Is There a Threat of Aggressive Nationalism in Kyrgyz Republic?

The Open Society report warns of a rising aggressive nationalism, and the head of legal clinic Adilet claims that the "virus of nationalism...has spread in North Kyrgyzstan." This post attempts to detangle the logical knots behind these claims.

A very basic logical statement has the following form: Assertions (A) + Conditions (B)--> Conclusions (C). For example, Germs of type Z lead to a variety of diseases (A) + Washing hands with soap after using a toilet kills Z germs (B) --> Washing hands after using a toilet is a good way to avoid diseases (C). We can apply the same structure to the argument of a rising aggressive nationalism in Kyrgyz Republic. The conclusion is that an aggressive nationalism is on the rise. What are (A) and (B) that lead to the conclusion?

The Open Society report and Cholpon Dzhakupova's statements imply that the conditional assumptions (B) are (i) nationalistic speeches by Ata Jurt leadership, (ii) disproportionate arrests and prosecutions of Uzbeks in the southern regions of the country, and (iii) harassment of civil activists who are expressing concerns over human rights violations. Now, we can establish the initial assertion (A) that will unambiguously lead to the stated conclusion:

Any activity- independent of whether it is localized and driven by a small and unrepresentative group, or nationally representative and driven by an overwhelming nation-wide support-that is repressive to Uzbeks in its nature, directly or indirectly, is an indicator of a nationwide aggressive nationalism.

The argument in the form I laid out is internally consistent, i.e. the conclusion follows from the premises. Arguments are evaluated not only on the basis of internal consistency but also on the validity of the assumptions. If we establish that the assertion (A) is false, then the conclusion will be invalid. But what reasons are there to suspect that the assertion (A) is false? This assumption is a prime example of what is called a Hasty Generalization Fallacy. It is a logical fallacy where one makes a generalization to a larger set from a smaller and unrepresentative subset. Activities of a few do not imply that a broader population will engage in similar activities.

The most frequent error in these so called analytical articles or briefs is confusing sentiment and actions. The sentiment, feelings, or any other term that works for you, can be extremely aggressive but does not necessarily turn into an aggressive action. One may speculate that the overwhelming number of Europeans dislike Jews. Suppose that the speculation is true (Of course, this can never be true. Europeans are too advanced to hold such a low-level primitive sentiments.). Does that sentiment necessarily imply that the Europeans will act upon them? Under Nazi Germany, the overwhelming nationwide sentiment was directed by the state's machinery into inhumane actions. In France, Britain, and the US, where the sentiment toward Jews was no less aggressive, the actions of Nazi SS officers and some common folk, were met with disgust and horror. If politicians and their rhetoric are precursors to such an aggressive behavior, then the recent anti-Muslim hearings led by a Republican Congressman Peter King should indicate that the US is facing a threat of aggressive nationalism (aggressive anti-Islamism?). Feelings of a select few do not represent the feelings of the US population. Furthermore, even if these feelings were commonly shared, it does not mean that the violent or unconstitutional actions of a few will translate into a mass action.

Kyrgyz Republic is facing many challenges. The risk of another turmoil is real in terms of non-negligible probabilities of such an event. A nationwide aggressive nationalism would be disastrous, but the bottom line is that the likelihood of it is (extremely) over-inflated.