How has the development of digital technologies affected democratization processes and the expansion of citizens’ rights in Central Asia? What positive and negative effects do you see?

The Internet has moved many traditional processes online and even strengthened their impact. Thanks to digital technologies, people now have new opportunities: for example, residents of the most remote areas can directly address the authorities.

For instance, previously virtually no one knew about the residents of the remote Kyrgyz village of Zardaly in the Batken region and their problems. After the village was connected to the Internet, residents began recording video messages to the country’s leadership. Soon, electricity and mobile service reached Zardaly and a road was built – major investments made possible by the Internet.

Thus, the government gained the opportunity to “hear the people”: it used to be difficult to overcome bureaucratic hierarchies, but now citizens can directly express their needs through electronic services, mobile applications, and social networks.

However, there is a downside to these processes. The openness of the Internet makes users vulnerable: without legal knowledge, a person can inadvertently break the law or become a victim of fraud. Moreover, the increased flow of information and new forms of communication – social media posts, video appeals – provide citizens with additional leverage, but the authorities may respond with restrictions on freedom of speech and new control measures.

In this way, processes of expanding citizens’ opportunities and increasing surveillance occur simultaneously. As a result, many internet users have begun to exercise restraint and engage in self-censorship: they understand that excessive activity can carry political risks, so they prefer not to stand out unnecessarily. This is especially pronounced in countries with more repressive regimes, where civil society is under pressure.

How do you assess the problem of digital inequality in the region? Are governments doing enough now to overcome it, and what more should be done?

The problem of the digital divide is very serious, because it is important not just to have an internet connection, but also to have so-called meaningful access to it. According to the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership (GDIP), one connection is not enough – it is important that the connection and services are truly useful. Five key parameters of meaningful access have been identified, which determine the quality of digital inclusion:

In other words, it is necessary not only to lay communication lines, but also to ensure service accessibility, quality content, user training, and citizen protection. In several countries like Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan, there are already positive examples: by stimulating competition, they have improved quality and lowered connectivity prices. However, in some other Central Asian countries, digital infrastructure and its accessibility remain underdeveloped.

You mentioned that policy formation affects the price of internet. Does this mean that in some countries the cost of internet is artificially inflated to restrict citizens’ access?

Not necessarily. One must consider both the absolute and relative cost of internet. By global standards, prices may seem low, but if they make up a significant portion of income (say, 10% of monthly income); it is a substantial burden for an average family.

The main reason for high prices is the structure of the telecommunications market. Differences in cost are explained by how the government encourages liberalization and competition. For example, in Kyrgyzstan in the early years of independence, reforms went relatively successfully: private operators appeared, competition developed, and prices fell. In other republics, monopolies maintained their influence, reforms proceeded more slowly, and operators did not face competition and did not lower tariffs. This explains why two similar countries can end up on opposite ends of internet affordability rankings over ten years.

How much do e-government initiatives in the region improve government transparency and accountability? For example, can digitization programs really influence democratization, or do they remain mostly technical progress?

International e-governance rankings provide useful benchmarks, but do not always reflect the whole picture. Many countries pay attention to these indices, which encourages them to improve their systems. However, a high ranking by itself does not guarantee broad citizen participation. Nevertheless, noticeable successes in the development of digital services have been observed in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.

In Kazakhstan, e-government services have largely developed thanks to the private sector. For example, one bank created its own e-government service apps used by millions of citizens, becoming virtually a monopolist. On one hand, this brought many conveniences for users: through the banking app, one can obtain certificates, pay fines, etc. However, there is a downside: all user data ended up in the hands of a single private company. When the bank’s apps went down, the operation of e-government services was paralyzed.

In Kyrgyzstan, they took a different approach: the government acted as a platform and gave equal access to various operators from both the public and private sectors. A system of open government registries and services was created based on the Estonian X-Road model. In particular, the Tunduk portal and a mobile application of the same name were launched, integrating practically all services – from electronic IDs and driver’s licenses to fines and certificate issuance. A citizen, for example, does not need to carry a wallet, passport, or driver’s license: he just presents a digital ID on his phone to obtain a certificate or pay a fine. In addition, the National Bank of the Kyrgyz Republic (NBKR) launched the ElQR platform (a unified national QR code), combining all banks and payment services. With this QR code, one can make payments and transfers. Moreover, the NBKR made electronic transfers in the national currency free of charge. This gave an even greater push toward cashless payments for citizens and businesses.

Thus, the government has created an ecosystem: it provides fundamental tools, and a multitude of companies (banks, mobile operators, IT firms) offers citizens various applications and services. This stimulates competition and provides choice: if one application stops working, one can always use another. As a result, digital services have significantly made life easier for many citizens.

Undoubtedly, e-government brings great benefits, but it is also associated with risks. Simplified interaction with government agencies speeds up many processes. However, questions remain: how to manage this and ensure uninterrupted operation and security of systems and data – which is not always transparent yet. At the same time, fraudsters, often transnational, quickly adapt: citizens often store money in mobile wallets, and this attracts criminals. They can use modern phishing schemes and even deepfakes to extract passwords and codes. News regularly reports stories of people losing their savings due to data theft via new technologies.

