Commentary: What next for Mirziyoyev and for Uzbekistan?

This is a commentary prepared by the editorial team of commonspace.eu

Presidential elections were held in Uzbekistan on 24 October. Not that too many people outside the landlocked Central Asian country were paying too much attention. It was always seen as a one horse race, and incumbent president Shavkat Mirziyoyev was not facing opponents that could realistically challenge his grip on power. Uzbekistan remains a tightly run political ship, and observers from the OSCE and the European Parliament concluded that “despite recent welcome reforms, the lack of genuine pluralism and meaningful engagement between candidates or with citizens meant that Uzbekistan’s presidential election was not truly competitive, while significant procedural irregularities were noted on election day”.

“The recent and ongoing reforms are an encouraging sign,” said Heidi Hautala, Vice President of the European Parliament and Head of the EP delegation. “But the exclusion of opposition parties and the lack of genuine competition, as well as the high number of irregularities we saw on election day, remain substantial obstacles in the path of the democratisation process.”

So is this a case of a glass being half full or half empty, depending on how you want to look at it; or is Uzbekistan slowly but surely moving out of its autocratic past into a pluralistic political process. The answer is that it is too early to say, because there are contradictory signs.

With a turnout of more than 80%, and having secured 80.1% of the votes cast, Mirziyoyev was as expected, jubilant on Sunday, but his choice of words was interesting:

“My dear fellow countrymen. Of course, every person has such moments of excitement in life as I have now. I bow down and thank everyone for their trust in me,” he said. Mirziyoyev underscored that the over 80% turnout speaks of the fact that many are not indifferent to the future, and the elections were held in line with the Electoral Code, which is recognized in the world.

“Today's Uzbekistan is not an Uzbekistan of yesterday. Our people are not the same as they were five years ago. I have said before and will say now: there is no turning back. Uzbekistan will only go forward!”, the president said.

So no turning back to the dark days of Islam Karimov, the dictator who turned Uzbekistan into a pariah state in his 25 year rule of the country. But quite were Uzbekistan is going forward to under the more benign leadership of Mirziyoyev is not yet clear.

Uzbekistan has a population of over 35 million, one of the largest in Central Asia, but its economy was left in shambles leaving it with one of the lowed GDP’s per capita in the world. The need for modernization in all aspects of life is acutely clear, and Mirziyoyev appears to understand that.

Internally reforms have been taking place and everyone agrees that the legal framework has improved considerably. The application of that framework however remains problematic. This was also the case with the elections. In many ways the elections were a missed opportunity. A more competitive electoral environment would have done much to add to the credibility of the reform process that Mirizyoyev has initiated. The president now needs to make up for this with tangible action in areas such as personal freedoms, local governance, government accountability and the fight against corruption.

Externally, Uzbekistan is in a difficult situation. It is a double land-locked country, ie to reach the sea one has to go through not one, but two other countries. Like the rest of Central Asia it is sandwiched between the competing interests of Russia and China. And as the recent events in neighbouring Afghanistan has shown, the neighbourhood is difficult. There are genuine concerns that with the Taliban as next door neighbours problems of Islamic extremism and radicalisation, of which Uzbekistan has had its fair share in the past, may re-surface. Whoever sits in control in Tashkent must therefore manage with a strong hand. But that does not mean that there is not a huge amount that can and should be done in the immediate future for the country to start reclaiming the international respect it aspires to.

As for the international community, it must remain engaged with Uzbekistan. It must help it develop its potential, and it must help it manage the international context in which it finds itself. The process may be slower that many hope for, but for the moment at least Mirziyoyev remains the best option to help Uzbekistan come in from the cold.

source: This commentary was prepared by the editorial team of commonspace.eu
photo: Supporters of Shovket Mirzyoyev celebrate his election victory in Tashken on 24 October 2021 (picture courtesy of Tashkent Times)

 

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Israeli parliament votes to bring back the death penalty, but only for Palestinians

Israeli parliament votes to bring back the death penalty, but only for Palestinians

srael’s parliament approved a bill on Monday that would allow the execution of Palestinians convicted on terror charges for deadly attacks, a move that has been criticized as discriminatory and immediately drew a court challenge. Sixty-two lawmakers, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, voted in favor and 48 against the bill, championed by far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir. There was one abstention and the rest of the lawmakers were not present. Ben Gvir in the run-up to the vote had worn a lapel pin in the shape of a noose, symbolising his support for the legislation. “We made history!!! We promised. We delivered,” he posted on X after the vote. The bill would make the death penalty the default punishment for Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank found guilty of intentionally carrying out deadly attacks deemed “acts of terrorism” by an Israeli military court. The bill says that the sentence may be reduced to life imprisonment under “special circumstances.” Palestinians in the West Bank are automatically tried in Israeli military courts. Meanwhile, under the bill, in Israeli criminal courts anyone “who intentionally causes the death of a person with the aim of harming an Israeli citizen or resident out of an intention to put an end to the existence of the State of Israel shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment.” Criminal courts try Israeli nationals, including Palestinian citizens and residents of east Jerusalem. The bill sets the execution method as hanging, adding that it should be carried out within 90 days of the sentencing, with a possible postponement of up to 180 days. - ‘Parallel tracks’ - The bill appears to conflict with Israel’s Basic Laws, which prohibit arbitrary discrimination, and shortly after it was passed, a leading human rights group announced that it had filed a petition with the Supreme Court demanding the legislation’s annulment. “The law creates two parallel tracks, both designed to apply to Palestinians,” the Association for Civil Rights in Israel said in a statement. “In military courts — which have jurisdiction over West Bank Palestinians — it establishes a near-mandatory death sentence,” the rights group said. In civilian courts, the law’s stipulation that defendants must have acted “with the aim of negating the existence” of Israel “structurally excludes Jewish perpetrators,” the group added. The association argued the law should be annulled on both jurisdictional and constitutional grounds. During the debate in parliament, opposition lawmaker and former deputy Mossad director, Ram Ben Barak, expressed outrage at the legislation. “Do you understand what it means that there is one law for Arabs in Judea and Samaria, and a different law for the general public for which the State of Israel is responsible?” he asked fellow parliamentarians, using the Israeli name for the West Bank. “It says that Hamas has defeated us. It has defeated us because we have lost all our values.” - ‘Discriminatory application’ - Lawmaker Limor Son Har-Melech from Ben Gvir’s party, who years ago survived an attack by Palestinian militants in which her husband was killed, urged fellow parliamentarians to approve the bill. “For years, we endured a cruel cycle of terror, imprisonment, release in reckless deals, and the return of these human monsters to murder Jews again ... And today, my friends, this cycle has come full circle.” The Palestinian Authority condemned the law’s adoption, saying that “Israel has no sovereignty over Palestinian land.” “This law once again reveals the nature of the Israeli colonial system, which seeks to legitimize extrajudicial killing under legislative cover,” it added. In February, Amnesty International had urged Israeli lawmakers to reject the legislation, citing its “discriminatory application against Palestinians.” On Sunday, Britain, France, Germany and Italy expressed “deep concern” over the bill, which they said risked “undermining Israel’s commitments with regards to democratic principles.” While the death penalty exists for a small number of crimes in Israel, it has become a de facto abolitionist country — the Nazi Holocaust perpetrator Adolf Eichmann was the last person to be executed in 1962. Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967 and violence there has soared since Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel triggered the Gaza war. (read more by clicking the image above).

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)