Kyrgyz presidential adviser slates OSCE election assessment

Kyrgyz presidential adviser on international issues, Askar Aytmatov, has said that the OSCE painted "a rather distorted picture" in its preliminary assessment of the presidential elections held on 29th October which it said did not meet international standards. In an interview to `Slovo Kyrgyzstana' on 2nd November, Aytmatov, son of writer Chingiz Aytmatov, said he hoped the OSCE would give "a better considered" assessment of the results in its final report. He said there had been mistakes and abuses in the election campaign and the elections themselves but these were inevitable in a new state. The following are excerpts of the interview taken from AKIpress News Agency web site on 2nd November:

[Headline] "We are for a dialogue with the OSCE provided..." [Ellipses and quotation marks as given]

The presidential elections were held in Kyrgyzstan last week [on 29th October] and the next day, on Monday, 30th October 2000, the OSCE mission for monitoring the elections held a news conference, at which it announced its preliminary conclusions that the elections had failed to meet international standards. In view of this, we asked the adviser to the president of the Kyrgyz Republic on international issues, Askar Aytmatov, to comment on the stance of the OSCE.

[Q] Askar Chingizovich [Aytmatov, Kyrgyz writer Chingiz Aytmatov's son], what are your initial impressions of the results of the presidential elections in Kyrgyzstan?

[A] I believe that these elections were democratic and of unique importance, as a whole, although usually the assessment of the level of democracy is quite relative. I must say that anyway the elections confirmed that democratic values have taken deep root in Kyrgyzstan. Our society, as a whole, has demonstrated political wisdom and civic responsibility for the country's further fate.

[Passage omitted: Aytmatov thanks the OSCE and other international non-governmental and public organizations for monitoring the elections and praises the OSCE's role in the development of democracy in Kyrgyzstan]

[Q] The OSCE mission for monitoring the elections held a news conference immediately after the elections, at which assessments of the election campaign and even of the election process were made which were far from being complimentary. Are there real grounds for such serious criticism by the OSCE?

[A] I have mentioned already the fact that Kyrgyzstan attaches great significance to cooperation with the OSCE, international non-governmental organizations and local NGOs in the issues of human rights and democracy in our country. I want to confirm again that the path of deep social, economic and democratic reforms in Kyrgyzstan, which we have chosen, remains the only path and there is no alternative to it.

We admit that there were shortcomings - some abuses and breaches of the electoral law - during the election campaign and the elections, as a whole. They must be considered carefully and then appropriate measures should be adopted. However, by no means can the mistakes made be a subject of far-reaching generalizations, because they were rare, on the whole. These elections were held really according to the highest organizational standards and in the spirit of democracy and openness. I want to say in the light of this that the harsh assessment of the preliminary results of the presidential elections, in particular, that the presidential elections in Kyrgyzstan did not meet international standards, seems to have been one-sided and not quite balanced.

This time the OSCE's criticism boiled down to the fact that the banning of prominent opposition leaders because of their previous convictions and also through a very tough language test sharply restricted "certain political choices" for the electorate. Another matter for criticism was the accusation levelled at the authorities that allegedly representatives of the NGO coalition "For Democracy and Civil Society" were not allowed to monitor the elections and that there was interference by local authorities in the voting process as a whole and in a whole series of other aspects.

We provided in the media, as well as during official and working meetings between representatives of the authorities and the OSCE mission, sufficiently detailed and well-grounded explanations and responses, from the point of view of their corresponding to Kyrgyz law, on this and other issues relating to problems of the elections.The impression is that these explanations were disregarded in drawing up the OSCE's preliminary report on monitoring the presidential elections, which, strickly speaking , cannot but raise doubts among us about the objectivity of such assessments.

[passage omitted: comments on the parliamentary elections in February 2000]

Suffice it to say that cases of interference by local authorities in the election process did not occur en masse and, moreover, they were not coordinated. Therefore, allegations that the presidential elections were "a step backward" as compared to the parliamentary elections [in February 2000] do not seem entirely well-grounded.

No one denies that there were mistakes and abuses in the run-up to and during the elections. This will not be said as a justification, but mistakes during the elections in any country, if you like, are inevitable - even in states which have experience of many hundreds years in implementing democratic values and traditions. What can be said about a young state in this case which is still between the totalitarian past and the democratic future?

[Passage omitted: the preliminary results of the elections shows that Kyrgyzstan is true to democratic principles and to its commitments to the OSCE]

At the same time, I want to note that the OSCE's utterly severe assessments, which were based, for the most part, on a quantitative analysis rather than on a qualitative analysis, on cases which were not verified through and through, on individual opinions and very often on a one-sided view of difficult and multifaceted problems, have given a rather distorted picture.

The task of the OSCE is to promote security and stability to the maximum throughout the organization's territory and this requires tolerant and sometimes even delicate, preventive diplomacy. We very much want the OSCE to adhere consistently to a well-considered and well-balanced policy when assessing this or that internal political event.

The deepening of our dialogue with the OSCE is of fundamental importance, but, as is well known, there must be reciprocal movement in any dialogue towards one another. The OSCE should devote more attention to ensuring that its assessments are well-considered and objective and penetrate deeper into local specific features. As as regards the [Kyrgyz] government, it should focus more attention on the implementation of the recommendations of such authoritative international organizations as the OSCE.

I very much hope that the OSCE will give a better considered assessment of the results of the elections that were held on 29th October 2000 in Kyrgyzstan in its final report. In any event, no matter whatever uncomplimentary assessments are made, Kyrgyzstan will not change its chosen course towards radical social, economic and democratic reforms and reorganizations in society.

We simply have no other way. The fact that the people of Kyrgyzstan have made their choice during the presidential elections in favour of a leader who in practice has showed his adherence to democracy is evidence of this. (pp 1,2) (`Slovo Kyrgyzstana' newspaper, D. Dzhaylobayev)

[Report taken from AKIpress News Agency web site]

Source: 'Slovo Kyrgyzstana', Bishkek, in Russian 02 Nov 00 pp 1,2

BBC Mon CAU 061100/** jf/mk

Email this article
Posted November 7, 2000 © Eurasianet
http://www.eurasianet.org

	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.