EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - Confusion and Cynicism Mark Uzbek Referendum

EURASIA INSIGHT

CONFUSION AND CYNICISM MARK UZBEK REFERENDUM
Josh Machleder 1/28/02

Uzbek president Islam Karimov termed a January 27 referendum to extend the presidency from a five-year to a seven-year position "a very big step in the name of democratization." But at polling places, most of the Uzbek electorate was confused, uncertain of exactly what they were voting for. The measure, which authorities said passed by a ratio of eleven to one, will reinforce Karimov’s ability to stamp out popular dissent long before it visibly fosters any democratic activity. This fact embarrasses Karimov’s allies and outrages his critics, but it seems to have played less of a role in the referendum than citizen confusion.

Despite Uzbekistan’s prominent role in the United States-led campaign in Afghanistan, little public discussion followed the December 6, 2001 announcement of the referendum. Even the Uzbek mass media glossed over the preparations, leaving many citizens attending the polls unsure whether the referendum called for the extension of Karimov’s current Presidential term, which ends in 2005, to the year 2007, or affects the next elections scheduled for 2005. Poll administrators instructed voters differently in different places. For example, at Polling Station #173 in Tashkent, the administrator explained to voters that the referendum affects the current presidential term, because, he added, "five years is too short to solve Uzbekistan’s global issues." However, less than a kilometer away, at Polling Station #633, staff explained that the referendum was intended to extend the presidential term effective the 2005 elections. And several streets away at Polling Station #631, polling officials weren’t entirely certain when asked.

The ballot question was clear, asking, "Do you agree that the president’s constitutional term of office should be extended from five to seven years?" but the lack of prior debate left citizens disenchanted. One man who walked by the polling station without voting said, "I’m not voting for things I know nothing about." Many voters simply assumed they were considering the current presidential term. One woman exiting the polling station said that, "it didn’t say anything anywhere. But, if I know my Uzbek politicians, it’s to extend Karimov’s current term." Many Uzbeks might have had such an idea based on a speech delivered by the speaker of the Parliament, Erkin Khalilov, in which he cited letters to the supreme assembly that proposed giving President Karimov life presidency.

Speeches like Khalilov’s - during which he brandished false letters of support - sound familiar to human rights observers. Karimov, a Communist party boss installed by the Soviets in March 1990, declared victory in an election when the Republic first became independent in 1991. He extended his term in office through a referendum in 1995. In January 2000, in elections that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe concluded "offered voters no true choice," Karimov gained another five-year term. In that election, the only alternative candidate publicly voted for Karimov. Accordingly, many international advocates condemned the recent referendum. "Calling a referendum [so soon after the dubious 2000 elections] looks like a blatant grab for power," said Elizabeth Anderson, director of the Europe and Central Asia division of Human Rights Watch.

Though the state-controlled Uzbek media invoked the presence of election monitors from 30 countries, the US State Department declined to send observers on January 23. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said, "they did not observe prior presidential elections because preconditions for a free and fair election did not exist and do not see a need to observe this referendum." Interestingly, the referendum coincided with the arrival of the US-Uzbek Joint Security Cooperation Commission, which will assess bilateral security relations. "Karimov is testing the international community," said Human Rights Watch’s Andersen. "He probably believes that he’s traded a military base and a bridge for a free ride on democracy and human rights issues." Uzbekistan has given basing rights to US forces, and, after much international pressure, opened a bridge for relief supplies going into Afghanistan.

Uzbek authorities have defended the referendum by noting the 7,810 referendum centers, including 37 at Uzbek consulates abroad, all serving the 13 million Uzbekistani citizens eligible to vote. The media reported that the monitors cost $1 million to install. And the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that another referendum question, which proposes expanding the Uzbek Parliament into two chambers, "is another proof of the fact that democratic reforms being realized in the country are irreversible." The two-chamber legislature would theoretically work year-round and develop its own legislation, instead of only meeting once a quarter. And Karimov himself, in a speech televised on January 27, hinted his willingness to "give some of the president’s power to the upper house."

But Khalilov’s December 6 speech, which came before the criticism, hints at a more autocratic agenda. "Experience shows that an elected president spends his first year adjusting and selecting people, while his last year is spent in preparations for his successor and for new elections," said Khalilov. "So he only has three years for government work. Of course this is not enough. Many countries’ experience bear witness to this." This Soviet-style reasoning led Uzbek dissident groups to denounce the referendum as farcical.

Bakhtiar Hamrayev, chairman of the Jizak chapter of the Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan, called it criminal. Voting "was conducted with significant violations of the Law on Referendums," he stated on January 27. Hamrayev claims that Society members who monitored two voting stations in his district observed that "many people" were excluded from the list of eligible voters, while some, who presented no identification documents whatsoever, were supplied with ballots. In several cases, he said, a single ballot was provided to only one person in a family, while single individuals were given three or four. He also notes that officers of the police, the Procurator’s office and the national security service appeared in each voting station.

Citizens, meanwhile, tended to react cynically. Though the Central Election Committee reported that 70 percent of the electorate had submitted their ballots by 10 am, polling stations, open from 6am until 8 p.m., were generally quiet. (Uzbek TV claimed 92.1 percent of the electorate turned out.) One shopkeeper whose polling station was right beside his shop didn’t bother voting "What’s the difference with my vote," he exclaimed. "We all know the outcome. Karimov will be president for two more years. Let’s celebrate!"

Editor�s Note: Josh Machleder is the country director of Internews Uzbekistan.

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.