Fine Instead of Upbringing: How Pressure on Families Was Strengthened in Turkmenistan Under the Guise of “Child Care”
From May 1, amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses came into force in Turkmenistan, which have already caused a wave of bewilderment and hidden resentment among citizens. Under the pretext of “strengthening responsibility for the upbringing of children,” the authorities effectively shifted the burden of social problems onto parents, while they themselves continue to evade solving systemic issues, turkmen.news reported. According to the updated Code of Administrative Offenses, signed by President Serdar Berdimuhamedov, fines for parents for the misconduct of children have become harsher and more varied. Now, for a teenager smoking, a family may pay up to 200 manats; for the storage of pyrotechnics, up to 500; and for violating road traffic rules, the fine has increased to 50 manats. The cancellation of warnings attracts special attention: whereas previously for some violations one could get off with a preventive conversation, now a monetary fine is provided for in almost all cases. Formally, this is presented as a concern for discipline and the future of the youth. But in practice, it is yet another way of pressuring the population, which is already facing economic difficulties.
Local “Arbitrariness”
The situation in the regions looks even more alarming. According to sources in the Lebap velayat, schools have begun to introduce their own “rules” that go far beyond the framework of the law. Parents are allegedly going to be fined for a child being late for a lesson (100 manats), and for a smartphone or headphones up to 1000 manats. Such measures not only lack a clear legal basis but also create fertile ground for corruption. Teachers and administration gain a lever of pressure: instead of an official fine, one can “reach an agreement” on the spot for a smaller amount. Even the educators themselves admit: such initiatives look either like a way of intimidation or like an informal mechanism for collecting money.
The new system of fines also raises questions from a logical standpoint. For example, the punishment for smoking turns out to be stricter than for the use of certain medicinal preparations without a doctor’s prescription. And if one considers the “initiatives” of schools, then using a smartphone turns into one of the most serious “violations”. A feeling arises that the state is not fighting the real problems of teenagers, but their external manifestations, and moreover, through the most convenient means for control.
The State Abdicates Responsibility
The main problem of these innovations is in their essence. By strengthening the responsibility of parents, the authorities effectively admit: they are not going to invest in the youth. The country still suffers from an acute lack of free interest groups and sports clubs, modern public spaces, quality education, and psychological support. Teenagers are left alone with their problems: whether it be boredom, a lack of prospects, or pressure from society. Many families in Turkmenistan live in conditions of unemployment and low income. Parents are often forced to think about survival rather than “ideal upbringing”.
In these conditions, fines become not a tool of upbringing, but an additional financial blow. At the same time, the state does not offer any support programs for either parents or children. The authorities are trying to create a semblance of control and discipline, but essentially we are talking about a substitution of concepts. Real upbringing requires systemic work: education, dialogue, and trust. It is impossible to achieve this through fines. Moreover, such measures may lead to the opposite effect—a growth of distrust, hidden protest, and even greater alienation of the youth.
The new amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses of Turkmenistan are not so much a fight against teenage problems as another example of how the state shifts responsibility onto citizens. Instead of creating conditions for the development of the youth, the authorities choose the simplest path—to punish. But in the long-term perspective, such a policy is unlikely to lead to anything except an increase in social tension and a deepening of the crisis of trust between society and the state.
