Uzbekistan began switching from Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet in 1993 and initially planned to complete the transition by 2000. Nearly 33 years later, both scripts are still widely used, and the country is preparing to revise its Latin alphabet again. On July 7, the lower house of Uzbekistan’s parliament approved a bill introducing a new version of the alphabet, with 28 letters and one apostrophe instead of the current 26 letters and three letter combinations, and sent it to the Senate.
Literary scholar Dilbar Khaydarova told The Times of Central Asia that a reform originally intended to take seven years has stretched across a generation. She attributes the delay mainly to an inconsistent transition, with schools moving faster than publishers and much of the government.
“After 30 or 31 years, these small corrections have prompted another reform,” she said.
A Reform That Stretched Across Decades
Uzbekistan adopted the law introducing a Latin-based alphabet in 1993. Schools were to use the new script first, while adults were expected to have opportunities to study it at workplaces and institutions. The transition was initially due to be completed by 2000. In 1995, the deadline was extended to 2005 and later postponed to 2010.
The original alphabet was revised in 1995, when sh and ch were adopted and ng was listed separately. That revision also introduced the forms o‘ and g‘, establishing an alphabet of 26 letters and three letter combinations.
Two Alphabets for One Country
Schools switched to Latin, while Cyrillic remained common in government and the publishing industry. The media also continued using the script for years, and the Soviet-educated generation remained active in public institutions after 1993.
As a result, children learned to write in Latin but continued to encounter Cyrillic in publications and official documents. The same script remained in use when they entered the workplace.
“Even if we became literate in Latin, we also developed the ability to read and write in Cyrillic,” Khaydarova said. “Because the situation required it.”
She describes this as the coexistence of “two policies or practices that did not correspond to each other.” This mismatch, she believes, largely explains why the transition has lasted for decades.
That pattern persists, with some major publications using Latin while others continue publishing in Cyrillic. Khaydarova says the difference does not necessarily reflect opposition to the reform because publishers must consider their audiences’ habits.
The Cost of the New Alphabet
Implementing the revised alphabet will involve costs beyond school textbooks. Since 1993, Uzbekistan has accumulated a vast body of material in both Cyrillic and the current version of Latin.
For publishers, this raises questions about whether existing publications should be converted to the revised script and who will pay for the work.
“If they lose a significant share of their audience, there will be serious financial risks in the future,” Khaydarova said.
Khaydarova believes the state will have to bear some of the cost by supporting publishers that convert existing materials to the revised script.
“The more sources of information there are in the new alphabet, the more naturally people will turn to it when they need information,” she said.
Previous experience has shown that replacing school textbooks alone is insufficient. If children once again learn one version of the writing system while government institutions continue using another, the country risks repeating the same pattern.
“If we don’t start at the school level, from the very bottom, this reform will not produce real results,” Khaydarova said.
Although Khaydarova opposes forcing the transition, she believes the revised alphabet should offer enough “new opportunities and conveniences” for people to adopt it voluntarily.
The bill also provides for a gradual transition. Documents issued before the law takes effect would remain valid, as would existing currency and securities. Government signs and nameplates could remain in use until deadlines established by legislation, along with other official materials. Lawmakers said the approach was intended to avoid unnecessary public spending.
The Digital Case for Revising the Alphabet
To someone outside Uzbekistan, the differences between the current and proposed versions may appear minor. Both Cyrillic and Latin have been taught in the country for several generations.
Khaydarova does not see the proposed changes as evidence that the original decision was a mistake. She says the demands placed on a writing system have changed over the past three decades, particularly with advances in digital technology.
“As we study the language and its patterns more deeply, and as the need to digitalize the language grows every day, alphabet reform becomes an urgent issue,” she said.
The proposal would replace several forms that have long caused practical difficulties. Sh would become Ş and Ch would become Ç, while O‘ and G‘ would be replaced by Ö and Ğ, respectively. The ng combination would no longer be listed separately in the alphabet. Experts who prepared the reform based the changes in part on the “one sound, one letter” principle.
The changes extend beyond the spelling of a few letters. A simpler and more consistent writing system is intended to make Uzbek easier to use with technology and support the creation of academic resources.
Khaydarova also cautions against treating Cyrillic and Latin as symbols of a conflict between the past and the future. Uzbek has used several scripts throughout its history, sometimes side by side.
“The Problem is Not the People”
Journalist Ilyos Safarov takes a tougher view of the current situation. On his Telegram channel, he challenged the tendency to blame people for spelling mistakes in public and official writing.
“Can everyone really be equally at fault?” Safarov asked.
“If an entire society, or a significant part of it, cannot write correctly in its own language for many years, the problem is not the people,” Safarov wrote. “The problem is the rules and the system that maintains those rules.”
Safarov attributes the problem to specialists’ failure to agree on a practical and understandable system of language rules and to a lack of political resolve to complete the alphabet reform.
“Blaming people for illiteracy is simply a convenient way to avoid responsibility,” he wrote.
Avoiding Another 30-Year Delay
The latest attempt to revise the alphabet revives an issue unresolved since 1993. Its success may depend on whether schools and government institutions adopt it at the same pace as publishers and the public.
A gradual transition remains necessary, Khaydarova says, but schools and government institutions must move in step with publishers this time.
“It could take not 30 but even 60 years if we don’t pursue the right policy,” she warned.
Three decades after Uzbekistan chose the Latin script, Khaydarova says, “Switching to a new alphabet does not mean becoming illiterate or forgetting the past.”
