EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - Ruling Party Dominates Tajikistan’s Parliamentary Election

EURASIA INSIGHT

RULING PARTY DOMINATES TAJIKISTAN’S PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION
Zafar Abdullaev and Kambiz Arman 2/28/05

The ruling party dominated Tajikistan’s parliamentary vote on February 27. President Imomali Rahmonov hailed the occasion as Tajikistan’s "first free election," while international observers said "widespread irregularities" occurred on Election Day.

According to preliminary results produced by Tajikistan’s Central Election Commission, Rahmonov’s Peoples Democratic Party of Tajikistan (PDPT) captured 80 percent of the vote. Only two other parties – the Communist Party and the Islamic Renaissance Party – cleared the 5 percent hurdle to win two parliamentary seats each under the proportional representation system. Almost two-thirds of the seats in the 63-member parliament are being decided in first-past-the-post races.

An observer mission from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, comprising over 150 observers, found numerous flaws in the conduct of the vote. "The overall process was a disappointment," an OSCE statement quoted the observer mission leader, Peter Eicher, as saying. "We had high hopes for the election because of improvements in the legal framework and the participation of six parties and many candidates. Regrettably, however, there was too much official control over the political campaign." [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Eicher went on to state that "election day procedures in a disturbingly high number of areas were not conducted honestly."

Rahmonov downplayed OSCE criticism. After casting his ballot in Dushanbe, Rahmonov insisted that electoral "transparency is much better than in previous elections." He later suggested it was unfair to hold Tajikistan to Western European standards of democratic elections. "At my meetings with OSCE officials, I always stress the need to consider the mentality, traditions and culture of any ethnic minority," Rahmonov said.

An observer mission organized by the Commonwealth of Independent States offered a starkly different view of the vote than the OSCE assessment. A statement issued by CIS monitors characterized the vote as "well organized," adding that any observed irregularities did not influence the election’s results. "The election will help put an end once and for all to civil confrontation in the country," the CIS statement said.

The CIS mission is overly optimistic in its assessment, some political analysts in Dushanbe believe. Comments by opposition leaders indicate they are seething over the election results. They complained bitterly about rampant ballot-stuffing to boost the PDPT’s voting totals, using some of the most confrontational rhetoric heard since the conclusion of the 1992-97 civil war.

Rahmatullo Zoirov -- the lead Leader of the Social-Democratic Party, which did not win representation in parliament – said at a February 28 news conference that he would consider a call for public protests if the government did not review the election results. The ballot-stuffing, along with other election-related misdeeds, influenced the final election tally, Zoirov insisted. "I do not want to destabilize the situation," Zoirov said, "but if it [a public protest] is the only way to restore justice and development of democracy in the country we’ll do this."

Meanwhile, the Communist Party chairman, Shodi Shabdolov, announced that he did not recognize the voting results in Dushanbe, hinting that a do-over election should be organized.

Editor’s Note: Zafar Abdullaev is a Tajikistani journalist. Kambiz Arman is the pseudonym for a Tajik journalist.

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.