Understanding the Post-Imperial Politics of Security, Stability and Ordering in Central Asia: An Introduction

THE DIFFICULTY OF BUILDING LONG-LASTING PEACE AND comprehensive security in societies emerging from conflict and external rule seems to be particularly pronounced in the peripheries of the former Soviet Union and its sphere of influence. The limited success and failures of long-standing efforts to build up and shape state structures and institutions that guarantee democratic, peaceful and secure development have led to increased questioning of the assumptions of liberal and institutionalist approaches that have long dominated scientific and policy debates. Given the sustained and increasingly sophisticated ways in which regional regimes shape and restrict possibilities for cooperation and interaction, and, more significantly, the livelihoods of their populations, there appears to be ample room for further discussion of new ways of grasping current political and societal developments in Central Asia against their historical background. This special issue seeks to facilitate a better understanding of continuities, parallels, path dependencies and possible future scenarios of the development of sustainable peace and security in Central Asia in light of its imperial legacies. Drawing together historical, political and area studies perspectives, as well as critical and post-colonial approaches in critical security studies, political science and IR, the collection seeks to elucidate the macro-level and international relations perspectives, while also considering micro-level and sector-specific dynamics of ‘(post-)imperial politics’ in Central Asia. The specific contribution that we seek to bring to debates on the region and analogous cases beyond Central Asia develops along two lines. First, the in-depth inquiry of current post-imperial policies, practices and lifeworlds—as well as their imperial precursors—can yield new empirical insights that help to refine established understandings of life before, during and after the Soviet Union. Such differentiation and nuancing, as we illustrate below, can be valuable for more critically, and perhaps realistically, assessing present possibilities of progressive social and political change and the barriers posed to it by the persistence of