| After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the government of Uzbekistan effectively crushed an active opposition social movement while Tajikistan fell into a violent civil war. By 1997, Uzbekistan was considered a success for preserving stability by authoritarian means. In June 2002, Tajikistan achieved five years of increasing stability after a peace agreement formally initiated a transition to national reconciliation. These differing outcomes for states that share many social and political characteristics present a puzzle for the predominant modes of explanation. Theories of conflict based only on grievance or those based on fear, incentives and opportunity fail to explain the continued cooperation of opposition forces in the face of government antagonism and obstruction. Opportunity and incentives explain government actions but fail to properly account for opposition actions while the grievance model describes the opposition but fails to explain government actions.
A focus on the competition between groups defending incompatible frames, or interpretive schemes by which individuals label and identify events and assign values, reveals the important role of intellectuals in connecting rational strategy and grievances. Framing provides a more inclusive interpretation that incorporates the role of capabilities, choices, victimization and identity, covering both parties and all stages of conflict. In Tajikistan the competition between recruitment appeals targeting different identities and interests depends on the capabilities and values of the intelligentsia. The peace agreement implementation process and the activity of international donors and humanitarian organizations created greater autonomy for social activists and those who produce culture. The Dartmouth Conference "Sustained Dialogue" intervention has stimulated the development of a new political culture of tolerance for public debate. In this perspective, the frame of political change through social transformation, community action and education overcame the frame that supported violence. Therefore, alternative paths of political development-authoritarianism, war or social consolidation-depend on the social position, resources and cultural values of leaders from the educated strata of society.
|
