print

The Padishah's technocrats:
the social network of Tajikistan's senior bureaucracy

Silaev N.Yu.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, n.silaev@inno.mgimo.ru

elibrary_id: 435265 | ORCID: 0000-0002-8110-7218 | RESEARCHER_ID: F-8947-2017

Bondarev I.M.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, i.bondarev@inno.mgimo.ru

elibrary_id: 1266267 | ORCID: 0009-0009-5346-8348 | RESEARCHER_ID: QTV-2606-2026

Gromyak I.V. ,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, bounty.2103@mail.ru

Article received: 2026.05.16 12:47. Accepted: 2026.07.21 12:48


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2026.05.06
EDN: XOIRPS

Rubric: Theme of the issue: 50th Anniversary of the MGIMO Institute of international studies

For citation:

Silaev N.Yu., Bondarev I.M., Gromyak I.V. The Padishah's technocrats: the social network of Tajikistan's senior bureaucracy. – Polis. Political Studies. 2026. No. 5. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2026.05.06. EDN: XOIRPS (In Russ.)

Abstract

A certain theoretical perplexity has emerged in studies of post-Soviet polities. The concept of neopatrimonialism has proved, on the one hand, too capacious, and, on the other, insufficiently flexible to account for the variety of political orders that have emerged across the former Soviet space. The informality paradigm has yielded a number of fruitful observations, yet it has not produced a persuasive body of theoretical generalizations. Both approaches took shape in polemics with the theory of democratic transition; nevertheless, both retained from it a pronounced normative inclination, whereby the polity under examination is assessed according to its distance from an assumed liberal-democratic “norm”. One possible way to overcome this theoretical uncertainty lies in the relatively recently coined concept of “limited” or “incomplete” statehood. This concept denotes a polity in which the state is only capable of fulfilling its functions to a limited extent. Unlike the theory of neopatrimonialism, the category of limited statehood does not impose a rigid and normative categorization, and unlike the informality paradigm, it does not neglect the study of formal institutions. Rather, it directs attention to the interaction of the formal and the informal within a given political order. The present study of social ties within the higher bureaucracy of Tajikistan demonstrates the analytical fruitfulness of the “limited statehood” approach. Social ties are operationalized as the experience of joint service among officials over the course of their careers and are represented as a network graph comprising 252 nodes and 1,180 edges. The analysis shows that cliques - isolated groups organized around a clearly dominant leader and commonly associated with patron-client relations - are virtually absent from the network. By contrast, professional communities are clearly discernable, with their members linked to particular branches of public administration. The patterns of career advancement among officials in the most influential state agencies point less to appointments based on personal loyalty or kinship than to the existence of a career bureaucracy. The persistence of such a technocratic state apparatus may, in turn, be explained by the specific character of the rent extracted by Tajikistan's ruling elite.

Keywords

post-Soviet political regimes, Tajikistan, bureaucracy, network analysis, limited statehood, neopatrimonialism, informality.

Akchurina, V. (2022). Incomplete state-building in Central Asia: the state as social practice. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14182-9

Aslund, A. (2019). Russia’s crony capitalism: the path from market economy to kleptocracy. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvgc61tr

Blondel, V.D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 10, P10008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008

Carothers, T. (2002). The end of the transition paradigm. Journal of Democracy, 13(1), 5-21. https:// doi.org/10.1353/jod.2002.0003

Collins, K. (2006). Clan politics and regime transition in Central Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511510014

Cooley, A., & Heathershaw, J. (2016). Dictators without borders: power and money in Central Asia. New Haven; London: Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300222098

Diamond, L. (2021). Democratic regression in comparative perspective: scope, methods, and causes. Democratization, 28(1), 22-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2020.1807517

Driscoll, J. (2018). Hobbesian neopatrimonialism. In M. Laruelle (Ed.), Tajikistan on the Move: Statebuilding and Societal Transformations (pp. 3-32). https://doi.org/10.5040/9781978731226.ch-001

Eisenstadt, S.N. (1973). Traditional patrimonialism and modern neopatrimonialism. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Erdmann, G., & Engel, U. (2007). Neopatrimonialism reconsidered: Critical review and elaboration ofan elusive concept. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 45(1), 95-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/14662040601135813

Fisun, O. (2019). Neopatrimonialism in Post-Soviet Eurasia. In B. Magyar (Ed.), Stubborn Structures: Reconceptualizing Post-Communist Regimes (pp. 75-96). Budapest: Central European University Press.

