Kyrgyzstan Elevated to Authoritarian “G8”
Some analysts argue the Kyrgyz state, along with Kazakstan and Tajikistan, is not as undemocratic as watchdog group’s report suggests.
Kyrgyzstan Elevated to Authoritarian “G8”
Some analysts argue the Kyrgyz state, along with Kazakstan and Tajikistan, is not as undemocratic as watchdog group’s report suggests.
After the United States-based group Freedom House listed Kyrgyzstan as an authoritarian state along with the other four Central Asian republics, local analysts are left debating whether this is an accurate reflection of the plight of democracy in the region.
The annual Nations in Transit survey, published at the end of June, ranked 29 states in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union according to a range of yardsticks for democratic development – governance, the electoral process, the judicial framework, civil society, independent media, and the prevalence of corruption.
Kyrgyzstan and Russia were for the first time included in the worst category, that of “consolidated authoritarian states” which Freedom House defines as “closed societies in which dictators prevent political competition and pluralism and are responsible for widespread violations of basic political, civil and human rights”.
They join Kazakstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan in Central Asia, and Azerbaijan and Belarus, expanding the group to a record eight.
Among the more alarming developments of 2008, the period covered by the report, Freedom House noted new laws restricting freedom of speech and assembly in Kyrgyzstan; increasing pressure on NGOs and the courts in Tajikistan; the lack of opposition to the “unconstitutional” third term secured by Uzbek president Islam Karimov; and Turkmenistan’s limited movement away from the late president Saparmurat Niazov’s policies. As Kazakstan heads towards its turn as OSCE chairman, its government “has not taken a single convincing step” towards greater democracy and allowing an independent media and civil society, the report said.
Many of the Central Asian analysts interviewed by IWPR agreed with the report’s key finding – that authoritarianism is becoming entrenched in all five states, barring a few minor variations from country to country.
“All the Central Asian states basically have identical problems at a strategic level; the only differences lie in the tactics the authorities employ to control society,” said Parviz Mullojonov, a political analyst in Tajikistan. “There are certain differences in the ways that authoritarian regimes manifest themselves, but all these countries fundamentally have weak democratic institutions and are governed by families and clans. As a result, the majority of the public feels alienated from real political problems.”
Mullojonov said that although the institutions of government across Central Asia incorporated democratic principles such as holding elections, in practice the national leaderships merely paid lip-service to them.
One of the consequences of a rigid political system, according to Komron Aliev, an analyst in Uzbekistan, is “a lack of that any kind of ideology”.
“In the vacuum left by the absence of ideas, corruption and crime flourish and personal enrichment at all cost becomes the entire raison d’etre. Having no freedom of expression and no common goals for civil society results in the degradation both of society as a whole and of the individual,” he said.
When it came to looking at individual countries, the analysts interviewed for this report were divided on whether Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan merited Freedom House’s categorisation of them as authoritarian dictatorships.
Kazakstan, according to local analyst Oleg Sidorov, is in a “transitional phase”.
“You can’t say we have democracy, but you can’t call it authoritarian, either,” he said. “We are somewhere in between.”
Dosym Satpaev, director of the Risk Assessment Group in Almaty, said the term authoritarian, but not totalitarian, was applicable to Kazakstan.
“In formal terms, we do have parties, NGOs and media… the political system in Kazakstan bears most resemblance to an authoritarian one,” he said.
By contrast, Gulnara Samenbekova of the ruling Nur Otan party argues that the Freedom House assessment of Kazakstan is “unfounded”. “The facts show that we are a democratic society,” she added.
While some Kyrgyz analysts agreed with the report’s findings on the gradual curbing of freedom of expression and assembly, the disappearance of independent media and the lack of an independent judiciary, member of parliament Galina Kulikova disagreed.
Claiming that Freedom House had been influenced by the views of the opposition, she said, “You can’t describe Kyrgyzstan as an unfree country… If it were, no one would dare complain about it.”
As for the report’s assessment of Tajikistan, political Rashid Ghani Abdullo dismissed it as an attempt to make western values apply universally to states developing along quite different lines.
“The conclusion is that the more stable a post-Soviet state is, the less free it is from Freedom House’s perspective, and vice versa,” he said. “That fails to take into account that instability in Central Asian republics always results in conflicts which can cost hundreds of lives, if not tens of thousands.”
There was less controversy on Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, where the analysts interviewed were unable to identify trends towards substantial improvement.
