Historical background

Public library systems that develop in democratic societies (or societies moving towards democracy) take a largely similar path: They spring up locally, are legitimized by a piece of state or national legislation, enact their own standards, and go about their business. But public library systems in countries with governments that are not interested in giving their citizens free access to information can take large detours on the way to fully developing. Turkmenistan provides a useful example of what happens when public libraries become inconvenient to authority.

Turkmenistan officially became independent in 1991. One year after independence, Saparmurat ‘Turkmenbashi’ Niyazov won the presidential election by a large margin. Two years into his original five-year term, his term was extended to ten years by referendum. In 1999 he was declared President-for-Life by a parliamentary election in which he selected all the candidates, a decision which was ‘confirmed’ in 2002 after an unsuccessful assassination attempt. Under his authority, Turkmenistan rapidly became one of the more repressive regimes in the world. He constructed a Stalinist personality cult for himself; the nickname ‘Turkmenbashi’ means ‘Father of All Turkmen’. If he had been something other than the dictator of an entire country, one might be able to describe him as eccentric, but given his role in the lives of five million Turkmen he is best described as insane. He assembled a personality cult that rivaled Saddam Hussein’s, developed a fondness for large diamond rings, and built huge statues of himself. He was also apparently somewhat of a fop with a fondness for dyeing his hair, a quirk which must have annoyed many a government bureaucrat since the enormous portraits of Niyazov that littered the country had to be updated with each subsequent hair color. Niyazov dismantled much of the public service sector during his tenure, closed public health clinics opened by the Soviets, altered public curriculum to focus on state propaganda and, in 2005, closed every single public library in his country (Gore, 2007; ‘A bad father of the Turkmen’, 2007).

Current framework

Libraries had been on the government’s radar for quite a while. Five years before their complete closure, Niyazov signed a piece of legislation that placed libraries under the responsibility of the Cabinet of Ministers. Specifically, they fell under the domain of the Minister of Culture and Tele/Radio Broadcasting. This was not an especially desirable place to be, as the Turkmenistan government of this period exerted heavy control over the operations of its media (Richardson Jr., 2006). Even when they were open, libraries were not allowed to operate in a productive manner. Collections were stagnant at best, and at worst many works relating to subjects like history, literature, and biology were removed and destroyed (‘IFLA blasts Turkmenistan library closings and rights violations’, 2005). This was part of a larger trend to ignore reality in favor of politically constructed fantasy; The Father of All Turkmen also outlawed the diagnosis of certain communicable diseases in an effort to place them out of sight, a situation that continues to this day according to Doctors Without Borders (Gore, 2007).

Because of the country’s natural resource wealth, it has been able to subsidize the living expenses of its residents. Basic services like electricity, water, and fuel are provided by the government. The result is that the population is largely satisfied with its government and Turkmenistan has managed to avoid the kind of popular revolt that arose in many authoritarian countries in 2011. Even though its per capita income is somewhere around $6,900 per year, a 2009 Gallup poll found that 78 percent of Turkmen were satisfied with their standard of living (compared to 75 percent in the United States, or 52 percent in nearby Kazakhstan, which has opened itself more economically) (Crabtree and Esipova, 2011).

Legislation and legal structure

If Turkmenistan’s library legislation had been enacted in another country, one would have to conclude that it is quite sturdy. It defines libraries and librarianship, makes provisions for how libraries are to be funded, assigns responsibility for them to a specific branch of government, discusses services and collections, and even ‘encourages’ international cooperation between libraries. However, there were many laws and constitutional provisions under Niyazov that were simply not implemented in practice.

Niyazov closed the libraries as part of a broad assault on public institutions of education and culture. The number of required years of education was reduced from ten to nine, and between 1997 and 2008 Turkmenistan produced exactly zero graduate students because Niyazov had banned advanced degrees (Stone, 2008). Public libraries specifically were closed on the pretense that ‘no one goes to libraries and reads books anyway’. However, although income in the country remains low (the average monthly income is around $150) and the reading culture is not especially strong (books are expensive and there are few newspapers), literacy rates have been commendably high, with 98.8 percent of citizens aged 15 years and older being able to read (Richardson Jr., 2006). Niyazov also banned opera, ballet, cinema, and the circus, among other things (Bekov, 2010).

