On February 11, Transparency International, a global non-governmental organization that works to combat corruption and promote transparency, released its annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), revealing a decline for Uzbekistan – the first since 2012. The country’s score dropped from 33 out of 100 in 2023 to 32 in 2024, earning Uzbekistan a rank of 121st out of 180 countries.
In contrast, neighboring Kazakhstan fared better with a score of 40, ranking 88th. However, other Central Asian nations scored much lower: Kyrgyzstan at 25 (146th), Tajikistan at 19 (164th), and Turkmenistan at 17 (165th).
Before this decline, Uzbekistan’s CPI had steadily improved from a score of 17 in 2012 to 21 in 2016, followed by continued progress after the government change that year.
Were the anti-corruption efforts of the past few years genuine? Is this small decline evidence of a temporary setback or the first sign of a more worrying shift?
Corruption remains a persistent challenge in Uzbekistan. On January 24, the General Prosecutor’s Office released a report outlining its 2024 efforts, revealing that 4,904 officials faced criminal charges – a 37.2 percent increase from the previous year’s 3,575 cases. These officials held positions across various ministries (71 cases), as well as regional (410 cases) and local (4,425 cases) governing bodies. The majority were charged with offenses including fraudulent appropriation and misappropriation of state funds, bribery (including giving, receiving, and mediating), abuse of official authority, and other related criminal violations. The estimated damage amounts to nearly $277 million (3.6 trillion Uzbek som), which is 2.3 times more than the previous year’s damage.
Earlier, in December 2024, the Anti-Corruption Agency published its report for 2023, noting that more than 6,500 individuals faced trial on corruption charges. Although this represents a 12 percent decrease compared to the previous year, it still highlights corruption’s persistent and widespread nature. Only about half of the losses incurred by corruption-related crimes were reportedly recovered.
The officially reported corruption figures suggest a relatively positive shift, which is certainly commendable. Far from slowing down, anti-corruption initiatives are steadily intensifying and gaining momentum. However, many more instances of corruption haven’t been noticed or dealt with properly.
Citizens do not widely condemn corruption; only extreme cases cause significant outrage. People’s reactions often depend not on the corruption itself but on how big the bribe is compared to the official’s rank and salary. For instance, if a mid-level government official or a hokimiyat employee demands a $100,000 bribe from a construction company, it becomes a topic across all forms of media. With smaller bribes, the story likely won’t get much attention. Accepting petty corruption as a normal part of life means that people don’t view it as something worth criticizing (for various reasons) unless it reaches extreme levels. Corruption cases occur frequently in Uzbekistan, but only a handful make the headlines, while the majority go unremarked.
Another contributing factor to the ongoing crisis is a severe lack of punishment that fits the crime. Only 20 percent of those charged with corruption in 2023 were sentenced to prison terms, while 42 percent were subjected to varying correctional work. Over 200 of those charged did not receive any punishment, and 149 were subsequently freed from any punishment.
The role of political favoritism and connections (sometimes referred to as “tanish-bilish“) are important to note here. They are vital in establishing a self-sustaining system where corruption within local institutions operates like a spider’s web – disturbing one part threatens to expose the entire network. To prevent this, individuals in positions of power protect each other, often leading to minimal or no punishment to maintain the system’s stability.
For example, when someone in a powerful position, like in a hokimiyat or ministry, is caught in a corrupt act, it’s like a small spider sending vibrations through the web. This person may have worked closely with higher-ups and knows their secrets – perhaps even their corrupt dealings. If exposed or prosecuted too harshly, the small spider could expose the bigger ones and this could unravel the entire “web.” So to mitigate the impact, those in higher positions step in to keep things under control, ensuring that the connections remain intact.
The other reason is that the stakes are usually high. Severe punishments are often seen as essential to combating corruption through deterrence, but even extreme measures like the death penalty have not significantly improved any country’s standing on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. In weak rule-of-law environments, such as Central Asia, harsh penalties often lead to selective enforcement, where powerful individuals evade accountability, undermining trust in the legal system, while the less powerful suffer the consequences. Raising penalties makes officials hide their crimes more effectively and discourages investigators from taking risks, especially with numerous legal loopholes and a weak “compliance framework” enabling inaction.
Perceptions of corruption also vary widely, contributing to the ongoing crisis. A 2024 study of over 500 respondents across Uzbekistan found that most people associate corruption with bribery and nepotism. However, only half recognize abuse of power as a form of corruption, and more than half do not view public sector employees receiving expensive gifts or money as corrupt behavior.
Nearly half of respondents (48.6 percent) said that they choose not to report incidents of corruption due to fear for their safety, while a quarter (24.8 percent) refrain from reporting because they believe it would lead to no meaningful change. Twenty percent do not know where or how to report corruption, while another 20 percent stated that they benefit from corruption themselves. Simply put, Uzbekistanis’ sense of ethics and corruption is linked to their own self-interests, and standard conceptions of corruption and ethics don’t make sense to many citizens.
Trust in the work of officials has not increased at a rate comparable to the intensity of the reforms or anti-corruption efforts. The media reports as many failures as successful cases of anti-corruption.
