Uzbekistan - December 2009 Elections
The 27 December 2009 elections were the second parliamentary elections since Uzbekistan introduced a bi-cameral parliament (Oliy Majlis). A referendum held on 27 January 2002 proposed constitutional changes, inter alia, to establish a bicameral parliament. The parliament now comprises a lower chamber (legislative chamber) and an upper chamber (senate), both serving five year terms. The senate has 100 members; 84 are indirectly elected and 16 are appointed by the president.
While Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) observers reported noticeable procedural improvements in comparison to the 2004 parliamentary elections, the OSCE did not deem the 2009 elections free and fair due to government restrictions on eligible candidates and total government control of media and campaign financing. A second round of parliamentary run-off elections took place in 39 constituencies on 10 January 2010.
Conspiracy theories about the elections abound, but (as is often the case with conspiracy theories) lack proof, and require giant leaps of logic. No international observers witnessed the second round of voting, and therefore the local independent media has speculated that the run-offs were engineered precisely so that any irregularities would take place away from prying international eyes. However, the available evidence suggests that the run-off elections were probably just what they seemed. By examining candidate lists, listening to the parties, and observing the voting at the polls, the conclusion was that the elections, though flawed, were not just a sham, totally orchestrated by the central government. The candidate list was restricted by the government, but the people running for office were the usual suspects for a parliamentary election-local politicians and community organizers, heads of agricultural collectives, and general pillars of the community, including doctors, lawyers, businessmen, and school directors.
The elections were neither free nor fair, but perhaps they were not wholly worthless. The Government kept opposition candidates off the ballot and controlled the media, as they always do. Ironically, though, the election outcome would probably not change very much in a fully free and fair election. Although many ordinary Uzbek citizens are unhappy with the state of affairs in the country-especially when it affects their pocketbooks-few of them actually oppose the government at this point. Whether this reflects the placid political culture or deeper fear of repression, or both, is the subject of constant analysis.
Four political parties represented in the outgoing parliament contested these elections. Differences in these parties’ programs appeared to be minor, with all registered parties supporting government policies. Political movements that are openly critical of the state authorities have not in the past been able to register as political parties. In the run-up to these elections, they did not attempt to register again. The field of candidates did not offer real political alternatives to voters. Genuine political pluralism constitutes a fundamental element of any democratic election.
Candidates in single-mandate constituencies were nominated by the four registered political parties. All four were represented in the outgoing parliament: the Liberal-Democratic Party of Uzbekistan (LDPU), the People’s Democratic Party of Uzbekistan (PDPU), the Democratic Party of Uzbekistan Milliy Tiklanish and the Social-Democratic Party Adolat. The newly established Ecological Movement of Uzbekistan (EMU), which is not considered a political party, was founded in August 2008. It comprises non-governmental organizations and individual members, often scientists, mainly active in the ecology and health sectors.
Despite the high number of registered media outlets, the media environment in Uzbekistan is characterized by an absence of independent and pluralistic media. Given the limited circulation of print media, broadcast media are the most important source of information about politics. The print media market remains underdeveloped with only three national newspapers published on a daily basis. Internet access is limited and localized mainly in Tashkent and other major cities.
The election campaign had a slow start, gaining only limited momentum during the last week. The four registered political parties and their candidates could begin campaigning as soon as they were registered with the CEC. Candidates met the electorate in events organized mainly in public buildings, in co-operation with the local mahalla. Small posters were displayed at these events. They were generally uniform for all candidates, making it difficult to determine which party the candidates represented. In line with the Law on Financing of Political Parties, the amount of state funding provided for the election campaign was calculated based on the number of candidates nominated per party. For these elections, each candidate received 1.1 million Som (some 500 EUR) for their campaign.
The December 2009 elections took place in a tightly controlled political environment characterized by a lack of respect for fundamental freedoms central to any democratic election, by a strong executive led by the president and a relatively weak parliament as well as by fear of regional instability. All four political parties that fielded candidates stated their support for the government. The existence of political parties constituted only an appearance of political variety and did not provide voters with a choice between genuine political alternatives. There were no significant campaign themes pursued by political parties in the elections other than their general party platforms.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
