History is neither kind nor cruel—it merely records the actions of those who hold power, and judges them through the lens of time. Few figures embody the contradictions of post-Soviet Central Asia as vividly as Islam Abduganiyevich Karimov, the first President of independent Uzbekistan. His tenure, stretching from 1991 until his death in 2016, was defined by an iron grip on power, a relentless push for national sovereignty, and the uneasy balance between modernization and authoritarianism.
The Soviet Apprentice Turned National Leader
Born in 1938 in Samarkand, one of Central Asia’s most historically rich cities, Karimov was a product of the Soviet system. He climbed the ranks through the Communist Party, ultimately securing his position as the First Secretary of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan in 1989. When the Soviet Union crumbled in 1991, he was well-positioned to seize control of the newly independent republic.
Unlike the chaotic transitions in some other former Soviet states, Uzbekistan’s independence was marked by Karimov’s swift consolidation of power. His rule embodied a paradox: while he distanced the country from Moscow’s influence, he replicated many of the Soviet-era mechanisms of control. Opposition was suppressed, media was tightly regulated, and political stability was ensured not through democratic pluralism, but through state-controlled structures.
Independence Without Liberalization
While the collapse of the USSR led to political liberalization in some parts of Eastern Europe and the Baltics, Karimov’s Uzbekistan took a different path. He constructed a highly centralized state, rooted in a nationalistic narrative that emphasized Uzbek sovereignty, historical pride, and the rejection of external interference.
His economic policies reflected this ideology. Unlike neighboring Kazakhstan, which embraced foreign investment, Karimov pursued a more protectionist approach, restricting capital flows and maintaining state dominance in key industries. This shielded Uzbekistan from the economic turmoil of the 1990s but also stifled its long-term potential for growth and innovation.
Authoritarian Stability: A Double-Edged Sword
Karimov’s defenders argue that his authoritarian rule provided much-needed stability in a volatile region. Situated between Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, and the restive Fergana Valley, Uzbekistan could have easily succumbed to ethnic conflict, radicalism, or economic collapse. Instead, it remained a relatively stable entity, with a functioning state apparatus and a sense of national unity.
Yet, this stability came at a cost. Human rights organizations frequently criticized Karimov’s government for its brutal crackdowns on dissent. The 2005 Andijan Massacre, where government forces killed hundreds of protesters, became a defining stain on his legacy. His regime’s extensive use of political imprisonment, censorship, and suppression of religious freedoms alienated Uzbekistan from Western democracies, pushing it closer to Russia and China.
A Pragmatic Foreign Policy
Karimov’s foreign policy was characterized by pragmatism and strategic non-alignment. Unlike Kazakhstan’s Nursultan Nazarbayev, who maintained close ties with Russia, Karimov was wary of Moscow’s influence and resisted joining Russian-led regional blocs. He also kept Western nations at arm’s length, especially after the fallout from the Andijan incident.
Nevertheless, he skillfully balanced relations with powerful neighbors. He engaged with China on economic partnerships, cooperated with the U.S. on security matters—especially during the early years of the War on Terror—and maintained a watchful stance on Afghanistan’s instability. His diplomatic maneuvers ensured that Uzbekistan remained relevant in Central Asian geopolitics, despite its internal restrictions.
The End of an Era and an Uncertain Future
When Karimov died in 2016, his passing marked the end of an era. Unlike many authoritarian rulers, he did not establish a clear succession plan, leading to a temporary power vacuum. Eventually, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, a former prime minister, emerged as his successor, initiating cautious reforms that diverged from Karimov’s hardline policies.
With the benefit of hindsight, how should history judge Islam Karimov? Was he the architect of modern Uzbekistan, ensuring its survival and independence in a complex post-Soviet landscape? Or was he a relic of a bygone era, clinging to autocratic rule when the world was moving toward democratization and open markets?
The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between. Karimov’s legacy is one of both strength and suppression, of stability and stagnation. His actions shaped Uzbekistan into what it is today—a nation still grappling with its past, but steadily looking toward its future.