the H2020 Programme (grant acronym: Central Asian Law, no. 870647).
About the Author
S. Horák
Charles University
Czech Republic
Competing Interests:
Czech Republic
Slavomír Horák, Reseach Fellow, Department of Russian and East European Studies, Institute of International Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences
Pekařská 10, Prague 5, Czech Republic, 15800
Competing Interests:
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
References
1. Alekseyeva, Tatiana A. and Andrey Kazantsev. Vneshnepoliticheskii process. Sravnitel’nyi analiz. Moskva: Aspekt Press, 2012 [In Russian].
2. Borisov, Nikolay A. “Institucionalizaciya personalizma: institut lidera nacii na postsovetskom prostranstve.” Central Asian and the Caucasus 20, no. 2 (2017): 69–82 [In Russian].
3. “It's A Gas. Funny Business in the Turkmen – Ukraine Gas Trade.” Global Witness, 2006. https://cdn2.globalwitness.org/archive/files/import/missing%20docs/its_a_gas_russian_translation2.pdf [In Russian].
4. Gafarly, Mehman. “Naslednik ‘Otca vsekh turkmen’.” Russian and Muslim World, no. 9 (2006): 144–145 [In Russian].
5. Horak, Slavomir. “Portret prezidenta Turkmenbashi kak osnova turkmenskogo rezhima.” The Eurasian bulletin – Acta Eurasia, no. 2 (2007): 139–165 [In Russian].
6. Grozin, Andrey V. “Pod turkmenskim kovrom. Elity Turkmenistana i ‘gazovaya geopolitika’.” Post-Soviet continent, no. 1 (2014): 37–57 [In Russian].
7. Zaznaev, O. I., and V.V. Sidorov. “Presidential Systems In the Post-Soviet Space. Is Juan Linz’s Hypothesis Correct?” RSUH/RGGU Bulletin. Series Political Sciences. History. International Relations 4, no. 4 (2018): 24–35 [In Russian]. https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6339-2018-4-24-35.
8. Kadyrov, Shokhrat H. Natsiya plemen. Etnicheskie istoki, transformatsiya i perspektivy gosudarstvennosti v Turkmenistane. Moscow: The Center of Civilization and Regional Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2003 [In Russian].
9. Kadyrov, Shokhrat H. Elitnye klany. Shtrikhi k portretam. Moscow, MMIX, 2009 [In Russian].
10. Kuliyev, Avdy O. 2 goda v pravitel’stve. 13 let v oppozitsii. Moscow, 2006 [In Russian].
11. “The Personal Pocket Of The President (Berdymuhamedov): The Oil, Gas And Law.” Crude Accountability, 2011. [In Russian]. https://ru.crudeaccountability.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/private_pocket_ru.pdf (дата обращения: 2.05.2020).
12. Ryblov, Vladimir V. Turkmenskaya tragediia. Moscow: Fond “Turkmenistan”, 2003 [In Russian].
13. Shir Ian. “ Rossiyskiy vector vneshney politiki Turkmenistana.” Central Asia and the Caucasus, no. 9 (2006): 158–168 [In Russian].
14. Shkel, Stanislav N. “Tipologiya postsovetskikh politicheskikh rezhimov: sintez elektroral’nogo i neopatrimonial’nogo podchodov.” Gramota, no. 2 (2014): 210–217 [In Russian].
15. Allison, Graham, and Philip Zelikow. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: Longman, 1999.
16. Allison, Graham T. “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis.” The American Political Science Review 63, no. 3 (1969): 689–718. https://doi.org/10.2307/1954423.
17. Allison, Graham T. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: Little Brown, 1971.
18. Anceschi, Luca. “After Personalism: Rethinking Power Transfers in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 51, no. 4 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2020.1772853.
19. Anceschi, Luca. “Turkmenistan and the Virtual Politics of Eurasian Energy: the Case of the TAPI Pipeline Project.” Central Asian Survey 36, no. 4 (2017): 409–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2017.1391747.
20. Anceschi, Luca. “Integrating Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Making: the Cases of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.” Central Asian Survey 29, no. 2 (2010a): 143– 158. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2010.498231.
