No surprises

Uzbekistan’s election is over and done with and, to no one’s surprise, the OSCE has found the whole process lacking. The observation mission was small–only 21 people. It mostly focused on the legal infrastructure and the role of the media. I should note that the OSCE did find some improvements in this election compared to the 1999 vote, but depending on what one’s idea of democracy is, the actual value of the improvements is highly debatable.

In RFE/RL’s report, it is mentioned that a total of 230 foreign observers were in Uzbekistan to monitor the vote, meaning 209 of them were from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or CIS missions. The CIS mission gives the election a glowing review.

TASHKENT, December 27 (RIA Novosti’s Olga Semyonova) – CIS international observers consider that the election to the Legislative Chamber of Oliy Majlis of the Republic of Uzbekistan on December 26, 2004 passed in accordance with the norms of the election legislation of Uzbekistan and recognize them as legitimate, free and transparent. Vladimir Rushailo, head of the observers’ mission and chairman of the CIS executive committee, said this at a press conference.

At the same time, he said that the observers had fixed “minor shortcomings and omissions committed in preparing for the election, organizing election canvassing and conducting the poll”. However, the CIS observers believe, these were mainly of “a technical character”, were removed in the course of observation and this is why “did no have a considerable effect on the free expression of the voters’ will and election returns”, he stressed.

The CIS observers also note that the election struggle passed within the framework of existing Uzbek legislation, mainly in a correct form and without using “dirty technologies”, he said.

In Mr. Rushailo’s words, the CIS international mission observed the course of the voting and vote counting in 113 of the 120 precincts in Uzbekistan.

After the closure of polling stations, the members of the CIS mission observed the vote counting and the drawing up by district commissions of the election files and records. No violations of the procedure for vote counting established in legislation were noticed.

President Karimov has been his usual colorful self in regards to matters of democracy and elections lately. On the OSCE:

“The OSCE cannot have the exclusive right to assess elections,” Karimov said Sunday at a polling station in the capital, Tashkent. “It represents Europe while we’re in Central Asia.”

And to rip off the AP, let’s not forget that Uzbekistan’s an OSCE member.

On public uprisings and foreign support for opposition groups:

“It is unacceptable to use democracy to take over power or organize a coup,” said Karimov, whose government is seen as one of most repressive and least democratic of former Soviet nations. On Dec. 26, the same day Ukrainians went to the polls to elect a president, Uzbeks chose a new parliament.

Karimov urged international rights and pro-democracy organizations “to say that using democracy as a cover for seizing power is unacceptable.”

Karimov said foreign interference was behind the emergence of the opposition groups in Serbia and Georgia that brought down old regimes there, and the one in Ukraine that forced authorities to admit election fraud.

“All these movements such as Serbian “Otpor,” Georgian “Kmara” and Ukrainian “Pora” (It’s time) are similar,” he said after casting his ballot in an election in which opposition groups were barred from running. “The creation of such groups costs money, large efforts and instructors.”

“I think the international community should condemn this,” Karimov said. “Because otherwise, anywhere [people] lose elections, [they] might use such forces to oppose the results.”

And more:

Karimov blamed “revolutionary events” on post-Soviet territory on the leadership of post-Soviet republics.

“If anything of the sort occurs in Uzbekistan, it will be our fault and should not be blamed on external forces, even if they are powerful and rich, and capable of creating fertile soil for a coup through setting up various non-governmental organizations,” he said.

There are more thoughts on this at Post-Modern Clog and Transition Trends.

Ferghana.Ru has a handful of interesting stories, including a first-hand voting experience that hints at a very loooooow turnout:

A citizen of Uzbekistan, I set out for Polling Station 83 of the Chapan-Ata district of Tashkent at about noon on December 26. I already knew what candidate representing what political party to cast my vote for. Not because I knew of any candidate leaflets in whose support (with life stories and portraits) had been posted at the entrance to my block of flats exactly twenty-four hours ago, on December 25. I merely wanted to rule out the possibility itself that my personal boycott of the election would benefit the political forces I certainly disliked from their last 5 years in the parliament.

So, Polling Station 83. The road there is all too familiar because it is located on the premises of Secondary School 44 (23rd block of Chilanzar) – just where it has always been located ever since the Soviet era. The neighborhood is silent and empty – even more so at first sight than on any other week-end. The Central Election Commission posted a notice on its website that almost 50% had already voted by noon. Perhaps. I’m not an early riser myself, and I do not go to mosques for the morning prayer…

There’s much more where that came from.

There’s very little to say about this election really. Uzbekistan’s government (and Kyrgyzstan’s too, by the way) seem very jittery and prone to lash out at the West for criticizing its lack of reform. It remains to be seen whether or not this will lead to any real policy changes though.

Finally, congratulations to Ukraine!