The New Uzbekistan Model of Family Institution: A Multicomponent Constitutional-Legal Architecture and Its Comparative Analysis

Gafurov Doniyor Orifovich

Authors

Gafurov Doniyor Orifovich Associate Professor, Bukhara Innovation University

Keywords:

New Uzbekistan model, family institution, constitutional-legal architecture, multicomponent integration, comparative family policy, ethnocultural foundation, post-Soviet transformation, axiological constitutionalism

Abstract

This article presents a systematic socio-philosophical and comparative-legal analysis of the New Uzbekistan model of family institution, characterized by its multicomponent constitutional-legal architecture. Following the 2017 onset of the New Uzbekistan development phase and the 2023 referendum-based adoption of the revised Constitution, Uzbekistan has developed an integrative model for strengthening the family institution that synthesizes traditional ethnocultural foundations, secular constitutional fundamentalism, Islamic axiological resources, international legal norms, and classical Sufi heritage. The investigation employs a triangulated methodology combining systematic legal analysis of primary normative sources, comparative-legal analysis with selected international family policy models (South Korea, Japan, Sweden, Turkey), and conceptual-philosophical analysis of the underlying axiological architecture. Primary sources include Articles 76-80 of the 2023 Constitution, the 1998 Family Code, Presidential Resolutions of 2018 and 2021 on family institution strengthening, and the "Each Family — Entrepreneur" and "Iron Notebook" social-economic mechanisms. The findings demonstrate that the New Uzbekistan model exhibits a distinctive multicomponent integrative architecture that transcends both the traditionalist-religious and secular-libertarian models prevalent in international comparison. The five constitutive components — ethnocultural foundation, secular constitutional fundamentalism, Islamic axiological resource, international legal norms, and classical Sufi heritage — operate in organic synthesis rather than reductive integration. Comparative analysis reveals that this multicomponent architecture offers conceptual resources for addressing the limitations of mono-paradigmatic family policy models. Theoretical contributions include the development of an integrative-architectural framework for analyzing post-Soviet Central Asian family policies. Practical implications encompass policy applications in family economic stimulation, social protection ("Iron Notebook" mechanisms), and culturally embedded family well-being initiatives.

References

U. Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London, U.K.: Sage Publications, 1992.

Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Tashkent, Uzbekistan: Uzbekistan Publishing, Apr. 30, 2023.

United Nations General Assembly, “Convention on the Rights of the Child,” Res. 44/25, 1989.

M. Daly, “What adult worker model? A critical look at recent social policy reform in Europe from a gender and family perspective,” Social Politics, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2011.

G. Esping-Andersen, Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Family Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Tashkent, Uzbekistan: Adolat Publishing, Apr. 30, 1998.

A. Hashimoto, “Culture, power, and the discourse of filial piety in Japan: The disempowerment of youth and its social consequences,” in Filial Piety: Practice and Discourse in Contemporary East Asia, C. Ikels, Ed. Stanford, CA, USA: Stanford University Press, 2004, pp. 182–197.

J. Husa, A New Introduction to Comparative Law. Oxford, U.K.: Hart Publishing, 2015.

M. Lee, “Family policy in Korea: Development, current state, and challenges,” Journal of Comparative Family Studies, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 25–43, 2017.

J. Lewis, Children, Changing Families and Welfare States. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar, 2006.

T. H. Marshall, Citizenship and Social Class. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1950.

S. M. Mirziyoyev, New Uzbekistan Strategy. Tashkent, Uzbekistan: Uzbekistan Publishing, 2021.

President of the Republic of Uzbekistan, “On the implementation of the ‘Each Family — Entrepreneur’ Program,” PQ-3777, Jun. 7, 2018.

President of the Republic of Uzbekistan, “On approval of the Concept for strengthening the family institution in the Republic of Uzbekistan,” PQ-3808, Jun. 27, 2018.

President of the Republic of Uzbekistan, “On approval of the Concept for strengthening the family institution in the Republic of Uzbekistan (revised),” PQ-5165, Jun. 27, 2021.

J. Reichel and M. Albers, Eds., The Role of Comparative Law in Cross-Border Legal Research. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar, 2018.

A. Sajó and R. Uitz, The Constitution of Freedom: An Introduction to Legal Constitutionalism. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2017.

S. Saxonberg, Gendering Family Policies in Post-Communist Europe: A Historical-Institutional Analysis. London, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.

United Nations General Assembly, “Resolution on enlightenment and religious tolerance,” A/RES/73/128, Dec. 12, 2018.

I. Yılmaz, Marriage Solemnization among Turkish Muslims: The Interaction between Turkish State Law and Muslim Law. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2014.

U. Bronfenbrenner, The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press, 1979.

J. W. Berry et al., Cross-Cultural Psychology: Research and Applications, 3rd ed. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

A. Schimmel, Mystical Dimensions of Islam, 35th anniv. ed. Chapel Hill, NC, USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2011.

N. Komilov, Tasavvuf (Sufism). Tashkent, Uzbekistan: Movarounnahr Publishing, 2009.

G. Navrozova, The Teaching of the Naqshbandi Tariqat. Tashkent, Uzbekistan: National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan, 2010.

T. B. Sobirovich, “Basic criteria for building the Third Renaissance in Uzbekistan,” Asian Journal of Applied Science and Technology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 149–157, 2023.

B. S. Turdiyev, “Cultural and educational development of society in the scientific heritage of world philosophers,” Academic Research in Educational Sciences, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 443–451, 2021.