21. Anceschi, Luca. Turkmenistan’s Foreign Policy: Positive Neutrality and the Consolidation of the Turkmen Regime. London: Routledge, 2009.
22. Atai, Farhad, and Hamdreza Azizi. “The Energy Factor in Iran–Turkmenistan Relations.” Iranian Studies 45, no. 6 (2012): 745–758. https://doi.org/10.1080/00210862.2012.726877.
23. Bendor, Jonathan, and Thomas H. Hammond. “Rethinking Allison’s Models.” American Political Science Review 86, no. 2 (1992): 301–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/1964222.
24. Bohr, Annette. “Independent Turkmenistan: From Post-Communism to Sultanism.” In Oil, Transition and Security in Central Asia, edited by Sally Cummings, 7–24. London – New York: Routledge, 2004.
25. Chehabi, Houchang E., and Juan J. Linz, eds. Sultanistic Regimes. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.
26. Denison, Michael John. Why Do Sultanistic Regimes Arise And Persist? A Study of Government In The Republic of Turkmenistan, 1992–2006. Diss. University of Leeds, 2006.
27. Geddes, Barbara, Joseph Wright, and Erica Frantz. “Autocratic Break-down and Regime Transitions: A New Data Set.” Perspectives on Politics 12, No. 2 (2014): 313–31. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43279909.
28. Geddes, Barbara. “What Do We Know About Democratization After Twenty Years”. Annual Review of Political Sciences 2 (1999): 115–144. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.115.
29. Geiss, Paul Georg. “Changing Political Systems and Regime Types in between the Neopatrimonial and the Bureaucratic-Developmental State in Central Asia.” In Presidents, Oligarchs and Bureaucrats: Forms of Rule in the Post-Soviet Space, edited by Susan Stewart, Margarete Klein, Andrea Schmity and Hans-Henning Schröder, 187–202. London and New York: Routledge, 2012.
30. George, Alexander L. The “Operational Code”: A Neglected Approach to the Study of Political Leaders and Decision-making. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 1967.
31. Hadenius, Axel and Teorell, Jan. “Pathways from Authoritarianism.” Journal of Democracy 18, no. 1 (2007): 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2007.0009.
32. Hermann, Margaret G. “Effects of Personal Characteristics of Political Leaders on Foreign Policy.” In Why Nation Acts: Theoretical Perspectives for Comparative Foreign Policy Studies? edited by Maurice A. East, Barbara G. Salmore and Charles F. Hermann, 49–68. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publication, 1978.
33. Hess, Steve. Authoritarian Landscapes. Boston: Springer, 2013.
34. Horák, Slavomír, and Jan Šír. “Turkmenistan’s Afghan Border Conundrum.” In The Regional Security Puzzle Around Afghanistan: Bordering Practices In Central Asia And Beyond, edited by Helena Rytövuori-Apunen, 107–129. Opladen: B.Budrich, 2016.
35. Horák, Slavomír, and Jan Šír. Dismantling Totalitarianism? Turkmenistan Under Berdimuhamedow. Stockholm – Washington: Institute for Security and Development Policy – School of Advanced and International Studies, 2009.
36. Horák, Slavomír. “Turkmenistan at the Last Stage of Perestroika. Determinant of the Authoritarian Path of Independent Turkmenistan.” Cahiers de l’Asie Centrale, no. 26 (2016): 29–49. http://journals.openedition.org/asiecentrale/3227.
37. Horák, Slavomír. “Turkmenistan: Stability Through Regime Mobilisation.” In Political Regimes and Neopatrimonialism in Central Asia. A Sociology of Power Perspective, edited by Ferran Izquierdo-Brichs and Francesc Serra-Messansalvador, 159–197. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2021.
38. Horák, Slavomír. “Turkmenistan’s Shifting Energy Geopolitics in 2009-2011. European Perspective.” Problems of Post-Communism 59, no. 2 (2012): 18–30. https://doi.org/10.2753/PPC1075-8216590202.
39. Hudson, Valerie M. “Birth Order of World Leaders: An Exploratory Analysis of Effects on Personality and Behavior.” Political Psychology 11, no. 3 (1990): 583–601. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791665.
40. Huntington, Samuel. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twenty Century. Oklahoma: Oklahoma University Press, 1991.
