That people are willing to turn out in large numbers to protest his [Karimov's] government and call for his resignation is a clear sign though that he's failing to maintain the stability to life that Uzbeks demand. And that he's willing to push back instead and blame unrest on external forces rather than figure out how his policies are eroding economic stability screams that even if calm returns to Andijon, we can expect demonstrations to continue to pop up around the country.
Nathan also points out that there is a lot of dislike of Karimov, but not necessarily enough for people to want violence instead of the stability he has created:
As strange as it seems, it is not uncommon for someone to abhor Karimov yet support him for creating stability and predictability.
This is not at all uncommon, but it can be highly misunderstood by those of us in the West. Do you try to violently throw out, for example, Assad and take your chances on everything getting worse, or do you make the best of your current situation? Many people look back on the old Soviet Union (even Stalin) as being the best of times despite the repression, the deaths, because of the stability of the time.