Within the Safe City programs, the authorities install hundreds of surveillance cameras and face recognition systems. Is this considered beneficial for public safety and city services, or is it rather an increase in control over the population? How do people react to such surveillance?

There is now a real surge of interest in the concept of a smart city. Indeed, surveillance systems are already proving useful: in regions where cameras have been installed, crime resolution rates are increasing because the police have more information.

However, few have thought about the risks. At the international level, discussions are underway about where all the video and biometric data go. When private or quasi-governmental companies install cameras, it remains unclear whether the recordings are stored in the country and who has access to them. There have been cases of leaks from such systems, and during those times, lawmakers became aware of the risks of these systems. It is likely that only after real problems appear (for example, new leaks or hacks) will decision-makers begin to regulate this area more seriously. Even though transparency is limited, citizens do not fully understand the risks and remain indifferent to face-recognition technology.

Thus, the Safe City system has obvious advantages (improved crime resolution rates), but also serious drawbacks related to data security. Ideally, regulatory frameworks should be established: for example, clearly defining who has access to the recordings, where they are stored, and how they are used.

Speaking of civic participation and transparency: are the platforms for appeals to the authorities effective? For example, how would you assess the Kazakh portal e-otinish, where citizens can file complaints and even lawsuits online with a mandatory response from government bodies?

Any channel of feedback from the government to the population is a positive trend. The more ways citizens have to reach the authorities, the better. However, it is important which mechanisms are used. Specialized platforms and applications cover a narrow audience: typically, citizens with high digital skills use them. Ordinary citizens are wary of such innovations. It is much more convenient to integrate appeals into the channels that people already use daily. For example, in Kyrgyzstan WhatsApp unconditionally dominates: numerous groups in this messenger are used for dialogue with government agencies. In Uzbekistan, Telegram is more widespread. If the government wants to establish effective feedback, it makes sense to integrate its bots into these familiar messengers, rather than try to force citizens to master a new interface.

As for the e-otinish portal – it is a good idea, but it is hard for me to judge since I am not in Kazakhstan. If we look at the experience of similar projects, their adoption has been limited, because users had to register, learn to use them, and get used to new platforms. Ideally, such services should be integrated into existing applications (WhatsApp, Telegram, banking apps, or social networks) that citizens use daily.

An example of a successful experience is the Electronic Document Management System (EDMS) E-Kyzmat. Here the key factor was that officials were practically forbidden from using paper documents and were required to send all documents through the E-Kyzmat system. Now for interaction with government agencies, both citizens and the private sector use this system.

How effective are electronic petitions and public online platforms in Central Asia? Are there successful examples where they have led to real changes?

The existence of such platforms gives citizens a chance to “vent”: if a person is unhappy about something, he can create a petition and feel that his voice has at least reached somewhere and been heard by someone. However, some countries around the world fear such initiatives: examples of blocking Change.org in some countries in the region confirm this. As soon as inconvenient petitions appear, access to international platforms is immediately shut down.

Nevertheless, these mechanisms are necessary. National petition portals (for example, Mening fikrim in Uzbekistan or the state portal in Kazakhstan) are also a step forward. The main thing is that citizens have real access to such tools and the guarantee that their voice will be heard.

If we speak of positive examples of digital civic engagement, in Kyrgyzstan grassroots activists effectively used online platforms to raise funds for treating children with rare diseases. With the help of charitable platforms and social networks, hundreds of thousands, and sometimes even millions of dollars, were raised in a few days for very expensive medications. This demonstrates the power of digital mobilization for the benefit of society.

In critical situations (natural disasters, fires, floods), people also show great solidarity: online communities immediately come together to help those affected. The only caveat is that these efforts must be coordinated with the Emergency Situations Ministry and local authorities. If efforts are not coordinated, confusion may arise: for example, people collect materials and humanitarian aid on their own, but without connection to official services, this can lead to duplication of efforts and inefficient allocation of resources. Therefore, close coordination of volunteers and officials is necessary for successful civic mobilization.

Currently, environmental and social issues are very relevant. Special attention is paid to the green agenda: for example, protests against uranium mining at a controversial site – thanks to 33,000 signatures and demonstrations, they managed to have decisions reconsidered. The problem of traffic congestion, deforestation, and polluted air is also keenly felt: every autumn and winter, residents of Kyrgyzstan take to social networks in outrage over smog and tree cutting.

The success of such campaigns largely depends on communication channels. Different generations use different platforms: older people more often read news on Facebook or Odnoklassniki, whereas young people are moving rapidly to TikTok and various messengers. If the government blocks popular services (for example, blocking TikTok), people go “underground” – using VPNs and lesser-known apps. This makes it difficult for authorities to monitor public opinion. In other words, excessive control can only worsen the problem, pushing citizens into channels that are hard to reach.