Gel’man, V. (2016). The vicious circle of post-Soviet neopatrimonialism in Russia. Post-Soviet Affairs, 32(5), 455-473. https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2015.1071014

Ilyin, M. (2015). Patrimonialism. What is behind the term: ideal type, category, concept or just a buzzword? Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory, 18(1), 26-51.

Isaacs, R. (2013). Nur Otan, informal networks and the countering of elite instability in Kazakhstan: Bringing the ‘formal’ back in. Europe-Asia Studies, 65(6), 1055-1079. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2013.802547

Keller, F.B. (2016). Moving beyond factions: using social network analysis to uncover patronage networks among Chinese elites. Journal of East Asian Studies, 16(1), 17-41. https://doi.org/10.1017/jea.2015.3

Krasner, S.D., & Risse, T. (2014). External actors, state-building, and service provision in areas of limited statehood: introduction. Governance, 27(4), 545-567. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12065

Laruelle, M. (2012). Discussing neopatrimonialism and patronal presidentialism in the Central Asian context. Demokratizatsiya, 20(4), 301-324.

Ledeneva, A.V. (2013). Can Russia modernise? Sistema, power networks and informal governance. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511978494

Levitsky, S., & Way, L.A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511781353

Magyar, B. (2016). Post-communist mafia state: the case of Hungary. Central European University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9786155513558

Magyar, B., & Madlovics, B. (2020). The anatomy of post-Communist regimes: a conceptual framework. Budapest: Central European University Press.

Polese, A. (2023). What is informality? (Mapping) “the art ofbypassing the state” in Eurasian spaces - and beyond. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 64(3), 322-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2021.1992791

Polese, A., & Hanau Santini, R. (2018). Limited statehood and its security implications on the fragmentation of political order in the Middle East and North Africa. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 29(3), 379-390. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2018.1456815

Schatz, E. (2005). Reconceptualizing clans: kinship networks and statehood in Kazakhstan. Nationalities Papers, 33(2), 231-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/00905990500088594

Tunger-Krlavuz, i. (2009). Political and social networks in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan: ‘Clan’, region and beyond. Central Asian Survey, 28(3), 323-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634930903445052

Tunger-Krlavuz, i. (2025). The relationship between elite structure, privatization and regime type in Central Asia: Varieties and degrees of authoritarianism in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. Central Asian Survey, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2025.2542261

Wong, C.S. (2022). The past, the present, and the future: A bibliometric analysis of failed/fragile/ collapsed state research during 1990-2020. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 7, 720882. https:// doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.720882

Aleskerov, F.T., & Volsky, V.I. (2024). Nekotorye matematicheskie modeli i metody v politicheskikh naukakh [Selected mathematical models and methods in political science]. Moscow: Yurait. (In Russ.)

Bobrovnikov, V.O. (2002). Musul’mane Severnogo Kavkaza: obychai, pravo, nasilie [Muslims of the North Caucasus: custom, law, and violence]. Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura. (In Russ.)

Knyazev, A.A. (2026). Ocherki politicheskoi istorii Tsentral’noi Azii: v 2 t. T. 2: 1-ya chetvert’ XXI v. [Essays on the political history of Central Asia. Vol. 2: The first quarter of the twenty-first century]. Moscow: MGIMO University Publishing House. (In Russ.)

Ledeneva, A. (2019). To control a level of informality you need the targeted therapy of informal practices. Journal of Economic Sociology = Ekonomicheskaya sotsiologiya, 20(3), 12-24. (In Russ.)

Melnikov, K.V. (2018). Neopatrimonialism: classification as a way of overcoming the conceptual stretching. Polis. Political Studies, 2, 68-81. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2018.02.06.

Melnikov, K.V. (2021). Clientelism and informal networks of regional elites in Russia: network analysis of the case of Sverdlovsk Oblast. Polis. Political Studies, 6, 171-188. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.06.12

Rogozhina, K.A. (2008). The Specifics of elite genesis in post-Soviet Tajikistan. Pro Nunc. Sovremennye politicheskie protsessy, 1, 390-395. (In Russ.)

Weber, M. (1990). Politik als Beruf. (Russ. ed.: Weber, M. Politika kak prizvanie i professiya. In Izbrannye proizvedeniya (pp. 644-706). Moscow: Progress).

See also: