Policy justification When carrying out reforms on such a massive scale as that which is taking place in the former Soviet Union, to be able to enact policies without much conflict or opposition is seen as advantageous. That Karimov can initiate price changes and tax laws without serious contention means, in the opinion of Uzbek scholars, the pace of reform in that country can continue on a measured and sure-footed path. This was the argument used by Nazarbaev in his 1995 decision to dissolve the parliament in Kazakstan. Even Akaev has relied on the argument that a centralized system is better in the short-run to get his reform agenda underway, much in style of Mikhail Gorbachev years earlier. This is perhaps one of the more compelling arguments presented in favor of centralized authority.
Companies planning to invest in the region are most concerned about the viability of their ventures.
If there is political and social unrest, the thought of investing tens of millions, let alone hundreds of millions of dollars is hardly justified. If Islam Karimov, Saparmurad Niyazov, or Eduard Shevardnadze can guarantee a positive business climate, even at the expense of multi-party systems with open and free elections, it is considered worth the sacrifice. There's nothing like a coup or nationalization campaign to unsettle or retard chances of making money. These policy-based justifications can also be viewed in a more mundane, public light. If a leader, even a dictatorial one, can increase the standard of living and permit the diversification of an economy, popular support may be more forgiving.