EurasiaNet Civil Society - Uzbekistan Vying With Turkmenistan for Title of Central Asia’s Most Repressive State -- Report

CIVIL SOCIETY

UZBEKISTAN VYING WITH TURKMENISTAN FOR TITLE OF CENTRAL ASIA’S MOST REPRESSIVE STATE -- REPORT
6/27/06

Uzbekistan is challenging Turkmenistan for the title of Central Asia’s most authoritarian state, according to a recently published democratization report.

In the 2006 Nations in Transit survey, Uzbekistan’s rating hit its lowest point – 6.82 -- since Freedom House started tracking the democratization process in 1997. The major factor in Uzbekistan’s fall was the government’s massacre of largely unarmed protesters in Andijan in May 2005 and a subsequent crackdown. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The ratings are based on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing the highest level of democratic progress and 7 the lowest. Turkmenistan rated a 6.96 in the same Freedom House survey. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Uzbek President Islam Karimov exerts unrivalled executive power over police, army, judiciary and due political process. The report stated; "Uzbekistan’s rating for national democratic governance worsens from 6.50 to 7.00 owing to the centralization of power, the lack of public accountability, and the ability of the executive to dominate all areas of Uzbek society."

No effort has been made to reform "any of the systemic failings that have caused every election in Uzbekistan since independence to be judged neither free nor fair." As a result Uzbekistan’s electoral process rating remained unchanged at 6.75.

Uzbekistan scored a flat 7 in the civil society category. No sector has been more harassed since the Andijan events. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. "Uzbekistan’s civil society rating worsens from 6.50 to 7.00 owing to the severe level of repression directed against human rights defenders, NGOs, and their employees and to the intensified campaign of personality worship instigated by the authorities," the report said.

The rating for Independent Media also crashed to 7. The Freedom House report characterized state control of media outlets as "pervasive." [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Uzbekistan’s local democratic governance rating dropped from 6.25 to 6.75 "because of the failure of local authorities to subject themselves to democratic reforms and because of their increased harassment of potential sources of opposition."

The judicial system in Uzbekistan is little more than an extension of executive authority. Judges are cowed by the Karimov regime and the judicial process in corrupt and devoid of impartiality, the report said. "Uzbekistan’s rating for judicial framework and independence worsens from 6.25 to 6.75, given the government’s refusal to provide a remedy to violations of fundamental rights against citizens by state officials, the failure of judges to protest the executive’s use of their courtrooms to harass and persecute those who question the regime, and the power of the executive to appoint, dismiss, or punish judges."

Low wages for civil servants has "created abundant opportunities" for corruption. "Owing to Uzbekistan’s continued failure to reform its regulatory scheme, the enactment of additional regulations through internal decrees, the failure to liberalize registration requirements on individuals, and the selective enforcement of these regulations, Uzbekistan’s rating for corruption worsens from 6.00 to 6.50."

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.