Labor migrants - a serious political force!
“A new party for Tajik migrant workers abroad could become a serious domestic political force even though most of its prospective voters are in Russia,” - reports NBCentralAsia. They argue that this political party could become a backbone of the new opposition. This is to some extent true because the Islamic Revival Party after the death of its leader last year lost its positions as the main opposing force to the current government and there appeared a vacuum which is supposedly should be filled by some other party.
When there is no other choice, the party of migrants can become a serious force in political life of the country. This is going to happen in the most desirable case, but there stands a serious question - is the party going to be legitimate? If the Ministry of Justice of Tajikistan will not register the Party then it will not be legal. Simply it will not exist.
There is a serious political reason for the government to decline the registration of the party. Last year one of the Tajik dissidents Dodojon Attovulloev, who lives in Moscow, promised to overthrow the current government with the help of Tajik labor migrants. He promised to establish a political party “Patriot” supported mainly by the labor migrants in Russia and organize a “violet” revolution.
I think no one in the government took for serious the words of Attovulloev that time. But no one also denied the fact that the labor migrants whose ‘estimates of number vary between 400,000 and 1.5 million’, and who send hundreds of millions of dollars to Tajikistan, can become a strong opposition force. Today the government realizes that different forces try to use the support of the migrants to reach their political goals, therefore the government will try to take the adequate measures.
on May 21st, 2007 at 7:40 pm
I don’t think the labour migrants are politically active, they are completely isolated from the world. Migration does not play any role in Tajikistan’s internal politics. It is an illusion.
Best,
Faramarz
on May 22nd, 2007 at 5:20 am
Good article. However, I also don’t think that migrants are active enough to play such a role in our politics. Most of them are all busy to work for winning their bread. When one is hungry, he/she doesn’t really care about politics or at least is not capable of doing anything at this stage.
on May 22nd, 2007 at 10:07 am
I am not sure, but wouldn’t these people prefer to work at home? Wouldn’t they care about creating good conditions for work in Tajikistan?
on May 23rd, 2007 at 6:40 am
In fact, labour migrants could play greater role in Tajikistan’s politics, if Russia had a common border with Tajikistan. But now, they can’t play any role, they do not want to work in Tajikistan, because simply they do not earn that money that they get in Russia.
Secondly, nowhere in the world, migrants play role in politics of their home country. Look at Iranian migrants who 25 years ago went to USA. They are so busy that they can’t have time to think of Iran anymore. Their debates and discussions are limited in their own media, and marginalised circles.
Similarly there are millions of chinese, south asian migrants in the West. They only play economic role. That’s it.
Bests,
Faramarz
on May 23rd, 2007 at 7:08 am
The Tajik labor migrants can play a greater economic role in Tajikistan as the Chinese do. As far as I know the initial big investments in the economy of China were made by the Chinese migrants from other countries, like US. Therefore, I think that the first great contribution to the development of nowadays China was made by migrants. Tajik migrants can do the same. They are already making investments into the economy of the country by sending remittances back home, but it is a small scale investment. Therefore, if there is an economic interest there will definitely be a political interest. These two things are intertwined. However, I admit that it is a long process.
on May 23rd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
I agree that the perestroika-era opposition and intelligenstia in exile (Atavolluev and the group around Charogi Ruz that is) will not play a relevant role any more. Too discredited, divided and disconnected.
But like Vadim, I am convinced that the migrant’s economic relevance and impact, and the political effect that it will have on the mid-term, should not be under-estimated.
I saw myself how their remittances have revitalised village economies even in remote places in the Rasht and Zeravshan regions. A place like Garm, for instance, now has banks, money transfer services, functioning, well-filled bazaars and mobile phone coverage whereas there was nothing in, say, 1999.
Another effects of remittances influx and cash avialibility is the spread of sat TV and parabolic antennas even in remote kyshlaks and, as such, alternative information channels for many Tajik households. Believe me, that will not miss its political effect on the mid-term.
A large part of the mardikoran are seasonal i.e. they spend only part of the year abroad. Many want, and will, return to Tajikistan and indeed invest there (something similar has happened in Sylhet, a region in Bangladesh where a lot of people work in the UK, for instance). The migrants may be the underdogs where they work, at home they are the blokes with the money. They have also been abroad and seen things. That certainly influences their attitude towards authority, i.e. creeping for and buttering regime satraps is less obvious for them.
