Tajik Opposition Campaigns for Fairer Election Rules

Opposition parties in Tajikistan say the odds are stacked against them as they prepare for a parliamentary election early next year.



They say current electoral legislation restricts parties’ freedom of action, and argue that the deposit candidates must pay is set far too high and will discourage people from putting themselves forward. When it comes to the February 2010 election itself, the opposition fears the count will be less than transparent, making it unlikely the ballot will be free and fair.



Ahead of the election, the Communist Party of Tajikistan has drafted a reform bill which envisages abolishing deposits; doubling the amount of free airtime for political party broadcasts to one hour; and requiring local electoral commissions to include party agents in the interests of ensuring transparency.



The non-returnable fee payable by candidates currently stands at 7,000 somonis, around 1,700 US dollars. This is a substantial sum given Tajikistan’s position as the poorest of the five Central Asian states.



“How can a party pay deposits when most of its members can’t afford to pay their membership dues?” asked Communist leader Shodi Shabdolov. “If this artificial hurdle is done away with, every party will be able to nominate up to 22 candidates, as is its right.”



Separately, the head of the Social Democratic Party, Rahmatullo Zoirov, plans to bring a case to Tajikistan’s Constitutional Court to get the deposit abolished.



Zoirov believes the fee is an insurmountable obstacle for many people, especially given the current economic downturn facing Tajikistan.



When the deposit was introduced in 2004, it was set at 400 dollars, a quarter of the current level.



Muhibullo Dodojonov, who heads the Central Election Commission’s administrative body, says the measure was taken in line with recommendations from the Venice Commission, an advisory body to the Council of Europe.



Although Dodojonov thinks the fee is still a useful mechanism, he is open to reforming it, saying, “I think that it should be reduced, but not abolished altogether.”



He said that in the past, the deposit requirement was a useful way of weeding out minor warlords from the 1992-97 civil war era who were trying to muscle their way into politics.



Abolitionists say that in reality, the potential candidates most likely to be excluded by the high cost of standing are more likely to be educated people in low-paid public sector jobs.



As Zoirov put it in an interview for IWPR, “Those who have intellect don’t have money.”



Zoirov’s deputy leader in the Social Democrats, Shokirjon Hakimov, said that in a country where educated professionals can expect to earn 150 dollars a month, “ imagine how long they’d have to work to exercise their civil right to be in… parliament”.



Shabdolov told IWPR he understood the arguments about preventing guerrilla commanders from standing, but said those days were long gone.



Political parties are currently allowed to send observers to watch the count, but the Communists’ bill would see them included on the election commissions that run the ballot.



Shabdolov said that in the last parliamentary election, held in 2005, the electoral roll had names added to it, and documentation from the count was collated without the parties having any access to it.



“We should not repeat these mistakes, and in the forthcoming election the law should be observed so as to afford equal participation to all parties,” he said.



Muhiddin Kabiri, leader of the Islamic Rebirth Party, the only Islamic political group represented in any Central Asian parliament, agrees that the two key issues are the deposit and access to election procedures for the parties.



At the moment, he said, “If any local official or any member of the electoral commission wishes to falsify or tamper with the results, they can. Neither observers nor candidates have the slightest opportunity to rectify the situation and prevent the law being broken.”



Critics of the way elections are currently run in Tajikistan say one of the problems is that local election bodies are staffed with teachers, who as public-sector workers are easily pressured into turning a blind eye to irregularities.



Dodojonov acknowledged there had been complaints about his commission’s local branches, but said steps were being taken to ensure they were independent. In the last two elections, he said, they had been given their own premises rather than being housed in the local mayor’s offices.



As for engaging school staff to work as election officers, Dodojonov said, “Teachers don’t belong to any party, and they work on a voluntary basis…. No one else would agree to do that.”



Abdughani Mamadazimov, head of Association of Political Scientists in Tajikistan, said serious questions remained about the integrity of the election process at grassroots level.



“Local government bodies interfere during elections, particularly in the count,” he said. “This has a negative impact on the transparency and openness of parliamentary elections.”



In next February’s ballot, Tajikistan’s eight political parties will be contesting 22 out of the 63 seats in the lower house of parliament, based on a proportional representation system. The remaining 41 seats are directly elected on a constituency basis, offering parties a chance to win more seats by this route.



The People’s Democratic Party of Tajikistan, PDPT, which backs President Imomali Rahmon, currently has an absolute majority with 52 seats. Shabdolov’s Communists come a distant second with four seats. The Islamic Rebirth Party held two seats until last month, when Muhammdadsharif Himmatzoda stepped down.



Others like the Democratic Party, the Socialists and Zoirov’s Social Democrats, did not make it past the five per cent threshold set for the 2005 ballot.



The PDPT has a clear advantages over the rest through its proximity to power and resources, a membership of 100,000-plus nationwide, and the perception that national and local government officials are expected to join as a matter of course.



The Communists and the Islamic party, with memberships of 50,000 and 30,000, respectively, cater to constituencies that are restricted by their particular ideologies, while the rest have followings of just a few thousand each, based largely in the capital Dushanbe and other urban areas.



Mamadazimov believes the perception that all elections are fixed – a claim supported by past findings from western election observers – has created a mood of apathy among Tajikistan’s electorate.



“We cannot therefore expect our citizens to participate actively in the [2010] election,” he concluded.



Dodojonov defended the Central Election Commission, saying there had been a lot of progress, including the introduction of see-through ballot boxes and special ballot paper which should prevent forgery, and ending the practice where the final count was verified by having the local government’s stamp placed on the documentation.



The Communists submitted their draft law to government in February, and Dodojonov said that meant it should be making its way into parliament round about now, to comply with a three-month rule for such bills.



But as Hakimov pointed out, even if the bill is successful, timing will be everything.



“The later the law is passed and the legislation revised, the better it will be for the ruling party [PDPT] since it will leave little time for manoeuvre for other political groups,” he said.



Aslibegim Manzarshoeva is an IWPR-trained contributor.