In this article, Azamat Seitov and UWED PhD student Zulkhumor Makhmudova analyze the phenomenon of political consciousness, psychopolitical influence, and leadership within the framework of the Organization of Turkic States. The authors examine the political speeches and leadership styles of Shavkat Mirziyoyev, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Ilham Aliyev, and Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, as well as their role in shaping a pan-Turkic identity. In the article, the OTS is interpreted not merely as a platform for economic or diplomatic cooperation, but as a complex integrative space shaped by symbols, historical memory, cultural affinity, and political rhetoric.
The main idea of the study is that the processes of Turkic integration have a deeper psychological and anthropological dimension than mere institutional interaction. Concepts such as the “Turkic world,” “brotherhood,” and “shared destiny” can influence political consciousness and strengthen cooperation between states on an emotional and symbolic basis. At the same time, the authors note that if such discourse is accepted uncritically, in some cases it may give rise to the risk of symbolic dependence or foreign policy alignment in the political decision-making process.
The article also analyzes the approaches of Russia, China, and the European Union to the CSTO. While Russia views this process primarily through the lens of “Pan-Turkism” and the limitation of its regional influence, China links it to issues of identity and internal stability. The European Union, on the other hand, views the CST as an alternative integration model in Central Asia. According to the authors, much of this criticism stems from the geopolitical interests of the external actors themselves, rather than from the actual substance of the CST’s activities.
In conclusion, the article emphasizes that it is incorrect for Uzbekistan to either idealize the OTC or treat it as an absolute threat. The most appropriate approach is the pragmatic use of the OTC as a tool for a multi-vector foreign policy, the promotion of economic interests, the development of transportation infrastructure, and the strengthening of its international position. In this sense, the OTG should remain a platform for Uzbekistan that serves its sovereign interests, and its future depends on the country’s ability to avoid prioritizing symbolic closeness over rational national interests.
* The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.
