The Role of Securitization in the Relationship Between State and Religion—The Example of the Kyrgyz Republic

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss the challenges of developing secular framework in relation to religion in Kyrgyzstan, the first Central Asian republic where democratic institutions were established after the collapse of the Soviet Union and which has been strongly challenged in maintaining its democratic achievements during the Tulip Revolution and other revolts in 2010 and 2020. The question we aim to answer is how processes of securitization shape the relationship between state institutions and religious organizations, knowing that Kyrgyzstan is still influenced both by the Soviet understanding of secularism and by models of secularity and governance from countries and societies with different histories and conditions of development. We look at different phases of the relationship between state and religion starting with the regime change and the establishment of a democratic state. Secondly, the establishing of a legal framework for state policy on religious organizations. Thirdly, the time of the adoption of measures to protect the interests of all citizens, believers and non-believers, and the beginning of the process of active influence of state policy on the situation in the religious sphere. And finally, the new (mis)understanding of the relations between the state and religion, both on the side of the state and religious organizations. Our theoretical point of departure is the concept of securitization, and from there on we take a discursive approach focusing on the different actors in this arena, such as state institutions and the various religious organizations and groups.

Trust in Religious Leaders and Voluntary Compliance: Lessons from Social Distancing during COVID‐19 in Central Asia

“…Second, tensions developed between the muftiyat and the state administrative agencies––often triggered by a dispute over jurisdiction. In Kyrgyzstan, for example, they escalated into an “open confrontation” between the respective leaders of the muftiyat and the SCRA in 2011 over which institution was better suited to organize the annual hajj (Štimac and Aslanova 2021:130). While the credibility of both institutions suffered, the struggle for control manifested itself in the high turnover rate of the Grand Mufti.…”