At least a few members of the United States Congress have their eyes on the impending presidential elections in Tajikistan. Today (October 26), the offices of Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) held a briefing to educate members of Congress on the prospect of democracy and long-term development in the former Soviet republic featuring Khamrokhon Zaripov, Tajikistani Ambassador to the US, Eric McGlinchey of George Mason University, Dennis de Tray of the Center for Global Development, and Anthony Bowyer from IFES. neweurasia has reported on previous lectures of all three participants aside from the ambassador (McGlinchey, de Tray, Bowyer). There should be a transcript of the event up soon. Update: The transcript is now available.

The Ambassador
As I noted in another event summary, presentations by diplomats are — with some notable exceptions — notoriously dull, and Zaripov was no exception. This is not to demean Zaripov in the slightest — he was just doing his job, repeating the government line (”Tajikistan’s made a lot of progress, especially given the civil war, yada yada”). To his credit, he was a good sport and engaged when McGlinchey painted a much different picture of the future prospects of Tajikistan (read on).

The Professor
Professor McGlinchey, sitting directly beside the ambassador, immediately signaled that his account of events would differ wildly with that of Zaripov. Not only was McGlinchey pessimistic about the upcoming elections, he believes they are a harbinger of turbulent times to come.

He argued that the past ten years in Tajikistan have been relatively good. The war was resolved, and opposition parties were allowed to participate — to a small degree — both in the parliament and in the government. In recent years, that has changed for the worse. Now there is less general participation in politics and fewer means of expression.

McGlinchey outlined three avenues outside of the legal system that Tajikistani citizens might take to express themselves politically, all of which will lead to instability for Tajikistan:

1. They may turn to Islamic leaders. While this could mean extremist groups such as the Hizb ut Tahrir, it could also be more democratic, moderate Islamic movements.
2. People are turning to the internet as a pressure valve. He referenced the fact that for three days several internet websites were blocked in Tajikistan.
3. Increasingly, the public will turn to “warlords.” He elaborated that unlike Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and even Kyrgyzstan, the patronage system is weaker in Tajikistan, and the center therefore has more difficulty asserting control on the periphery. This means that as citizens are frustrated in the political system, they will turn to the regional strongmen.

McGlinchey pointed out that it does not take a majority to stage an insurrection. While the population is tired of fighting, it is facing an increasingly young demographic that soon may not remember the war.

The Development Wonk
The tide turned again, as Dr. de Tray began his speech by indicating that his analysis diverged drastically from McGlinchey’s. An economist by training, de Tray even joked that Political Science is the real “dismal science.”

De Tray characterized Tajikistan as one of the few post-conflict success stories in the world. The Tajik government inherited a country with an 85% decline in per capita income, which he put in perspective by comparing that figure with the 30% decline suffered in the American Great Depression. Since then, largely as a result of remittances from Russia, Tajikistan’s economy has done remarkably well, and has reduced its debt.

He also commented that President Rakhmonov has done a remarkable job at consolidating power and improving security in the country. De Tray recalled that only several years ago one could barely venture outside Dushanbe because of security risks, and many streets within the capital were unsafe as well. This situation has improved dramatically and rapidly.

De Tray emphasized two factors as crucial to Tajikistan’s future: how economic resources are distributed among the population and those in power, and how the government deals with the drug trade. A mismanagement of either could have disastrous consequences for the stability of the country.

When asked about America’s role in democracy promotion in Central Asia, de Tray made a particularly prescient comment. He said that the upcoming Russian presidential elections are far more important than anything American can do to directly influence the country. Whether or not Putin stays in power will have dramatic consequences in Central Asia.

The Implementer
Mr. Bowyer wholeheartedly encouraged engagement with Tajikistan to gradually improve the political process there. He said that foreign countries should consider the history of the region when passing judgment on Tajikistan, as well as their own history of democratization. He also pointed out that unlike many other countries in the region, at least Tajikistan has a stated commitment to democracy.

Because the authorities care so much about Western opinion, they can be prompted toward gradual reform. To improve the current system, Bowyer advocated greater TV time for opposition candidates, a vote-by-mail system for citizens abroad, and greater voter education.

James comments: Although McGlinchey and de Tray clearly differed on what the future holds for Tajikistan, their divergence stemmed from differing interpretation, not different perception of the facts. For instance, de Tray didn’t dispute that the political process has taken as many steps backward as it has forward, and McGlinchey acknowledged that Tajikistan has made economic progress. Their disagreement was more fundamental: do people care more about being heard, or security — economic or otherwise? Nathan discusses this exact point over at Registan.