The GIRAI 2023 researcher described the Turkmenistan assignment with unusual directness: the unexpected finding of the research was a «near complete absence of evidence related to artificial intelligence.»<\/em> This is itself a finding \u2014 one the Global Index on Responsible AI (GIRAI) 1st Edition<\/strong> is designed to capture alongside the presence of frameworks and deployments. What Turkmenistan’s profile shows is what the floor of regional AI governance looks like. Full GIRAI scores are at global-index.ai<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Turkmenistan’s political system is defined by personalist authoritarianism. From 1991 to 2022 the country had two presidents; in 2022 power transferred dynastically from Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow to his son Serdar Berdimuhamedow. The country features near the bottom of major indexes measuring political rights and civil liberties \u2014 including Freedom House<\/a> and Human Rights Watch<\/a> \u2014 and is described by the Bertelsmann Transformation Index<\/a> as one of the world’s most restrictive and isolated states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This context directly shaped the research. Although Turkmenistan maintains online legal repositories, they do not contain all legal acts. Government officials are not open to dialogue with researchers, particularly those working within foreign-funded projects. There is no culture of government-fostered public discussion, transparency, or accountability. The research found no dedicated task forces, no expert groups, and no public engagement on AI-related topics at any level of government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The government’s public rhetoric is worth noting for what it reveals about the stance: on multiple occasions, top officials stressed concerns that novel digital technologies could be used for «interfering in the domestic affairs»<\/em> of states and «destabilizing the political situation.»<\/em> This framing \u2014 digital technologies as a sovereignty risk rather than a development opportunity \u2014 sits behind the absence of AI frameworks as much as any capacity constraint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n GIRAI structures every country profile across three top-level dimensions evaluated through thematic areas and actor categories. For Turkmenistan, the breakdown is substantively empty \u2014 which is itself the finding the framework is designed to capture. Legend: \u2713<\/strong> = documented evidence approved by GIRAI headquarters \u00b7 \u25d0<\/strong> = drafted, planned, or partially documented \u00b7 \u2014<\/strong> = no documented evidence at the time of assessment. Full per-indicator scores at global-index.ai<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As of February 2024, Turkmenistan has no policy frameworks, regulations, standards, or guidelines relating to AI. There is no evidence of the government taking steps to draft such documents, establishing dedicated task forces or expert groups, or initiating public discussions with stakeholders on AI topics. This is not a case of frameworks being weak or underdeveloped \u2014 they are simply absent.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Context: A Closed Information Regime<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Three-Dimensional Breakdown<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Dimension 1 \u2014 Responsible AI Governance<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Thematic area<\/th> Status<\/th> Evidence (Turkmenistan)<\/th><\/tr><\/thead> Enabling policies<\/td> \u2014<\/td> No AI frameworks, regulations, or strategies as of February 2024. 2019 digital transformation plan stalled.<\/td><\/tr> Rule of law<\/td> \u2014<\/td> Online legal repositories do not contain all legal acts. No public engagement, expert groups, or task forces on AI at any level of government.<\/td><\/tr> Technical standards<\/td> \u2014<\/td> None.<\/td><\/tr> Technology-specific regulation<\/td> \u2014<\/td> None. Personal data protection law exists but no documented AI-application implementation.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table> Dimension 2 \u2014 Human Rights and AI<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Thematic area<\/th> Framework<\/th> Gov. action<\/th> Private sector<\/th> Civil society<\/th> Academia<\/th><\/tr><\/thead> Freedom of Expression<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td><\/tr> Public Participation<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td><\/tr> Data Protection<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td><\/tr> Cultural & Linguistic Diversity<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td><\/tr> Health & Well-Being<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td><\/tr> Children’s Rights<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td><\/tr> Indigenous Data Sovereignty<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td><\/tr> Bias & Unfair Discrimination<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td><\/tr> Gender Equality<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td><\/tr> Education<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u25d0<\/td><\/tr> Environmental Protection<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td><\/tr> Labour Protection<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td> \u2014<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table> Dimension 3 \u2014 National Responsible AI Capacities<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Sub-dimension<\/th> Status<\/th> Evidence (Turkmenistan)<\/th><\/tr><\/thead> Institutions<\/td> \u2014<\/td> University AI programme components confirmed at some institutions. No academic publishing on AI, no expert participation in regional or international forums, no research institution with infrastructure or mandate to translate AI work into policy dialogue. The components exist in isolation.<\/td><\/tr> Investments<\/td> \u2014<\/td> No documented AI-specific investment by state, private sector, or development partners during the research period.<\/td><\/tr> Competencies<\/td> \u2014<\/td> No documented AI competencies in government, civil society, or independent academic institutions in policy-relevant form.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table> Responsible AI Governance: Nothing to Map<\/h2>\n\n\n\n