41. Indeo, Fabio. “Independent Turkmenistan in the Reshaped Geopolitical Scenario: Foreign Policy, Energy Strategy and Security Issues.” Politico: rivista italiana di scienze politiche 53, no. 3 (2016): 165–194. http://digital.casalini.it/10.1400/256142.
42. Kinne, Brandon J. “Decision-making in Autocratic Regimes. A Poliheuristic Perspective.” International Studies Perspective 6, no. 1 (2005): 114–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3577.2005.00197.x.
43. Kunysz, Nicholas. “From Sultanism to Neopatrimonialism? Regionalism within Turkmenistan.” Central Asian Survey 31, no. 1 (2012): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2012.649582.
44. Lee, Ji-Eun. “Foreign Policy Formation of Authoritarian States in Central Asia Since 1991: Non-Institutional Domestic Factors in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.” The Korean Journal of International Studies 8, no. 1 (June 2010): 33–71. https://doi.org/10.14731/kjis.2010.06.50.3.33.
45. Lee, Yusin. “Turkmenistan’s East–West Gas Pipeline: Will It Save the Country from Economic Decline?” Problems of Post-Communism 66, no. 3 (2019): 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2017.1366273.
46. Leites, Nathan. The Operational Code of the Politburo. New York: McGraw Hill, 1952. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commercial_books/CB104-1.html.
47. Levinson, Daniel J. “Authoritarian Personality and Foreign Policy.” Conflict Resolution 1, no. 1 (1957): 37–47. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/002200275700100105.
48. Linz, Juan José, and Juan J. Linz. Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2000.
49. McAllister, Ian. “The Personalization of Politics.” The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford University Press, 2007. https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/19199/2/01_McAllister_The_Personalization_of_2007.pdf.
50. McDonnell, D. “Silvio Berlusconi’s Personal Parties: From Forza Italia to the Popolo Della Libertà.” Political Studies 61 (2013): 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.01007.x.
51. Overland, Indra. “Natural gas and Russia-Turkmenistan relations.” Russian Analytical Digest 56, no. 09 (2009): 9–13. https://css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/pdfs/RAD-56-9-13.pdf.
52. Pecháček, Štěpán. “Personalizace politiky v České republice”. Politologická Revue 2 (2013): 93–109.
53. Pecháček, Štěpán. “Personalisation of politics in the Czech Republic”. Politologická Revue 2 (2013): 93–109 [In Czech].
54. Pomfret, Richard. “Turkmenistans’ Foreign Policy.” China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly 6, no. 4 (2008): 19–34.
55. Pomfret, Richard. The Central Asian Economies in the Twenty-First Century. Paving a New Silk Road. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2019.
56. Pomfret, Richard. The Economies of Central Asia. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 1995.
57. Rhodes-Purdy, Matthew, and Raúl L. Madrid. “The Perils of Personalism.” Democratization 27, no. 4 (2020): 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2019.1696310.
58. Tavana, Madjid et al. “A hybrid Delphi-SWOT Paradigm for Oil and Gas Pipeline Strategic Planning in Caspian Sea Basin.” Energy Policy 40 (2012): 345–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.10.020.
59. “Undue Diligence. How Banks do Business with Corrupt Regimes.” Global Withess. March 2009. https://cdn2.globalwitness.org/archive/files/import/undue_diligence_lowres.pdf.
60. Van den Bosch, Jeroen J.J. “Personalism: A Type or Characteristic of Authoritarian Regimes?” Politologická revue, no. 1 (2015): 11–30.
61. Van den Bosch, Jeroen J.J. Personalist Rule in Africa and Other World Regions. London: Routledge, 2021.
62. Ventura, Sofia. “The Italian Democratic Party from Merger to Personalism.” South European Society and Politics 23, no. 1 (2018): 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2018.1440483.
63. Yapıcı, Utku. “From Positive Neutrality to Silk Road Activism? The Continuities and Changes in Turkmenistan’s Foreign Policy.” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 20, no. 3 (2018): 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2018.1385273
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Horák S. On Peculiarities of the Foreign Policy of Personalist Regimes (Example of Turkmenistan). Journal of International Analytics. 2021;12(2):153-169. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2021-12-2-153-169
Views:
1884
Email this article 