LEGAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ACTUAL RIGHT OF JOURNALISTS TO CRITICIZE THE AUTHORITIES OF UZBEKISTAN

Authorities and mass media from the very beginning of existence of Uzbekistan as an independent state were not on quite good terms with each other. High level authorities of Uzbekistan turned up to be criticized exclusively by Russian mass media, whereas, the republican press always took a position of the authorities' defense. On the one hand, this resulted from the fact that the state preserved practically unlimited control over mass media; on the other hand, this resulted from the fact that Uzbekistan lacked a substantial stratum of liberal city intelligentsia that would establish favorable environment for pluralism.

Any Moscow newspapers' articles that, in the opinion of Uzbekistan authorities, wrongly treated the events in the republic, were severely criticized by the local press.¹ The authors of articles in Uzbek press blamed Russian mass media for conducting a purposeful propaganda campaign against the republic.² The massed attack on the Russian mass media resulted in ceasing publication of nearly all Moscow newspapers, and reduction to minimum of the broadcasting time of Moscow TV channels.

Exclusion of Russian newspapers and television from the mass media market, however, was not made up for by other informational goods. People did not get accustomed to the Turkish television that was supposed to replace Russian television. According to data of surveys, nearly nobody is watching Turkish television. Formation of the own press is not going easily either. The results of its nearly 10-year development were summed up last March in the speech of the President of Uzbekistan at the Extraordinary Session of the Soviet of Peoples Deputies of Khoresm region. Islam Karimov said: "In regional newspapers there are mostly not any articles that uncover shortcomings of our everyday life, criticize indifferent, inefficient leaders. Regional television does not have either any critical and problematical programs that are interesting to people and attract their attention. Instead, regional television is broadcasting foreign movies and programs that are "celebrate» 55th anniversary of a khokim...".³

Trying to liven the activities of the local press, the authorities have slightly changed the Law on mass media. Thus, in 1997 this law was adopted with new wording. Unlike the old version of the law, the new version has "Journalistic Investigation» article that entitles editorial staff members to the right to conduct their own investigation of some events and publish the results of their investigation. At the same time, this new law article has some stipulations that make it difficult to observe the article.

However, this article, most likely was misinterpreted by some journalists, and they approached its observance without any hesitation. Newspaper "Hurriyat," established by the Fund of Democratization and Support of Uzbekistan Mass Media, published several articles about the cases of bringing suits against journalists. Thus, on February 4, 1998 they have put under arrest Pulat Gadoev, a correspondent of "Halk Suzi" newspaper in Kashkadariya region. The reason for the arrest, according to the newspaper, was the journalistic investigation that was conducted by Gadoev at the oil-extraction enterprise "Kosona" in Kashkadariya region. In the beginning they were trying to bribe and frighten the journalist. However, in the end they have accused him of exceeding his official authority, forgery of official documents, bribery, and blackmail. The regional court of Samarkand where the case was transferred to, has sentenced him to 12-year imprisonment. After the second review of this case the sentence period was reduced - in the beginning to 10 years, and then to 6 years and 11 months. However, last year Gadoev was amnestied and dismissed.⁴

Another correspondent Yalgosh Sariev that was a staff member of «Adolat» Social-Democratic Party newspaper with the same name, has conducted journalistic investigation with regard to the complaint of A.Artykov, a former detective, about the illegal actions of A.Abdullaev, a procurator of Kushrabat district of Samarkand region. A.Artykov accused A.Abdullaev of illegal action with regard to the criminal suit brought against T.Rustamov, the chairman of the collective farm named after E.Djumanbulbula. According to "Hurriyat" newspaper,⁵ during this journalistic investigation representatives of khokimiat and regional procurator's office threatened the journalist several times, and once there was even an attempt to push Sariev's auto-car from the road. Despite the threats and persecution, the journalist wrote an article "Criminal Case ? 22716 or How T.Rustamov Escaped the Punishment.» Later on, the journalist has passed this article to the republican procurator's office. After this, according to the newspaper "Hurriyat", employees of justice bodies decided to catch Sariev "red-handed" and "found" in his car 18 grams of opium. The journalist was accused not only of preservation of drugs, but also of contumely of a highway patrol officer and insubordination to the legal actions of militia. Only thanks to the interference of the republican procurator's office, according to the newspaper, the evidence facts used in this criminal case against Sariev were admitted to be not-proven, and as a result the journalist was released.

Saidulla Babaev, a part-time correspondent of a newspaper "Muhofaza"⁶ became another victim of the local authorities. Saidulla Babaev was sentenced to two-year imprisonment. Based on the complaint of the residents of one of Bagat district villages, Babaev has conducted a journalistic investigation with regard to the fact of refusal to allocate for them a land lot for dwelling construction. After publication of the article, according to "Hurriyat,"⁷ Ergash Hodjakov, a chairman of the collective farm, has sent to the newspaper an official letter in which he promised to comply with the residents' request to allocate for them the land lot. However, at the same time, according to "Hurriyat," the procurator of Bagat district issued a writ for the arrest of the journalist who was accused of hooliganism as well as of causing damage to the collective farm.

The incrimination was made based on the application of Hodjakov, the chairman of the collective farm. In his application the chairman stated that the journalist Babaev initiated a scandal, insulted verbally Hodjakov using «dirty» language, and caused a damage to the collective farm in the amount of 5,051.50 Soums. The journalist explained that the conflict between himself and the chairman of the collective farm began during their personal meeting, when Babaev asked the chairman to expedite the process of the land lot allocation. In response, Hodjakov asked for 30,000 Soums for the land lot allocation. As a result of this story, in October 1999 the journalist was sentenced to two-year imprisonment. This last case, however, is rather complicated, given that the both plaintiffs who accused the chairman had the same last name as the journalist; they all were Babaevs. According to "Hurriyat" newspaper, the journalist "has drunk together with the chairman of the collective farm a bottle during their meeting,» and then their conflict raised. Thus, it is quite possible that the part-time correspondent who was also a militiaman, was trying to use the "journalistic investigation» to solve the problems of his relatives.

However, in all the above-mentioned cases there is one fact that attracts attention. That is the fact that local authorities have morbid inadequate attitude towards quite legal actions of journalists; and as a result the journalists are prosecuted. The mentioned cases indicate that there exists the following tendency: on the one hand, the local authorities have unlimited power, and they nip in the bud any attempts to use freedom of speech. On the other hand, these cases indicate that the journalists themselves are not competent enough, and that sometimes they try to use inappropriately the new genre of "journalistic investigation." Unsurprisingly, at present nobody wants to enter the department of journalism that used to be one of the most prestigious in Tashkent. Thus, according to F.Nesterenko, a professor of the Tashkent State University, in 1998 all the journalist departments (day, evening, and extramural courses) have admitted 90 people instead of 300, as it was planned. According to some estimation, the overall demand for journalists in the republic equals 2,000-2,500 people. According to the professor, at the department of journalism within the last three years they did not conduct any creative work contest, and the actual assistance of the Ministry of Higher Education within the last few years was limited only to providing five obsolete computers.⁸