Normalization of corruption among people, especially among public officials, can partially be traced back to the Soviet period, where the central government in Moscow was considered alien. Misappropriating the government’s funds to feed your own people, inflating production numbers to “meet” plans imposed by Moscow, and bribing other officials along the way to survive became common – and accepted locally. People have retained this concept of the government being “them” and the people, especially one’s close circle of friends and family, being “us.” People unfortunately do not realize that stealing from the Uzbek government means stealing from “us” now. The government officials who represent the nation are from this very nation.
Also, in Uzbekistan, individuals who pay bribes to government officials seldom report these incidents. This reluctance stems from a fear of losing the benefits they have gained through these illegal transactions. Individuals may not support bribery; rather, they are afraid that coming forward could incriminate them, as they have already participated in unlawful practices like “thank you” fees or speed money. As a result, they find themselves in a position where they are both victims and perpetrators in the eyes of the law.
Compounding the issue, the state continues to employ previously convicted individuals in the public sector. In 2023 alone, 1,146 previously convicted individuals committed corruption-related crimes, and of these, nearly half (566) had prior convictions specifically for corruption. This pattern raises serious concerns about accountability and lasting systemic reform in combating corruption.
Corruption erodes trust in government officials, leading people to rely on their families and close relatives for support and protection. While this fosters strong family bonds, it also has a downside. People may become so focused on helping their family or group that they stop cooperating with others and lose sight of the nation’s broader interests. Corruption in Uzbekistan is more often of a social type: nepotism and tanish-bilish.
Blaming ordinary people for this is unfair; it’s like expecting a plant to thrive in poor soil. When the soil lacks nutrients – trust in government and strong institutions – the plant stretches its roots toward whatever is available, in this case, family and close relationships. This survival mechanism strengthens family bonds but stunts the growth of the broader garden – community and society. The issue lies not with the plant, but with the soil. To address this, we must enrich the soil by rebuilding trust, strengthening institutions, and creating a system where fairness and cooperation can flourish naturally.
Additionally, combating a “culture of corruption” requires offering real and better alternatives. When advised not to bribe a bureaucrat, individuals need to believe there is a more effective and ethical way to achieve their goals.
Most corruption-related crimes, the Anti-Corruption Agency reported in December, were committed in sectors such as preschool education (474 cases), banking (323 cases), healthcare (299 cases), local government bodies (250 cases), and law enforcement agencies (211 cases) in 2023.
Uzbekistan is still cutting its teeth regarding liberalization and democratization. There are areas so sensitive and risky to criticize that they’re practically bubble wrapped. When the government shows the political will to fight corruption – especially for an international audience – it’s no surprise that the focus is on “safe zones,” steering clear of touchy areas. It’s similar to a journalist waiting for the go-ahead from the central government before addressing contentious issues; they often won’t discuss matters that haven’t been explicitly criticized by the higher-ups yet. This is why corruption-related efforts often center on sectors like healthcare and education, which are fair game for public discussion today, rather than more sensitive areas like the upper echelons of the political elite.
Sectors like education and healthcare deal directly with the public daily, making corruption in those areas as obvious as a flashing neon sign. They also happen to draw the highest volume of public complaints, so they are in the spotlight more often. In contrast, other sectors – those hidden behind thick curtains of bureaucracy – are like a “black box,” where shady practices are harder to see, let alone prove. In addition, Uzbekistan’s Rule of Law Index ranking reflects ongoing challenges, especially in judicial independence, resulting in limited accountability and oversight. So, while some areas are easy targets for anti-corruption efforts, the real tough spots often stay buried out of reach.
The greatest long-term risk of the ongoing corruption issue may be the normalization of corruption, which can become a systemic feature of daily life. When corruption is perceived as the only way to navigate society, trust in public institutions erodes, favoritism replaces fairness, and relationships become purely transactional. We are already witnessing these scenarios at the entry-level. Many institutions and entities are now perceived as total failures, with examples including the systems of mahalla, cultural heritage, and education, particularly primary school level.
Normalized corruption obstructs economic growth, hinders foreign investment, undermines governance, and harms a nation’s reputation. When it affects critical areas like law enforcement, education, and healthcare and is not effectively addressed, it persists. When people are faced with tough times, like financial struggles, they may feel pressured to engage in dishonest behavior to get by. This can lead to bigger divides in society and make inequality even worse. The divide between those in power and everyday people grows as corrupt officials seize wealth, leaving less for citizens.
Corruption also breeds tension between those who can afford bribes and those who cannot. Many people in Uzbekistan may accept minor social justice issues, but they will be upset if inequality comes from personal connections or bribery in getting good jobs and promotions, and worst of all if corrupt acts occur in areas directly affecting their well-being. When people have less hope for the future, they tend to be more corrupt; worst of all, some opt to join radical groups of all sorts, which will endanger state security over the long term. Thus, it becomes imperative for the government to prioritize the fight against corruption, especially in sectors that directly impact the lives and future well-being of citizens – namely, education, health, and law enforcement.
Minimizing and controlling corruption is a gradual, structural process that requires maintained efforts, demanded institutional reforms, and meaningful changes within society. Although Uzbekistan’s efforts to combat corruption face challenges, the progress made thus far – such as an increase in prosecutions and a rise in public discourse – shows that change is possible. The country has demonstrated that improvements can be made, as evidenced by its earlier gains in the CPI. Countries like Georgia, Indonesia, Romania, and South Korea have followed similar paths, showing that with consistent reform and strong political will, significant progress can be achieved over time, even if there are occasional setbacks.
