{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023448275862068966, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.7368421052631575, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
China’s uncertain future

“Turkmenbashi”. Mariya Y. Omelicheva’s chapter looks at nation-branding activities undertaken by Berdymukhamedov’s government that aim to improve Turkmenistan’s overall image among international partners, potential investors and tourists. However, Omelicheva illustrates how these half-hearted reforms and the gradual “Turkmenbashisation” of Berdymukhamedov’s leadership style question the whole point of his nation-branding project. In his fascinating chapter, Reuel R. Hanks, using ethnosymbolist theory of nationalism, demonstrates how official historical narratives of both Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have sought to build distinct national identities by often drawing on the same symbols of the past. To validate their respective claims, both historiographies vigorously attempt to discredit and devalue the other’s past. Although these historical assertions are primarily aimed at domestic audiences, Hanks demonstrates that their increasing political undertone runs the risk of turning already strained Tajik–Uzbek relations into a regional security problem. The last chapter by Galym Zhussipbek illustrates that the stigmatisation of one another is not unique to Tajik–Uzbek relations but is widely practised among all of the republics of the region. Zhussipbek suggests that this orientalism – a belief in cultural superiority to others – in Central Asian national ideologies is the Soviet carry-over that was once effectively used by Kremlin social engineers to construct exclusivist national identities for the local Muslim peoples. For Zhussipbek, one way to overcome the rising ethno-communal tensions in the region is by developing “positive nationalisms”, based on traditional (presumably pre-Russian) inclusive Central Asian identities and tolerant local Hanafi and Sufi traditions of Islam. Sadly, this is the author’s wishful romanticised belief in the harmonious past. Overall, this book is a rich resource for both specialists and students in the field of Central Asian studies, and the editor and contributors should be congratulated on producing such a useful and insightful volume on the nation-building processes in the region.