Serving the Father Instead of Serving the State
The year 2026 in Uzbekistan began with a symbolic event — an interview given by the Head of the Presidential Administration and daughter of the head of state, Saida Mirziyoyeva, to blogger Kirill Altman. Formally, it was just a media conversation. In essence, it was a manifesto of personalist power.
If one gathers the criticism voiced afterward, it largely echoes the words published by journalist Alexey Volosevich:
“I didn’t watch the interview with Saida — and I probably don’t need to. There are only three real questions for her:
Who are you without your daddy?
How much has your family taken from Uzbekistan and its people?
How much do you plan to steal in the future?”
Soon after these words were published, the Tashkent journalist was detained at a market and interrogated. Under public pressure, he was released. However, the pages that discussed clan rule within the Mirziyoyev family, nepotism, and alleged corruption by relatives were subjected to an unprecedented wave of attacks — mass copyright complaints filed by fake accounts.
Publications addressing nepotism and clan politics were systematically blocked under the pretext of “copyright violations.” The interview exposed what people in the country usually discuss only in whispers.
“I Serve Only My Father”
The key phrase that stood out during the conversation was: “I serve only my father.” In any republic, such wording would trigger a political scandal. In a state that officially proclaims service to the people, the head of the presidential administration publicly declares personal loyalty to a specific individual.
Even in the late Soviet Union, officials would say, “I serve the state.” Here, the state is effectively equated with the figure of the father. This is not a slip of the tongue — it is a worldview. Mirziyoyeva does not attempt to present herself as an independent political actor. Her self-identification is that of a daughter, a servant, an extension of the will of the family patriarch.
This is precisely why the analysis by Gallia Ibragimova proved so accurate: what we see is not an administrator or a public manager, but a figure embedded in a sacralized family hierarchy. Loyalty outweighs competence. Proximity outweighs institutions.
Governing “From Olympus”
In the part of the interview devoted to combating smog in Tashkent, Mirziyoyeva speaks the language of directives: “we mobilized,” “we are forcing,” “we are controlling,” “we are transferring.” The picture is simple: at the top — a center of will; below — executors. Decisions are made not through institutions, but through manual control.
When questions arise about systemic causes and the roots of the environmental crisis, a familiar rhetorical device appears: in India it’s worse; Germany has problems too. Classic whataboutism — instead of addressing internal issues, comparisons to others’ failures are offered. This is not an argument. It is an evasion of responsibility.
Biography as Myth
Another element of the interview is the story of a “two-story pink house” in the steppe of Jizzakh, of tears, isolation, and a difficult childhood near a psychiatric hospital and a cemetery. The narrative sounds like an attempt to construct an image of hardship and perseverance.
Critics, however, point out that the family of a regional governor lived in a high-level residence. If so, the narrative of “remote obscurity” becomes a carefully crafted myth of closeness to ordinary people.
It is also telling that she acknowledged the absence of a systematic formal education. For someone effectively at the center of the state apparatus, this is not a minor detail — it is a symptom. Power is transferred not by competence, but by bloodline.
The State as a Family Circle
The interview became a mirror of a governance model in which state structures are perceived as an extension of the family circle. In such a system, the key resource is not professionalism, transparency, or institutions, but personal loyalty.
When the head of the presidential administration speaks of serving her father, it undermines the very principle of republican statehood. The state ceases to be an impersonal institution. It becomes an extended family.
And that is the main outcome of the interview. It did not strengthen the image of an effective manager. It demonstrated that the political construction rests not on institutions, but on a clan.
The question remains open: can a modern state be built on the principle of “serving the family”? History suggests that such constructions remain stable only until they collide with reality.
P.S.
On the day this article was written, news spread that the dictator of North Korea had appointed his 13-year-old daughter commander-in-chief of the army. An interesting parallel.
As the thinker Mustafa Chokay, who lived in Kokand in the 20th century, once said:
“No intelligence, no truth, no real strength, not a single living idea. By what, then, do they rule over us? Only one explanation remains — by means of our own stupidity.”