Where does fiction collide with reality?
Author: Sherali Rizoiyon, Candidate of Political Sciences (Tajikistan)
Recent developments in world politics and contemporary processes in Central Asia have lifted the veil on many geopolitical constructs and interpretations. Certain phenomena and trends, whose existence and authenticity—or artificiality—were previously the subject of speculation, are now increasingly revealing their true nature.
One such phenomenon is the geopolitical construction of narratives and meanings aimed at achieving long-term objectives. Such activities (self-promotion and the demonization of rivals) are designed to secure superiority and strengthen influence, and are employed by all actors involved in Central Asian affairs. Against the backdrop of these “information operations,” it becomes extremely difficult to distinguish truth from propaganda, as each side and its media instruments present themselves as advocates of progress and prosperity for the region while portraying their competitors as obstacles to that path.
Previously, a defining feature of the information space was the rivalry and mutual demonization between Western powers and Russia. They created positive and negative narratives not only about one another but also about their respective allies and competitors.
Today, it appears that Turkey has also intensified its own propaganda mechanisms to construct narratives that serve its interests. The attentive reader may ask: what significance does this have for us, the Tajiks, and what consequences might it entail?
For now, it is premature to speak definitively about the significance and consequences of this phenomenon, since the “propaganda playbooks” themselves have not yet fully manifested in an open and complete form. Nevertheless, the use of existing models and approaches characteristic of other major powers is already becoming increasingly apparent.
Perhaps in a few months, as the information campaign expands, the essence of these “instructions for constructing meanings and creating narratives” will become clearer. This is undoubtedly something that should be discussed and analyzed so that we can distinguish truth from propaganda.
Today, three of the most visible and important elements of this process can be identified.
The first is the demonization of competitors. This approach is used to create negative perceptions of other states, as well as of their political approaches and strategies at different periods of time. To some extent, this resembles attempts to direct and control the processes of “decolonization” within our society.
How successful these efforts will be remains difficult to predict. However, numerous narratives based on distrust and negative perceptions will be created and disseminated. Such a phenomenon undoubtedly influences public opinion, and it can be argued that the first results of this influence are already becoming visible.
Why should we take this phenomenon seriously and study it? At the very least, because our society’s attitude toward Russia, China, and Iran should be determined by us ourselves, not imposed from outside. No external power should be allowed to interfere in this sphere. Even when someone presents themselves as our friend and ally, such claims often conceal other goals and interests.
In other words, no independent and politically mature state that understands its own national interests would replace one dominant power with another. The primary objective is to maintain balance and free oneself from external domination, not to exchange one patron for another.
The second element is the use of religion as a political instrument and its elevation above national identity. For Muslim societies, religion has traditionally been one of the most effective tools for influencing public opinion. The negative consequences of such interventions have contributed to serious crises in many countries. For decades, numerous mechanisms have been developed to cultivate distrust toward the “other,” particularly toward Muslims belonging to different religious currents and schools of thought. Over time, under the influence of extensive propaganda, such attitudes became deeply rooted and evolved into enduring social perceptions.
Those who promote such narratives employ two seemingly contradictory instruments in their propaganda efforts. On the one hand, they emphasize religious unity, declaring: “We are all Muslims and servants of God; before the Almighty it does not matter to which nation or race a person belongs,” and similar slogans.
On the other hand, these same forces simultaneously engage in the demonization of Muslims who belong to different religious traditions and schools. Social media users have repeatedly encountered such phenomena, making specific examples largely unnecessary.
Why should we take such narratives seriously and study them? First and foremost, because the Muslim identity of the majority of our people is beyond dispute. We have been Muslims for more than a thousand years, remain so today, and will likely remain so in the future. However, the instrumentalization of our religious feelings and beliefs by other states ultimately harms our own national interests.
This situation resembles the old saying that one should not mistake a wolf for the shepherd of the flock. The events of the past year in Iran, including two wars waged against the country by the United States and Israel, have demonstrated that for states with Islamic political systems, as well as for those that present themselves as defenders of Muslims worldwide, current political, economic, and military-strategic interests often take precedence over both religion itself and the fate of Muslim peoples.
Therefore, preserving our Muslim identity is first and foremost our own responsibility. Any state or political force that seeks to use this factor inevitably pursues its own political, economic, strategic, and geopolitical interests.
The third element is the so-called “discovery” of Turkophobia within society. Unfortunately, over the past century, numerous anti-Turkic narratives have been cultivated in the country’s information space, which can be viewed as an example of the well-known Roman principle of “Divide and Rule” (Divide et Impera).
We, the Tajiks, are among the peoples who have suffered significant losses within our historical homeland because a portion of our own educated elite fell under the influence of Pan-Turkist ideas. The consequences of these processes have not yet been fully overcome, and the wounds they inflicted have not completely healed.
Unfortunately, even today, some of our compatriots in the virtual sphere are engaged in creating positive narratives in favor of Turkey and effectively serve as channels for Turkish informational influence within our society. The lessons of the 1920s demonstrate that the greatest harm to our people was caused not by ethnic Turks as such, but by members of our own society who embraced Turkist ideas.
Nations possessing historical memory and resilient social institutions never allow history to force them to relive the same negative consequences over and over again.
Despite all the factors mentioned above, our people do not, by their nature, harbor hostility toward Turkic peoples, and society as a whole continues to maintain a positive attitude toward Turkey and other Turkic-speaking states. The statements and opinions that may conventionally be described as “anti-Turkic” and that occasionally appear on social media are, in reality, reactions to Turkey’s current official policies and strategy.
The intensification of such discussions has occurred against the backdrop of the fact that, today, Central Asia is increasingly being officially referred to as “Turkestan” in Turkey.
In recent years, the Turkic-speaking world has also witnessed attempts to rewrite history and appropriate the legacy of renowned scholars and thinkers of Iranian origin. Given these circumstances, accusations of Turkophobia directed at the population of the country resemble the well-known proverb: “A powerful thief ties up the owner of the cow as well.” In other words, people are merely expressing their attitudes toward ongoing developments, sometimes using language that may not be the most appropriate.
Why should we take this issue seriously and seek ways to address it? The spread of negative sentiments and distrust toward other people or states becomes, in itself, a source of vulnerability and creates favorable conditions for external actors seeking to exploit such sentiments for their own purposes.
As long as such phenomena persist, the conditions remain for the application of the well-known Roman principle of “Divide and Rule” (Divide et Impera).
At the same time, in recent years, the information space has also seen the emergence of negative narratives directed against Turkey and Turkic peoples, promoted by various external actors. This is a separate subject that deserves its own comprehensive analysis.
In conclusion, it can be noted that every action generates a reaction, and geography largely shapes the destiny of peoples and states. Therefore, it is critically important for us to understand the long-term and fundamental interests of our own country and to place independence, sovereignty, and national prosperity above all else.
Consequently, the ability to distinguish artificially constructed perceptions from real processes, as well as an understanding of the propaganda objectives of various external actors, provides an important opportunity to avoid the trap of hostility and prejudice toward other peoples and states.