In recent years, an increase in digital authoritarianism has been observed: laws against fake news, mandatory registration of social media accounts, and criminal liability for insulting the authorities, and so on. How do these measures hinder independent media, activists, and bloggers? Is there still an “island of freedom” on the internet in the region?

Freedom of speech on the Internet is shrinking worldwide. One consequence of this is the increase in the number of fake accounts and the spread of misinformation. When people cannot speak publicly and openly, many bots and anonymous commentators emerge. This creates additional risks: for example, a resident of a remote area may take a fake post for truth without realizing who wrote it.

In such conditions, it is extremely important to develop critical thinking – to learn to analyze information and remember that nobody really knows who is on the other side of the screen. Also, one should remember that there are many fraudsters online, and if an offer seems too good to be true, it probably is.

How can the right to privacy and freedom of expression be protected in the current situation? How aware is the population of the dangers of digital surveillance, and are there protection initiatives (VPN, encryption, education)?

Many of us came “from the Soviet past”, and many still have a sense of excessive caution from those times. First of all, one should never forget: everything you write or post on the internet is stored somewhere – it’s a fact, as the proverb goes, “what is written by an online pen cannot be cut out with an ax.” Secondly, social networks and services already know more about you than you know about yourself: your photos, personal documents, habits, metadata. Therefore, it is important to practice basic cybersecurity hygiene. Everyone needs at least simple security skills:

Additionally, it is necessary to improve digital literacy: to teach users (especially in remote areas) to critically approach any information and to master protective tools. The best recipes here are transparency in the activities of civic projects and regular public education.

Central Asian countries are heavily dependent on imported equipment and infrastructure. What geopolitical risks do you see in this dependence? Can we speak of digital neocolonialism, or do our governments have sufficient control?

Purchased technologies should be tested for security. I hope the agencies responsible for digitalization have qualified specialists capable of scanning equipment and software for embedded “backdoors” and spyware modules. Ideally, each country should have a cybersecurity service that tests all acquired equipment.
However, this is not implemented in all countries. In less developed states, they may simply not be aware of all the risks or may not have the resources for thorough testing.

For example, a few years ago, it was proposed to conduct a cybersecurity audit of the critical infrastructure of one of the ministries in our region. The agency refused, considering the topic irrelevant, and a few years later, it was subjected to a serious cyberattack. This is a classic story: until big storms hit a country, people talk little about them. Now the countries of Central Asia have perhaps been lucky that world cybercriminals and hackers have not yet turned their attention to them – but this does not guarantee security in the future.

Another important aspect is data sovereignty. Many laws state that key citizen data (and especially government data) must be stored within the country. However, in practice, this is not always observed: some officials use private email services or messaging apps to exchange information. This makes data vulnerable. A vivid example is the recent leak of data from officials’ messengers in the USA.

Regarding where to store data – inside the country or on foreign servers – I believe that the critical factor is not so much the location of the servers as the reliability of their protection. To compare: it is easier for hackers to break into a server of a government agency in a developing country than to penetrate a carefully protected server of a large IT company. Therefore, much depends on the level of protection, not on geography.

In general, data should be categorized. Personal data is a matter for each individual: the user decides what they are willing to share with social networks, but they should remember cyber hygiene as discussed above. Government confidential data is better stored in secure systems (servers with high certification, regular backups, offline storage). Everything else can be stored with either local or foreign cloud providers, if they have reliable infrastructure. The main thing is that these systems are properly certified (for example, at least Tier-3) and regularly maintained. Sometimes, as a small country, we even have an advantage: nobody requires us to create analogues of large social networks or supercomputers

What needs to happen in the coming years to form a strong digital civil society in the region? Is it possible that the new generation of activists will more effectively use Civic Tech to advance rights and transparency?

Digital technologies are essentially just tools. Whether they bring benefit depends on the person. A person may have a smartphone, social networks, and access to government services, but without critical thinking and cyber hygiene, these tools can either help or cause serious harm.

Therefore, the main bet is on education. A systemic approach is needed: invest in developing digital literacy and critical thinking skills from childhood. The result will not appear immediately – it takes years to fully involve the new generation. But only in this way can people fully use technology in the name of transparency and protection of their rights. If citizens are given only superficial knowledge, they will not realize the potential of the available tools and will themselves be at risk of falling victim to online threats. At the same time, the level of trust in digital services will decline.

In the context of the rapid advent of the artificial intelligence era, it is especially important to comprehensively prepare new specialists: a combination of STEM (math, programming) and humanities disciplines. Artificial intelligence is just a new technology, and it will be what we train it to be. It is necessary to educate engineers and developers who understand philosophy and humanism so that AI serves society and does not turn into a killing machine.

In the end, it all comes down to digital literacy education. Any initiatives in open data, public platforms, and online government services will pay dividends only when citizens (and new leaders) are ready to use them wisely. This is the key to a more just and free digital future for the region.