Uzbekistan's Referendum: The Dangers of Over-Dramatizing the Situation

On January 27, the Central Asian nation of Uzbekistan, which has emerged as a strategic ally of the US due to the war in Afghanistan, will hold a referendum. The referendum envisions a bi-cameral parliament, with a professional lower chamber and an upper house representing regions of the country. The second provision up for approval by the voters is to extend the presidential term in office from five to seven years.

Many observers and reporters have already assessed the referendum as a plan by Uzbek President Islam Karimov to become a president-for-life.

While there is no reason to anticipate free or fair elections in Uzbekistan in the foreseeable future, these statements do not accurately reflect political reality in the country. While it is true that the referendum could be a step towards presidency-for-life for Karimov, it is by no means a final step in that direction.

Similarly, in past years, Kazakh president Nursultan Nazarbaev's term was extended to seven years, and a law was passed which would allow the President to maintain certain policy prerogatives and a seat on the National Security Council after he leaves office. However, many democracy lobbyists, advocates and activists have characterized Nazarbaev as "president-for-life."

In reality, Turkmen President Sapamurat Niyazov is the only head of state in the former Soviet Union who has legalized such indefinite rule.

Is it possible to promote democratic development and reform in Central Asia without relying on over-dramatizations? I believe that it is not only possible, but also necessary.

Inaccurate and untrue statements lower the credibility of reports and related activities. They lead to false, one-sided assessments of the situation and wrong advice on how to handle problems and how to better help in conducting needed reforms.

Another issue in the Uzbek referendum is related to reform in the legislative body. The creation of a professional lower chamber of the parliament could be a step in the right direction.

To report the full picture, one has to add that truly independent political parties are not legal in Uzbekistan. Only four political parties, all of which were initiated or approved by Karimov, are allowed to legally participate in the political process. As a result of denial of legal status and selective suppression and harassment, opposition political groups Birlik (Unity) and Erk (Freedom) with secular-democratic-nationalistic platforms are now tiny and marginal. The Islamic movement, which in the mid-1990s became the main challenge to Karimov's regime, has been severely suppressed since 1998. According to most credible reports, about 7,000 real or potential Muslim oppositionists have been imprisoned, 30 of whom have died in detention due to alleged torture.

Karimov's permission of more-or-less free and fair competition between officially permitted political parties during 1994 and 1999 parliamentary elections were small steps towards broader political participation in Uzbekistan. However, this fact received nearly zero notice and no credit in the West. All reports and statements regarding Uzbek parliamentary elections have focused on how they were far from being democratic, without mentioning that on average, 2-3 candidates in 1994-95 and 5-6 candidates in 1999 ran for each seat.

More importantly, these candidates, in most cases, were able to exercise their right to campaign, though often local officials allowed only their most favored candidate to benefit from greater access to the media, financial resources and the authorities' help in organizing meetings with voters. These official parties may become more independent, if and when more openness and freedom comes to Uzbekistan's political life.

It is also true that in Uzbekistan there are a few more-or-less independent media outlets, which have small audiences. Freedom of expression, speech, assembly and association are strictly limited. However, reports that all critics of Karimov are in jail or in exile and that there is no freedom of speech and other liberties in Uzbekistan are exaggerations.

Our reports on Uzbekistan should not be based on over-dramatized statements. Significantly increased strategic partnership between the US and Uzbekistan requires us to have much more balanced policies towards this country.

Vladimir Socor, a senior analyst with the Jamestown Foundation, noted recently in the Wall Street Journal Europe that the burgeoning relationship between the West and Central Asia must navigate around the destructive legacies of despotism and Soviet-style socialism. "Perhaps, therefore," he argues, "the worst source of danger to [the relationship between the West and Central Asia] is haste, impatience for immediate results, pressure for rapid rather than evolutionary changes." As this course begins, "it is incumbent on the more mature and more experienced side to set the realistic, feasible pace of democratic progress."