“Look at Iranian migrants who 25 years ago went to USA.”
Faramarz, that is a totally different situation. Most Iranian migrants in the West are (relatives of) elite members, cronies and supporters of the Pahlavis, intelligentsia, members of religious minorities (Bahais for example) who compromised themselves with the regime of the Shah and more recent political dissidents. That was is not an economic migration. You are right that they have mostly lost touch with reality in Iran itself. Many Iranians don’t even want them back.
If you want to compare the Tajik mardikoran with anything, then it is better to do that with the North Africans in the Mediterranean EU countries or the Pakistani and Bangladeshi in the UK.
This being said, reg. “secondly, nowhere in the world, migrants play role in politics of their home country.”, there are examples of the contrary: the Armenian diaspora in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh for instance; or the Irish in the US and UK in Northern Ireland at the time.
on May 30th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
“I also don’t think that migrants are active enough to play such a role in our politics. Most of them are all busy to work for winning their bread. When one is hungry, he/she doesn’t really care about politics or at least is not capable of doing anything at this stage.”
Madina - you are right to a certain extent - it’s true that when you’re hungry, the only thing you can think of is to feed yourself, but when you’re *liiterally* enslaved, abused, discriminated against and have absolutely no human rights, at the end of the day - you will think of changing something - for once and for all - at least for the sake of your children - and that unfortunately involves opposition and politics.
I too agree, the remittances sent home by these migrant laborers can contribute to economic changes; for one thing, i have personally seen men who have worked abroad and economized and have come back and done “business”- in this case it is very small scale, but the impacts are yet to come in years.
In the iranian case, i would like to add to your discussion Ataman, that these Iranian migrants have:
1) migrated decades ago, and have built a solid and stable life till now. They have their jobs, their businesses and their children who go to american and european schools and universities. For one thing - they wouldn’ want to throw all this away and come back. They have this nostalgia for their country but are enjoying their middle and even high class status too much.
2) have migrated because of political and not financial reasons. (it CAN be compared to the brain-drain in the early 90’s in Tajikistan where the majority of the intelligentsia fled the country) but you are right - not to the present situation.
3) have migrated to “relatively” tolerant societies such as the US (whose success is actually credited to these migrants) and Europe. They have been in relatively healthy social conditions and have not faced such racism and dicrimination and intolerance as the tajik have in Russia. This will definitely encourage their temptation in coming back and creating a better Tajikistan.
The tajik population can only be compared to the afghan diaspora in Iran although their situation is much worse (afghan children are not accepted to go to normal iranian schools; they have special schools organized by afghan communities or financed by the government as a kind of aid - its not like a law - but the schools just don’t accept them, and ofcourse being refugees - they can’t complain). Can also be compared to the african and maghrebi populations in France for instance, with the difference that they are relatively integrated into the society now.
on May 31st, 2007 at 1:42 pm
“Madina - you are right to a certain extent - it’s true that when you’re hungry, the only thing you can think of is to feed yourself, but when you’re *liiterally* enslaved, abused, discriminated against and have absolutely no human rights, at the end of the day - you will think of changing something - for once and for all - at least for the sake of your children - and that unfortunately involves opposition and politics.”
Yes. IMO it’s not fair to think that all mardikoran are just dumb, illiterate and hungry lumpenproletariat who do not think beyond a piece of bread and sto gram. Yes, part of them are. But the bulk are in an extremely split and socially mobile situation: as I said, in Russia, they are the underdogs, and sometimes treated like subhumans (at least from what I gather speaking to migrants, it is especially bad in Moscow and Northwestern Russia); at home, they are the blokes with the money. The grassroots level at home lives thanks to them. At the same time, in Russia with its relatively freeer climate (at least compared to CA that is) they have access to alternative sources of information. Do not underestimate that.
“in this case it is very small scale, but the impacts are yet to come in years.”
Well not so small-scale actually.
At the end of the day, the remittances and migrants have affected the social-econopmi situation of a big part of Tajik household much more than all international aid and technical cooperation put together. By this I do not say that everything that NGOs do is irrelevant, on the contrary. Some things like micro-crediting work rather well, and in the GBAO, for instance, structures like the AKDN (www.akdn.org), for instance, built infrastructure and provide social services that normally the state provides but does not because it has neither the means, mindset or interest. But at the household and individual level, the remittances had a far stronger effect.