AbstractsOther

In June 2010, the southern parts of Kyrgyzstan were marred by ethnic violence between Uzbeks and Kyrgyz. Murders, arsons, rapes and widespread violence were dominating the region for four days and ethnic Uzbeks were primarily the victims. Nationalism had been on the rise and several international observers had warned of the possibility of ethnic tensions turning violent. The state failed to intervene and stop the violence, and in the aftermath the state almost entirely took legal and prosecutorial measures against ethnic Uzbeks. Kyrgyzstan has however been described as an island of democracy by observers, comparing Kyrgyzstan to its autocratic neighbours. So how could a democracy fail to protect its own citizens and act legally biased? To answer this question, this paper uses theory regarding; democracy criticism, nationalism, stigma, transitional justice, ethnicity, concept of the other and Voice, Exit and Loyalty. The paper concludes that democracy has not been a hindrance to ethnic violence, on the contrary democracy has been a vehicle for nationalists to promote their ideas.