The truth is that many countries in FSU still live in an ideological vacuum. They endorse democracy, but don’t have a full understanding of it’s principles and ideas that drive it. Therefore, these countries depend on international watchdogs to tell them how democratic they are. This creates a situation whereby the change is imposed from above. This is the main factor that renders democracy purely cosmetic.

As you have pointed out, genuine transformation takes place within the society and the only way to do it is to increase interaction of ordinary people with those in countries that have such democratic systems. A more pressing problem is how to make democracy fit into the system of values of a nation. It is a tedious process that takes a lot of reflection on the part of a society. The idea is to seamlessly incorporate the democratic principles into the society with its own traditions. From what I can see it could take years to materialize, but it is worth it.

In either case change from above is not likely to produce genuine democratic countries. The question is whether the world would be a better place with fake democracies or whether such a change is possible at all. Do we have any historical proof?

You’re absolutely right - the fact that they have to pay lip-service to Democracy is in fact a demonstration that Central Asia is ready for such a system. These dictators have to at least keep up an air of Democracy to appease the politically aware. If the region wasn’t ready for democracy, then what was the protest in Almaty at the weekend about? What was the Tulip Revolution fought over? The Andijan uprising?

As others have mentioned, it took decades, centuries to achieve Democracy in the West. In some ways its a shame that we live in a world of such easy communication and global politics. I think if Tajikistan and others were allowed to get on with it, at their own pace, they too would become Democracies of some form by the end of the century. Unfortunately with pressure from the U.S and EU (which is by no means a bad thing), change happens too quickly and is usually entirely cosmetic. Im talking about Universal Suffrage, wholly elected parliaments etc. If these were actually implemented at a slower pace, as and when Civil society as a whole sought them, they might actually become REAL changes. Gradual reform wouldn’t scare the elite of Central Asia as much as the shock therapy, Nazarbayev and the like fear.

How terribly conservative of me…

That is also sort of the point I was trying to make at the beginning of this post; almost no where in the world do you see unabashed despotism. Even the most autocratic regimes take great pains to give the appearance of democracy, and in a way I think that concession is the most important, and will push progress forward.

However, it is easy to see where Tajik Boy is coming from; most Central Asian countries seem to be in the “fits” stage, not the “starts.”

Mostly-democracy and limited respect for human rights are compatible; cf. Israel. Modern Sweden, Australia, the UK, France, Germany–they’re all decent reference points for how a democratic society can be made function well.

At times I think people in these countries are just not built to cope with so much personal and political freedom that is enjoyed in a democratic society. All this inevitably leads me to a question: is true democracy at all possible in these countries?

The answer is probably not. My take is that soon in all post-soviet territory a new ideology will emerge that will consist of elements of free market and an autocratic rule. That is unless the democracies of this world try to educate the ideologically lost states by setting a good example.
When I think of the developments in the political arena I am puzzled with so many controvercies.

What is a true democracy? What country could be used as a benchmark and how do you explain the recent erosion of human rights in a country that is thought to be the cradle of democracy? Is there a choice of how democratic a country could be?

I am sure political leaders in these countries do ask themselves these questions and depending on the information feedback, make their own conclusions. I just hope that these conclusions benefit the ordinary people who live in these countries.