Government May Heed Criticisms of Election
Government May Heed Criticisms of Election
The first assessments of the Tajik presidential election are in, and predictably enough, western observers and those from the former Soviet Union paint very different pictures. Local commentators tell NBCentralAsia that tough criticism can help improve the electoral process because the Tajik authorities do listen to it.
In the November 6 ballot, 79 per cent of the vote went to incumbent Imomali Rahmonov. The election was observed by monitors from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, on the one hand, and from the Commonwealth of Independent States, CIS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, SCO, on the other, and their assessments varied considerably.
Kimmo Kiljunen, who led the OSCE observer team, said afterwards that the election was not really a proper test of democratic electoral practices since there was a lack of genuine choice and meaningful pluralism.
Yet CIS and SCO observers were positive about the conduct of the vote, and CIS mission chief Vladimir Rushailo said on November 8 that the election was legitimate, transparent and democratic.
He also said the ballot highlighted a need to agree common international standards, because there were such major differences in the way observers viewed issues like voter turnout, the question of how much government support the candidates got, and media coverage of the campaign.
This kind of divergence in views will come as no surprise to people in Tajikistan, since the 2004 parliamentary election also evoked widely differing responses.
Political scientist Shodmon Yusufbekov argues that observers from the OSCE and former Soviet Union arrive at different conclusions because they belong to rival camps. He sees this as perpetuating the confrontation between post-Soviet countries and the West. According to Yusufbekov, observers from the former are more likely to be tolerant of the kind of problems that arise in Tajikistan because they understand that “the CIS countries are still in transition and need more time to refine their electoral processes”.
By contrast, Shokirjon Hakimov, deputy head of the Social Democratic Party of Tajikistan, says that most of the countries in the CIS are themselves ruled by undemocratic regimes where the same leaders have often been in charge for the last 20 years.
The commentators interviewed by NBCA agree that the Tajik authorities actually pay attention to serious criticism and try to address issues that are raised.
“Election monitors play an important role, and they are listened to,” said Yusufbekov. “This year, for instance, the Central Electoral Committee took on board a number of comments made by the OSCE and rectified matters in a number of these areas. That shows how necessary and important the role of international observers is. The main thing is that the evaluation should be objective and help improve the process.”
Hakimov thinks OSCE recommendations may be followed in the next election, too. The authorities may amend legislation so as to better comply with the high standards set for elections.
(News Briefing Central Asia draws comment and analysis from a broad range of political observers across the region.)
In the November 6 ballot, 79 per cent of the vote went to incumbent Imomali Rahmonov. The election was observed by monitors from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, on the one hand, and from the Commonwealth of Independent States, CIS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, SCO, on the other, and their assessments varied considerably.
Kimmo Kiljunen, who led the OSCE observer team, said afterwards that the election was not really a proper test of democratic electoral practices since there was a lack of genuine choice and meaningful pluralism.
Yet CIS and SCO observers were positive about the conduct of the vote, and CIS mission chief Vladimir Rushailo said on November 8 that the election was legitimate, transparent and democratic.
He also said the ballot highlighted a need to agree common international standards, because there were such major differences in the way observers viewed issues like voter turnout, the question of how much government support the candidates got, and media coverage of the campaign.
This kind of divergence in views will come as no surprise to people in Tajikistan, since the 2004 parliamentary election also evoked widely differing responses.
Political scientist Shodmon Yusufbekov argues that observers from the OSCE and former Soviet Union arrive at different conclusions because they belong to rival camps. He sees this as perpetuating the confrontation between post-Soviet countries and the West. According to Yusufbekov, observers from the former are more likely to be tolerant of the kind of problems that arise in Tajikistan because they understand that “the CIS countries are still in transition and need more time to refine their electoral processes”.
By contrast, Shokirjon Hakimov, deputy head of the Social Democratic Party of Tajikistan, says that most of the countries in the CIS are themselves ruled by undemocratic regimes where the same leaders have often been in charge for the last 20 years.
The commentators interviewed by NBCA agree that the Tajik authorities actually pay attention to serious criticism and try to address issues that are raised.
“Election monitors play an important role, and they are listened to,” said Yusufbekov. “This year, for instance, the Central Electoral Committee took on board a number of comments made by the OSCE and rectified matters in a number of these areas. That shows how necessary and important the role of international observers is. The main thing is that the evaluation should be objective and help improve the process.”
Hakimov thinks OSCE recommendations may be followed in the next election, too. The authorities may amend legislation so as to better comply with the high standards set for elections.
(News Briefing Central Asia draws comment and analysis from a broad range of political observers across the region.)
