This fall elections are taking place throughout the Caucasus and Central Asia: Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan are all holding polls. An important debate is being conducted among intergovernmental organizations, national governments and nongovernmental organizations about the value, significance and utility of international observation of these elections. In aiming to promote debate on this issue, the Central Eurasia Project sponsored a panel discussion, entitled "Observing Elections in the Caucasus and Central Asia: Pros and Cons," on October 22 in Washington DC. The panel included Catherine A. Fitzpatrick, Executive Director of the International League of Human Rights; Michael Ochs staff advisor at the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission) of the US Congress; and Eric Rudenshiold, the Director of Programs at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. Prior to the discussion, Mr. Rudenshiold later spoke with the CEP about the nature of OSCE monitoring efforts.

CEP: What are the OSCE’s goals in monitoring elections, such as the recent parliamentary vote in Kazakhstan?

Rudenshiold: The OSCE is an organization with many facets – human rights is one component. Being composed of a number of member states with their own sets of interests, the organization itself certainly tries to promote compliance with a set of standards, in this case the Copenhagen Accords. … In terms of elections, we certainly try to work with states, including those that have perhaps had problems in the past, to come into compliance. Election observation for us now is a much longer term commitment than a simple one-day, or one-week jaunt to a country and a tour of polling stations. We now work extensively in advance of elections, through the electoral process and afterwards. We do a number of follow-up missions in order to help states correct deficiencies, or to improve upon past performances.

CEP: There have been allegations of irregularities connected with the recent elections held in Kazakhstan. What follow up is being contemplated by the OSCE?

Rudenshiold: We have a mission on the ground there and we are still following the process. The election process is not completed. There have been more than 400 domestic observer complaints to the Central Elections Commission. We are following the appeals process. We need to wait until this election reaches closure, and then we will move forward. Certainly, there are a number of concerns already. But we will wait until we have all of those categorized.

CEP: Can you be more specific on possible follow-up action.

Rudenshiold: The Election Law was a great improvement over past election laws, and we were quite pleased to see a number of recommendations codified. However, in practice, in implementation, they (Kazakh authorities) fell short. And in this we will probably talk with the Central Election Commission about training for district and local election commission officials. We will also focus again on questions concerning the media. There are a number of categories, and what we will try to do is focus our attention on the key aspects. Hopefully, we will be able to attract the attention of other international organizations and they can come in an provide assistance as well. … It is important that it be a multi-national, multi-organizational effort.

CEP: Are the governments of the region, not only in Kazakhstan but in other states, receptive to suggestions coming from the OSCE concerning election procedures?

Rudenshiold: The OSCE goes in with a very powerful name. We also go in with a unique method of working. We don’t broadcast what we do. Essentially, we go in and talk to people quietly, try to find lines of communications, and keep those lines of communication open. We have had a number of appreciative responses from states in the region in conection with concerns that we have raised with them, and that we will continue to raise with them. There certainly seems to be more receptivity than there has been in past instances, in large part because other international organizations are taking a wait-and-see stance regarding democratic development before they come in with economic packages and other programs.

CEP: How do you evaluate democratic development in Central Asia?

Rudenshiold: I have been involved with a number of different areas of democratic development, and I am never satisfied with what I see. I always want more -- and faster. Earlier on, the development community felt that there was a window of opportunity – that if we didn’t get that window wedged open, and if we didn’t capitalize as much as we could on what we were able to do quickly, then we would lose ground, and that we might very well miss out on opportunities forever. In reality, I think we have seen that, in many ways, the electoral environment, the political environment, is more flexible and fluid than we perhaps anticipated. And so there do seem to be opportunities, which keep appearing. And I think that we have reason to believe that in the future we will be able to make more progress. Is it fast enough? No. But then it never is.

CEP: What is the state of democracy in Central Asia?

Rudenshiold: There are people who define democracy in terms of economic goals. There are also those who define it in terms of human rights goals. Certainly in terms of compliance with the Copenhagen Accords, we have fallen short in a number of areas. At the same time, we have seen glimmers of very positive developments. For instance, in the recent Kazakh elections, we saw the state press make a couple of clean, clear efforts to show a multi-party, multi-candidate system. This was extremely important, showing that they can do it if they want to. This is the sort of thing that we look for, and we are hoping to capitalize on it.

Email this article
Posted October 28, 1999 ©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, politcal 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.