Creativity and Dictatorship:

The Meaning of Saparmurat Niyazov’s Cultural Monument

By Katerina Vorotova

Columbia University

 

This October, Turkmen dictator Saparmurat Niyazov “Turkmenbashi” opened a massive book-shaped building devoted to media organizations in Ashgabat, capital of Turkmenistan, in celebration of Turkmenistan’s 15^th anniversary of independence. The construction of the House of Free Creativity, as the edifice is called, in heavily censored Turkmenistan is a notably ironic political statement. The press in this Central Asian nation is regularly monitored by Niyazov’s administration, libraries list only books approved by the state, and limited internet access is available to 0.7% of the nation. Any criticism of Niyazov is considered treason, punishable by imprisonment and exile. Furthermore, Turkmenistan was listed as the third most censored nation by the Committee to Protect Journalists. So what do we make of this building?

 

Because of his eccentricities, President Niyazov, who styled himself as “Turkmenbashi”, meaning “Leader of all Ethnic Turkmens,” has become known in the Western media as a caricature of an autocrat. He is often ridiculed for infamous projects like the erection of a golden statue of himself that revolves around the sun, set on a rocket-shaped monument base in Ashgabat, and for officially changing the names of the calendar months in honor of himself, his mother and his spiritual guide, the Rukhnama. Other projects, such as the construction of an ice palace with a ski resort, a man-made lake and cypress forest in the Kara Kum desert, and a recent $50 million Disneyland-like theme park for ethnic Turkmen folk art are funded by revenue from the country’s export of oil and natural gas. Critics allege that instead of building up his cult of personality, Niyazov could use this money to enhance public welfare in a nation where over 56 percent of the country’s population lives below the poverty line.

 

The $17-million House of Free Creativity has been compared by Western bloggers to Derek Zoolander’s School for Kids Who Can’t Read Good And Want To Be Able To Read, suggesting that Turkmenbashi’s attempt to claim freedom of speech can only be taken as seriously as Zoolander’s school.

However, before dismissing the project as another self-gratifying move of a narcissistic despot, one should examine the historical context of the region. Rafis Abazov, adjunct professor at the Harriman Institute of Columbia University and author of “Historical Dictionary of Turkmenistan”, says, “We can laugh, but I’m not sure if it’s useful. We have to understand where Turkmenbashi is coming from.”

 

Professor Abazov explains that Niyazov received his identity and education during the Soviet reign in Central Asia. With the independence of Turkmenistan in 1991, he had to fashion a new identity and learn new ways to legitimize his rule by combining his Soviet heritage with Muslim and post-modern Western traditions. Abazov adds that in the region, a good ruler is perceived as a builder for the people, even if the projects are not necessarily useful.

 

While it does not overtly establish free speech, The House of Free Creativity is nonetheless a statement that Turkmenbashi is not against knowledge in general. Niyazov himself is actually fond of writing and was praised by state-controlled media for the recent publication of a volume of his poetry titled Turkmenistan – My Happiness. According to Professor Abazov, Niyazov is determined to reflect what he thinks the people of his country want and is attempting to present himself as a modern leader that is aware of the rules of the political game in a world dominated by Western values. While it is essentially indisputable that Niyazov is an autocrat, Professor Abazov’s commentary explains why the people of Turkmenistan are not rising up in protest.

 

On national Turkmen television, Niyazov proclaimed that based on GDP, his country is joining the ranks of developed nations. He said, “At present, our per capita GDP is some $8,000. This shows that Turkmenistan is among developed countries of the world.”

 

Although the country’s economy has indeed grown significantly since independence and a lot of its infrastructure has been constructed, Turkmenistan is far from becoming a developed nation. There is practically no civil society, no opposition parties and the country’s constant human rights violations alarm the West. The government has been consistently persecuting ethnic minorities in an effort to “Turkmenize” the country. Until recently, non-ethnic Turkmen children were forced to wear traditional Turkmen dress in schools or face expulsion, and now, non-ethnic Turkmen women and their children are exiled to neighboring countries. Furthermore, in 2005, Niyazov ordered the closure of all hospitals outside the capital and cut off all education beyond the ninth grade, thereby eliminating the possibility of any Turkmen citizen to receive higher education. “Turkmenbashi is a tragedy to his people,” says Columbia Professor Robert Legvold. Turkmenistan is very far from attaining the same living standards as any other developed nation, and “the GDP statistics Niyazov provides are utterly unreliable.” Legvold also notes that because the GDP is not distributed, it means little for the population.

 

Russia, China and the European Union among others are interested in establishing and continuing trade with Turkmenistan. Russia’s GazProm agreed to pay 54% more for Turkmen natural gas than it did previously, and China recently signed a cooperation agreement with Turkmenistan to explore the oil deposits at the Caspian Sea. Due to its rejection of democratic reforms, Turkmenistan is the only country in Central Asia that does not have a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the EU. Any future agreement depends heavily on Turkmenistan’s ability to address human rights issues.

 

“Every politician has to make choices according to their priorities. Many politicians are willing to sacrifice human rights for other agendas. This is true of Turkmenistan and other leaders including the Western world,” says Professor Abazov. “The difference is that in Western countries, people can disagree. In this system – no,” he adds. Professor Abazov warns against the tendency of the West to impose its standards on other countries. In fact, his analysis of Turkmenistan raises more questions than it provides answers: to what degree can or should the West interfere in internal affairs of other countries? Abazov cites Edward Said’s Orientalism and the war in Iraq as warnings of such action. “For every complicated question, there are always two simple answers,” he says, “Only both of them are usually wrong”.

 

Professor Legvold states that he respects Said’s argument on cultural differences but emphasizes that “there is a threshold.” He elaborates, “When you damage the health of the population, destroy their chance at education, and keep the population in poverty, you cannot defend the regime on Said’s argument. When a leader through conscious policy, not merely through ineptitude, ends up furthering negative trends, he must be condemned.”

 

However, even if the international community were determined to implement changes in Turkmenistan, it would be extremely difficult. “Regimes that are so isolated are hard to influence,” explains Professor Legvold. Therefore, change must come from within Turkmenistan itself. Before it can reach the status of developed nations, Turkmenistan will need to establish democratic procedures and fair elections, rule of law, and a business-friendly environment. It will need to create a system of fighting corruption and human rights abuses while maintaining political stability. “So far, there are no signs of moving toward this goal,” says Abazov. “Hope will come when the whole thing implodes,” says Legvold. “But maybe what replaces tyranny will be chaos, like in Iraq.”

 

The building of the House of Free Creativity firmly states that there is room for media and knowledge in Turkmenistan, but it also concentrates the media in one place, so that it is easier to control. While it may be merely a successful effort by Turkmenbashi to glorify the Turkmen ethnicity and keep the population content, it is a failed attempt to create an international image of a country that is moving towards democratization.