Rico Isaacs is the Editor of Central Asian Survey and a Professor of International Politics at the University of Lincoln, UK. Find out about what first sparked Rico’s interest in the field and his early academic journey. We also talk to him about his three main research interests – exploring authoritarianism through interviewing party leaders during his PhD, looking at nation building and identity through the lens of Kazakh filmmaking, and finally examining the relationship between populism and the ecological crisis.
- Rico, tell us about your early years, for example where did you grow up and what sparked off your academic journey?
I was born in a small town in Suffolk, near Newmarket in the UK. I grew up in a working class community, and went to a nearby state school. Nothing particularly remarkable happened, but I always had an interest in history and learning. In my family, I was also the first generation to go to university.
- So did you always want to be an academic?
I have a confession. I think I chose academia as a second choice, because my first choice was largely unattainable. I wanted to be a rock star!
- What sparked off your interest in Central Asia?
At school, I had an excellent history teacher and we studied Russian history which really inspired me to do a degree in the subject at Kingston University, UK. A few years later, I did my Masters at the London School of Economics, and that is when I decided to focus on the Soviet and the post-Soviet space.
In 2003, during my Masters, I became interested in Central Asia, and especially the development of authoritarian politics in the region. I then made the decision to undertake a PhD. I took some time deciding what I wanted to do. I initially focused on Turkmenistan, but I realised quickly that there would be significant difficulties in undertaking research in the country. Consequently, I gravitated towards Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, and was fortunate to receive funding to do my PhD at Oxford Brookes University and from the Leverhulme Trust which provided me with the opportunity to carry out fieldwork in Kazakhstan for a year. That time made a huge difference to me, and really helped in terms of building contacts and networks, as well as in collecting in-depth interview data, which led me to write my thesis.
- Was there anything that surprised you when you first visited Kazakhstan?
What really surprised me was how straightforward it was to conduct research. As you are dealing with an authoritarian regime, I thought it might be difficult to undertake interviews. But at that time, there was a real willingness and openness from political elites to speak to a Western researcher. This has become more difficult over time as I’ve become more well-known and published more papers on the subject.
- Where have you visited in Central Asian? Do you speak any local languages?
I still haven’t been to Turkmenistan or Tajikistan, but I spent about two years in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. I speak Russian, but if I was starting out now, I would learn the local languages. When I was doing my PhD, we were just worried about learning Russian, but this is changing now, and with good reason. Larger debates around the decolonisation of academia and the identity of Central Asia are taking place, meaning the region’s local languages are becoming much more important.
- Could you tell us a little more about your research? For example, what was your PhD on?
I explored how formal institutions, political parties, elections, constitutions, and parliaments operate and function, which involved looking at their role in supporting authoritarianism in the region and authoritarian durability.
I also researched the role of informality in formal politics, and how clientelism and corruption have influenced the development of formal institutions, and how that has been an important part of all authoritarian durability in the region – particularly in Kazakhstan and to some extent in Kyrgyzstan. This was the focus of my PhD and subsequent book, Party System Formation in Kazakhstan, which made the case that parties are particularly important in their representation of the interests of particular informal elite groups, and were a way for the regime to manage inter-elite competition and threats to their rule.
- Could you tell us about your book, Film and identity in Kazakhstan?
While living in Kazakhstan, I became interested in the ways discourses pertaining to nationalism and nation building in Central Asia emerge particularly through the lens of film and cinema. I never planned to examine film, but in Almaty I watched a lot of Kazakh cinema and often made notes. Film is an important way to explore politics. Through cinema, you could see resistance and alternative discourses challenging the authoritarian regime.
This became increasingly important as the Nazarbayev regime developed over the years as the political space became more insular and closed. There was seemingly no formal official outlet for disaffection against the regime. Films remain a subjective platform, and can be interpreted in different ways. Around the time of writing my first book there was a group of film directors who were (and still are) producing films that are quite critical of the social and political condition of Kazakh society.
- Your third interest is populism and the environment. Could you tell us a bit about that area of research?
I’m now interested in this idea of populist ecologies, which is how populist leaders and movements are shaping environmental sustainability on climate change in the urban environment. This research is less focused on Central Asia, but on the Baltic republics and broader Europe. It is more comparative and theoretical. I’m hoping to start writing a book next year.
- Why do you think Central Asia is so unknown in the West?
It is difficult to answer this question because I’ve been focused on the region for 20 years. I would also challenge the assumption that it is unknown. For a couple of decades Central Asia has become a big focal point for policymakers and Western leaders. Some of this interest is due to the fluctuations in geopolitical security, or the War on Terrorism after 9/11.
Central Asia has also lived under Russian imperialism in the Soviet Union for some time, and therefore the Western focus was more based on the powers surrounding Central Asia, but when you think about Central Asia over the longue durée, you can observe how it was at the centre of world culture and science, especially during the centuries at the turn of the first millennium with important figures such as al-Khwarizmi, the founder of Algebra, and the philosopher al-Farabi.
- What is Russia’s relationship with Central Asia?
So the idea that the EU, China, Russia, and the US are in competition in respect to Central Asia is quite a common perspective. It is largely driven by a narrative from Western policymakers since the 1990s, and is referred to as the “New Great Game”. But within academic scholarship, this discourse is being challenged as it is far too simplistic.
While Russia still remains fairly preeminent as an actor in the region for numerous reasons – due to its historical, linguistic, cultural and economic ties, this assumption is also being challenged. The war in Ukraine has really marked a big shift amongst the general population in Kazakhstan, and in Kyrgyzstan. People are challenging Russian influence and there is a movement to decolonise how Central Asians see themselves and their identity. Central Asian intellectuals are committing to their local languages, and we are seeing Central Asian voices and scholarship spreading more widely across the world.
- Finally, our last question is what has been your biggest challenge and biggest achievement in academia?
I think building confidence and dealing with rejection has been challenging as academia is filled with rejection. It is something that I’m much better at doing now. Additionally, I would say that going to Kazakhstan for the first time for my PhD, having never been there before, was also challenging. However, I am proud that I managed to pull it off and make a career out of it. When I was a PhD student I used to read Central Asian Survey all the time, so I am pleased that I have been able to become the editor of the journal. I feel that is quite an achievement.
—
In our next interview with Rico (Part 2), we talk to him about his role as Editor of Central Asian Survey, and discuss what 2024 will bring for the journal. He also provides his top tips for getting published.
This interview is part of ‘Meet the Editors‘ series where we interview members of the TWQ and Central Asian Survey editorial teams about the career, work, achievements as well as covering hot topics in the field.