One expert in Turkmenistan, who asked not to be named, said the Freedom House assessment was a fair reflection of a state in which “all media are under the total control of the authorities, there is not even one independent public organisation [NGO], and international human rights groups are forbidden to enter the country”.
Summing up the way Uzbekistan is governed, Aliev said, “The entire system is tightly controlled by the state, which in turn is subject to the will of one man.”
The annual Nations in Transit survey, published at the end of June, ranked 29 states in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union according to a range of yardsticks for democratic development – governance, the electoral process, the judicial framework, civil society, independent media, and the prevalence of corruption.
Kyrgyzstan and Russia were for the first time included in the worst category, that of “consolidated authoritarian states” which Freedom House defines as “closed societies in which dictators prevent political competition and pluralism and are responsible for widespread violations of basic political, civil and human rights”.
They join Kazakstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan in Central Asia, and Azerbaijan and Belarus, expanding the group to a record eight.
Among the more alarming developments of 2008, the period covered by the report, Freedom House noted new laws restricting freedom of speech and assembly in Kyrgyzstan; increasing pressure on NGOs and the courts in Tajikistan; the lack of opposition to the “unconstitutional” third term secured by Uzbek president Islam Karimov; and Turkmenistan’s limited movement away from the late president Saparmurat Niazov’s policies. As Kazakstan heads towards its turn as OSCE chairman, its government “has not taken a single convincing step” towards greater democracy and allowing an independent media and civil society, the report said.
Many of the Central Asian analysts interviewed by IWPR agreed with the report’s key finding – that authoritarianism is becoming entrenched in all five states, barring a few minor variations from country to country.
“All the Central Asian states basically have identical problems at a strategic level; the only differences lie in the tactics the authorities employ to control society,” said Parviz Mullojonov, a political analyst in Tajikistan. “There are certain differences in the ways that authoritarian regimes manifest themselves, but all these countries fundamentally have weak democratic institutions and are governed by families and clans. As a result, the majority of the public feels alienated from real political problems.”
Mullojonov said that although the institutions of government across Central Asia incorporated democratic principles such as holding elections, in practice the national leaderships merely paid lip-service to them.
One of the consequences of a rigid political system, according to Komron Aliev, an analyst in Uzbekistan, is “a lack of that any kind of ideology”.
“In the vacuum left by the absence of ideas, corruption and crime flourish and personal enrichment at all cost becomes the entire raison d’etre. Having no freedom of expression and no common goals for civil society results in the degradation both of society as a whole and of the individual,” he said.
When it came to looking at individual countries, the analysts interviewed for this report were divided on whether Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan merited Freedom House’s categorisation of them as authoritarian dictatorships.
Kazakstan, according to local analyst Oleg Sidorov, is in a “transitional phase”.
“You can’t say we have democracy, but you can’t call it authoritarian, either,” he said. “We are somewhere in between.”
Dosym Satpaev, director of the Risk Assessment Group in Almaty, said the term authoritarian, but not totalitarian, was applicable to Kazakstan.
“In formal terms, we do have parties, NGOs and media… the political system in Kazakstan bears most resemblance to an authoritarian one,” he said.
By contrast, Gulnara Samenbekova of the ruling Nur Otan party argues that the Freedom House assessment of Kazakstan is “unfounded”. “The facts show that we are a democratic society,” she added.
While some Kyrgyz analysts agreed with the report’s findings on the gradual curbing of freedom of expression and assembly, the disappearance of independent media and the lack of an independent judiciary, member of parliament Galina Kulikova disagreed.
Claiming that Freedom House had been influenced by the views of the opposition, she said, “You can’t describe Kyrgyzstan as an unfree country… If it were, no one would dare complain about it.”
As for the report’s assessment of Tajikistan, political Rashid Ghani Abdullo dismissed it as an attempt to make western values apply universally to states developing along quite different lines.
“The conclusion is that the more stable a post-Soviet state is, the less free it is from Freedom House’s perspective, and vice versa,” he said. “That fails to take into account that instability in Central Asian republics always results in conflicts which can cost hundreds of lives, if not tens of thousands.”
There was less controversy on Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, where the analysts interviewed were unable to identify trends towards substantial improvement.
One expert in Turkmenistan, who asked not to be named, said the Freedom House assessment was a fair reflection of a state in which “all media are under the total control of the authorities, there is not even one independent public organisation [NGO], and international human rights groups are forbidden to enter the country”.
Summing up the way Uzbekistan is governed, Aliev said, “The entire system is tightly controlled by the state, which in turn is subject to the will of one man.”
