Aftermath of Ethnic Violence: Multilevel Analysis of Interethnic Relations in Kyrgyzstan

Background and Purpose: The process of developing a nation-state led to emergence of nationalist policies in post-Soviet countries. In Kyrgyzstan, nationalist rhetoric coupled with emerging economic inequalities, resulted in violence against the Uzbek minority perpetrated by members of the Kyrgyz majority during ethnic clashes in 2010. The violence caused a loss of human lives and a deep sense of trauma within the Uzbek community. Houses of people were burned down; sense of fear prevailed in affected communities. Over time affected communities started to recover. But the experience of violence brought to the fore the fundamental issue for a nation-state: Do all ethnic groups equally belong in the Kyrgyz society? 

No studies assessed the status of interethnic relations after the 2010 violence using representative data. We fill this gap with the following research question: What is the status of interethnic relations in Kyrgyzstan? We hypothesize that non-titular ethnic groups will assess interethnic relations less positively compared to the Kyrgyz population. Taking into account importance of community factors for interethnic relations we pose another research question: Do communities matter for interethnic relations in Kyrgyzstan? We hypothesize that measures of community well-being, such as mutual help and quality of life, will increase the likelihood of positive interethnic relations.

Methods: We use data from a multistage cluster survey from 2012-2013 (N=2,032). Our outcomes:  

1. Perceptions of improvement of inter-ethnic relations in the community during the last three years.
2. Assessment of inter-ethnic relations in the community at the time of the survey.
3. Expectation of improvement of inter-ethnic relations in Kyrgyzstan in the next three years.
4. Expectation of improvement for the respondent’ ethnic group in Kyrgyzstan in future. 

For each outcome we developed a two-level, individual and community, model with a binary outcome. We fit logistic regression models using individual and community level predictors: ethnicity, gender, age, education, marital status, and family income; and quality of life, opportunity to find a good job, crime in community, mutual help and a relative socio-economic status of family.

Results: Analysis demonstrated strong associations between ethnicity and assessment of interethnic relations in Kyrgyzstan. Non-titular ethnic groups assessed interethnic relations less positively. Statistical models showed high between-community variance in outcomes (35%- 62%). Community factors that improved interethnic relations were: general quality of life in community, an opportunity to find a good job, and lower crime. Communities where people helped each other had better interethnic relations.

Conclusions and Implications: These findings provide important insights for understanding interethnic relations in communities Kyrgyzstan. Non-titular ethnic groups demonstrated lack of optimism about interethnic relations in the past, and more importantly, in the years to come. However, communities have a lot of potential for improving interethnic relations. The government and civil society should focus their attention on developing community resilience to improve social cohesion in ethnically heterogeneous areas. Community studies should be implemented to understand interactions between various ethnic groups and develop evidence-based interventions for improving interethnic relations.