Today at Eurasianet, one of my favorite writers talks about a new but limited openness in Turkmenistan from the vantage of the street, the hotel, the taxicab. I love this article because it points out the difficulties for the state on a psychological level. He writes that government policies are changing slowly and selectively: his phone is probably tapped, and his access is hugely restricted, but sometimes, people whisper their opinions to him. Yet equally importantly, he documents the way that people think has to change, in almost every way. For instance, he writes that people do not use the president's name–there is “the former president” and “the current president”.
Another aspect that I note in this article is that the visual seems to count more than anything: the heavy cosmetics on the sales attendants, the large marble palaces and not the single-family homes. We should reflect upon this and realize that globalization brings a veneer first, before it brings substance. This is true, probably, for us all–and we should use our other senses, even when the veneer is a little more universal–a little thicker, as it were. For Turkmenistan's people, used to the heavy doublethink and doublespeak of the former president, Mr. Niyazov/Turkmenbashi, there are at least two problems: first, the heavy and nearly impossible problem of trust and confidence in government. It's very difficult to build people to run institutions (governmental and private) and voters to inquire about issues when all have been trained for generations to not take initiative and to not inquire. It's easier for all of us: developing and developed world–to just take our pictures of a good daily life from television.
Second, the ability to take the visual aspects of democratization and turn them into an intellectual understanding of trustworthy government–and last, to feel the confidence, burdens, and privileges of democracy in daily life. This is not a problem of intelligence, but a matter of overcoming or utilizing some very hard experiences without a corresponding experience in free movement to fuel an ambition for democracy. In the U.S., democracy did not provide universal suffrage over 100 years–and it took almost 200 years, after the civil rights movement, to make the law an actual practice. The problems are a little different in Turkmenistan, the sense of limits more strong. At the very least, there is no untamed frontier to escape to if government becomes restrictive, the way the U.S. had in the 1600s to 2oth Century. If Mr. Berdymukhamedov's government were to become completely free and fair tomorrow, there would still be considerable adjustment to be made for the people themselves.
Last week, at NewEurasianet, Conquistador reported on a speech President Berdymkhammedov made at Columbia University, an unprecedented and wonderful event. You can watch the film yourself, and again, the psychological clues are fascinating. Mr. Berdymukhamedov looked nervous (yeah, I would be too) and his delivery style is untainted by the need to sell an idea or his leadership. His head is down as he reads, earnestly, of his desire to re-develop Turkmenistan's capacity to deliver medical services. Clearly this issue is important to him–his words here include more personal information and commitment than in any other part of the speech–but his body language never changes. With that, the audience was free to miss the clues inherent in this part of the speech. (Portal page for speech is here).
It takes time to learn how to talk capacity, importance, and negotiation–and even longer to build trust. It's going to be a long road for Turkmenistan, and we need to work at it in order to pick up the clues when they come. With our free press, we have a chance to review these kinds of clues, over and over again, and engage. The engagement of the outside world has to take into account the difficulties of psychological change.
Photo: Ferghana.ru