The self-proclaimed Father of All Turkmen died in 2006, but the effect he has had on Turkmenistan lives on. Several years after Niyazov’s successor Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov (who was Deputy Prime Minister under Niyazov) took power, he began re-examining the policies of his predecessor, including those affecting public libraries. He reopened public libraries on April 1, 2010 and also promised to open rural art schools and cultural centers as part of his effort to begin a ‘New Renaissance’. In all, 140 public libraries will reopen across the country (Bekov, 2010). The government has also allowed the United States to assist them in providing free Internet access to its citizens at the National Library in Ashgabat (‘Public internet access opens at the national library of Turkmenistan’, 2009).

In general, however, reform in Turkmenistan comes at an excruciatingly slow pace. The extent to which the Turkmen government under Niyazov was autocratic was more extreme even than in the Soviet period. The nation’s considerable oil wealth might help it to escape destitution if only a non- corrupt regime would come to power and use it for the greater good. Turkmenistan has nominally democratic local councils called gengesh, but they are subordinate to upper levels of administration and are often dominated by a single executive anyway. Power remains extremely centralized, with governors being appointed and dismissed at short, regular intervals at the whim of the central government (Libman, 2008). There is little outside pressure on Turkmenistan to adopt reform; it chooses its trade partners specifically among those countries that have no interest in pressing them on human rights, like China and Iran. In late 2010, Turkmenistan opened a new gas pipeline to China that will allow a dramatic increase in the volume of gas exports (Crabtree and Esipova, 2011).

In 2011, the international non-governmental watchdog group Freedom House gave Turkmenistan a score of seven in the categories of Political Rights and Civil Liberties, tying North Korea, and earning it a status of ‘Not Free’. Even though local elections were held the previous year they were largely orchestrated by the ruling Democratic Party (the only registered party). The Central Election Commission called for Berdymukhammedov to become President-for-Life (Freedom House, 2011).

Conclusion

It is tempting to interpret the very limited reforms of Berdymukhammedov as hopeful signs for the future, but the situation in Turkmenistan is still far from ideal. Book stock at public libraries is still far from satisfactory; some Turkmen say the only difference is that whereas once all you could find were the works of former President Niyazov, now all you can find are works of current President Berdymukhammedov. Hopefully in the coming years libraries will be able to fill the shelves with more useful material, but all new works must pass inspection by the country’s censors before becoming available to the public. One step toward this goal would be a more even distribution of the country’s natural gas wealth, but this seems unlikely. In 2010 Transparency House gave Turkmenistan a Corruption Perception Index score of 1.6 (on a scale of 0–10). This was the worst score among the country’s notably corrupt neighbors, with the exception of Afghanistan which scored 1.4 (Transparency House, 2010).

Berdymukhammedov is also slowly dismantling the personality cult of his predecessor. The Neutrality Arch, a 250-foot arch topped with a 40-foot gold-plated statue of Niyazov, has been moved from the center of the capital to the southern outskirts of town. The country has also largely re-adopted the original names for the months of the year instead of the new names that Niyazov gave them which were after his family. A small number of political prisoners have also been freed, and Berdymukhammedov has promised to increase access to the Internet in his country. Whether these small glimmers of promise outweigh the signs of continued authoritarianism (such as Berdymukhammedov’s potential lifetime presidency) remains to be seen (Vasilivetsky, 2008).

Turkmenistan provides an extreme example of what happens when library policies go bad, and illustrates why some librarians would prefer that the government just forget about public libraries entirely. And it’s true; the national government did incredible harm to the public libraries of Turkmenistan. However, it is also doubtful that the public libraries of Turkmenistan will ever be able to recover without direct attention (and permission) from the national government. So while the case of Turkmenistan stands as a warning to the dangers of ill-advised (and outright malevolent) public library policy, the coming years will provide interesting insight into whether or not it can be constructive as well.

References