Early Election Shenanigans
There is some fishy maneuvering going on in Tajikistan. In a situation not unlike Kazakhstan, the Tajik government seems to be straddling the line between maintaining democratic appearances, and keeping civil society on a short leash. Tajikistan will have presidential elections November, 2006, and initial indicators of a fair election are not promising. Tajikistan has already taken steps to restrict media coverage, and is creating proxy political parties that many accuse of being nothing more than puppets, created only for the purposes of a democratic façade.
The Agrarian Party of Tajikistan, APT, and the Party for Economic Reform of Tajikistan, PERT, were founded late last year and are both expected to field candidates in the November presidential election.
However, analysts are sceptical they will offer any opposition at all to President Imomali Rahmonov and his People’s Democratic Party of Tajikistan, PDPT. “These are parties that will decide nothing and play no role in the political life of the country,” said Rahmon Ulmasov, a political scientist.
Speculation is rife that Rahmonov – who changed the constitution to allow himself to run for another term – created the parties to broaden electoral support and give the impression of a vibrant political scene in Tajikistan, in case real opposition parties refuse to participate in the November 6 poll.
Tajik political parties, however, seem to be rather touchy about commentary on the upcoming elections. The Russian ambassador to Tajikistan recently commented that the presidential poll would be uncontested, and was adamantly protested.
There already seems to be little chance that the November elections will meet OSCE standards, but the standard set in Central Asia in regards to election fairness is not particularly high; there is still a possibility that Tajikistan can set a new one.
on February 6th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
My belief is that all elections in former Soviet Union are somehow not quite free. The exception could be Baltic countries who have long been held back by Russia. The trouble is that some countries cover their unfairness more effectively than others. Russian Duma for example is all pro-presidential. Situation with Khodorkovsky shows how real opponents get crushed. There is no real opposition whasoever, yet I don’t see OSCE screaming about unfair elections. I suppose it is more evident in the example of CA countries that haven’t learned how to cheat.
on February 6th, 2006 at 10:36 pm
TB,
Here is a statement by the OSCE on the Russian presidential election in 2004:
Not exactly screaming about unfair elections, but not exactly a positive review either. I wonder what they will say about the next one in Russia….
You make a good point; there is sort of a double standard out there in some respects. But I think the CA countries are learning pretty quickly. In this example, restricting some voices and propping up others is a pretty shrewd move, I would say.
on February 6th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
This is exactly my point. It seems like OSCE standards could be described as a list of things that, if fulfilled, would make elections fair. I don’t rule out the possibility that in Russia and most former soviet republics the government can plant fake opposition candidates and do it in such a way that would make observers believe that a real political struggle is taking place.
Only when candidates like Khodorkovsky appear we can see the reality as it is. I am not really approving the actions of the CA countries since they are just a repetition of what has happened in Russia. Personally I think no CA country in its current form has a real and independent political will. They all are influenced by their bigger “brother” Russia. It is just dissapointing that OSCE seems to be satisfied as long as “election fairness checklist” is completed, without looking into the substance.
on February 6th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
Fair points. I think, however, that there is definitely a place - and room - for more objective “lists” like the OSCE, as well as more analytical reports looking into more intangible substance. Both have their strengths and weaknessses.