Chapter 7 & Conclusion

Chapter 7 discusses the effectiveness of the promotion of democracy within Central

Asia by the United States of America as well as the European Union. In order to do this, the
chapter conceptualizes the promotion of democracy as a discursive framework which exists
in order to influence perceptions and understandings of people of the topic or field which the
framework is related to. It achieves this by conveying meanings relating to the terms and
concepts that are applied within that certain framework. These are done with the intention to
persuade, organize knowledge, reproduce or change attitudes, and elicit public support.
Therefore, these are also seen as necessary processes for any framework to excel at before it
can focus on achieving its intended purpose which is to help people garner a deeper
understanding of the subject matter and an appreciation for the usefulness of its ideas and
their applicability on the real world around them.
In order to judge whether or not a framework would be able to achieve these
objectives, there have been a certain number of factors that have been finalized as the meters
through which the eventual efficacy of any such framework can be judged accurately. These
factors include cultural compatibility, salience, consistency, and credibility. When these
factors are analyzed in light of geographical, social, historical and political environmental
influences it is easy to see whether or not a discursive framework will be adopted, accepted
and internalized by the people of the region in which the discourse is taking place, along with
all the actors who are contributing to it.
It is important to understand what these terms mean in the specific context of
frameworks and discourse. Cultural compatibility refers to the ability of the framework to be
cognizant of the local culture, as in their norms, roles and ideals and be able to present the
ideas of the discourse in a way so as to be able to be accepted by someone who adheres to
that culture. If a discourse is not able to be culturally compatible it runs the risk of being
either misinterpreted or rejected completely before being given a chance to prove its merit, as
people will inherently view it as an outsider threat. Salience refers to the prioritization of the
discourse, as in what factors or phenomenon the discourse prioritizes and keeps in
consideration during the course of it happening. This means that if the framework is
prioritizing individual safety, for example, over collective safety whereas the populace and
government is more inclined towards prioritizing collective safety, that discourse will not be
effective at attracting the local populace towards its ideas. Consistency and credibility are
intertwined factors in that, if the power that is promoting a certain discourse is able to
consistently stay in line with the teachings of the discourse, then it can be considered to be
consistent. This also ties in with the discourse as well as its ability to defend and stick to the
core principles it has espoused while adapting and shaping itself to newer challenges within
its environment. Alongside, it is also necessary for it to show that sticking to these principles
can bring about greater success for the people and thus incentivize them to adopt these
principles.
If we apply these factors to Western democratic discourse framework within the
Central Asian states, we can notice that first and foremost the democratic discourse is not
culturally compatible at all. The Western notion of democracy has disregarded local customs
and cultures and has instead focused on an ethnocentric interpretation of democracy that,
indeed, may only be applicable within the western environment. This also has far reaching
implications as well. In this western understanding of democracy, Western efforts to promote
it have focused on supporting institutional actors such as NGOs in order to deliver short term
results which are quantifiable whereas long term improvements which may be more
qualitative in nature are not given priority. This has led to empty statistics and figures being
given more attention by the powers that be rather than actual societal or political revolution
which is intellectual in nature.
The salience of this framework is also incompatible with the social and political ideals of the
locals. Indeed, democracy is considered a lower priority than economy or security, and is
seen as an eventual result of both of these needs being fulfilled, rather than a pre requisite for
it. Therefore, it is not surprising that the western free market receives greater support than the
democratic ideals of government, although state regulated capitalism is favored more.
The West has also lost consistency and credibility as it has made political decisions which are
incompatible with the discourse it preaches, due to its stringent belief in protecting its own
interest at the cost of others sovereignty. Therefore, the Central Asian states look elsewhere
in order to understand alternative approaches, which they find in Russia and China.
Both of these states are far more accepting of the political norms of the Central Asian
states, and their own versions of state-owned capitalism and more authoritarian forms of
government than the proposed western democracy is far more attractive to the political elite.
The local people share cultural ties with these states and see them as far better options than
the US and the EU.
The book ends with the final chapter focusing on summing up the findings of the
book, which basically point to democratic promotion failing and a revert of a considerable
number of states back to authoritarian regimes. The book then suggests that the inclusion of
social capital within this framework is of the utmost necessity, as it allows the discourse to
have the tools to change people’s attitudes and beliefs which is the most important thing.
Alongside, the suggestions also include the widening of the discourse in order to fit in more
ideas of what democracy can look like apart from the Western perception.