About the site
Oasis online magazine
Analytical journalism
Guest book
Magazine       "Oasis"
No. 20 (20) December 2005
No. 19 (19) December 2005
No. 18 (18) November 2005
№ 17 (17) November 2005
No. 16 (16) October 2005
№ 15 (15) October 2005
No. 14 (14) September 2005
No. 13 (13) September 2005
12 (12) August 2005
11 (11) August 2005
No. 10 (10) July 2005
No. 9 (9) July 2005
No. 8 (8) June 2005
No. 7 (7) June 2005
No 6 (6) May 2005
No 5 (5) May 2005
No. 4 (4) April 2005
No. 3 (3) April 2005
No 2 (2) March 2005
No 1 (1) March 2005
on       journal [PDF]:
Oleg Panfilov,
project Manager,

Dmitry Alyaev,
chief editor,

Roman Zyuzin,
webmaster [at] cjes.ru

Adil Dzhalilov,

a diamond stylus,

Nargis Zokirova,
zokirova77 [at] mail.ru

Representative Names
in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan
not disclosed

Lyudmila Burenkova,
technical editor,
lyuda [at] cjes.ru

Elena Dorokhova,
Presidents "orders suggest"
Igor Bratsev (Almaty), Aziz Rasulov (Tashkent)

According to official data, the results of the elections in Kazakhstan, where the current president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, won 91.15% of the votes, were called “triumphant”, “stunning”, “shocking”, etc. Moreover, such epithets are heard not only from the imperious camp. Nazarbayev’s unconditional victory was also recognized by his former opponents - Yerasyl Abylkasymov and Mels Yeleusizov, who received respectively 0.34 and 0.28% of the vote. As noted at the forum dedicated to the results of the elections, presidential adviser Yermukhambet Yertysbayev, one of the reasons for the convincing victory was “a real debunking of the possibility of a revolution in the country”. In the unanimous opinion of foreign observers from Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Russia and Israel, the counting of votes in the elections was fair. There were, of course, "small distortions", but "this happens always and everywhere."

Observers from the aforementioned countries stated that the elections met international democratic standards. The representative of Ukraine, Mikhail Beletsky, even called the elections in Kazakhstan boring, naturally, in comparison with Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine.

At the same time, the coordinator for projects of the Institute of National Studies, Andrei Chebotaryov, noted that Kazakhstan should move to international standards, as "individuals go and come, and a stable system should always remain."

According to many Kazakhstani experts, the choice of the current President was dictated by the desire to preserve the existing peace of mind - the guarantor of which is just Nursultan Nazarbayev. On this occasion, political scientist Konstantin Syroezhkin, head of the information and analytical department of the magazine "Continent", said: "The population chose between the unpredictability of Mr. X and the predictability of Nazarbayev." In this context, the assumption that rumors about pogroms, arsons, curfews, etc., that are actively circulated on the eve of the elections, look quite legitimate. belong to the category of political technologies in order to cause associations with events in Kyrgyzstan and influence the awareness of the current government as a stabilizing one.

Meanwhile, the leadership of the For Fair Kazakhstan Movement (KYK), whose leader is Zharmakhan Tuyakbai (6.61% of the vote, according to official data), said that the protocols of precinct election commissions received by their observers give every reason to say that there are large discrepancies between them and the data announced by the Central Election Commission (CEC). Thus, according to the KYK, the Central Election Commission published information that in the Atyrau region 20,748 citizens voted for Zharmakhan Tuyakbai. But, according to the data of the available protocols, only on the basis of the counting at the 91 polling station it follows that at least 25 thousand citizens voted for him.

According to the country's CEC in the Kostanay region, 15210 citizens voted for Zharmakhan Tuyakbai. According to the protocols, which the observers of the Movement were able to receive, at 208 polling stations out of 893-s, 14286 people voted for him.

Zharmakhan Tuyakbai himself called the elections "the height of dishonesty and injustice due to massive fraud." He stated that the opposition reserves the right to organize mass protests.

It is worth noting that the OSCE, where Kazakhstan claims the presidency in 2009, called the presidential elections in Kazakhstan "not meeting a number of international standards for democracy."

In particular, observers recorded cases of multiple voting, voting for other people, pressure on student voters, participation in the election of false ballots. In addition, election commissions did not show OSCE ballots in full in 54% of cases. In every third of the observed sites, according to observers, the protocols were not posted for public review. In this regard, the For Fair Kazakhstan Movement intends to file a lawsuit with the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan to invalidate the decisions of the Central Election Commission on the establishment of election results and the registration of the president. The presidential election has just ended, and already there has been talk of whether this deadline will be the last for Mr. Nazarbayev. According to Ermukhambet Yertysbayev, such conversations are premature at least until 2012, that is, before the end of the new seven-year presidency period. However, the former candidate Yerasyl Abylkasymov expressed himself more categorically. According to him, this is exactly the last term of Nazarbayev, moreover, it is not known whether he will pass it to the end, since “options are possible”. In connection with this, Mr. Ablkasym has already proposed to unite with other ex-candidates Zharmakhan Tuyakbai and Alikhan Baymenov who, according to official figures, collected 1.61% of the votes.


Continuing to declare adherence to democratic values, the government of Uzbekistan systematically destroys civil society in the country. According to independent sources and the media (media), about 200 local non-governmental organizations from August to September 2005 announced the termination of their activities.

In August 2005, leaders of local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) across the country were called to oblast departments of the Ministry of Justice, where they were asked to close voluntarily. Otherwise, they were threatened with repressive measures, and, ultimately, imminent closure through the courts. After that, the Ministry of Justice informed that out of 5,000 NGOs, 175 voluntarily announced the termination of their activities. This figure seems to be greatly underestimated. From various sources, including interviews with leaders of regional NGOs, it is known that almost all NGOs in the Fergana Valley and two thirds of NGOs in Karakalpakstan were closed by a similar forced-voluntary method. By the most conservative estimate, the number of non-governmental organizations that have closed this year alone is 60%.

The government with the same zeal survives from the country and international non-governmental organizations. According to the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 543 of December 2003, international NGOs had to re-register and receive accreditation at the Ministry of Justice, which effectively equated their status with local NGOs. The decree has the stamp “for official use only” and, accordingly, is not available to the public. However, this does not prevent the ministry from demanding the execution of the decision and taking punitive measures against violators. As a result, the government easily found “serious reasons” for the closure of representative offices of a number of international organizations, such as the Soros Foundation, IREX, Internews.

At this time, the Tashkent city civil court is considering a claim by the Ministry of Justice to suspend the activities and representation of the American organization Freedom House for a period of 6 months. The Ministry of Justice charges the representation of the provision of Internet services without a license, the denial of access to information about the receipt and expenditure of funds, as well as the organization’s refusal to coordinate all its activities with the Ministry of Justice. In the event of closure by Freedom House, Uzbekistan will remain the only international organization working in the field of human rights - Human Rights Watch (HRW). Journalists from foreign media continue their work with difficulty. After the bloody Andijan events, the government blamed foreign media correspondents for conspiring with extremist forces and the “information war against prosperous Uzbekistan.” Some of the journalists preferred to emigrate from the country, the rest work under the vigilant control of special services. In November, a journalist Alexei Volosevich was attacked, unidentified persons doused him with paint and made insulting inscriptions at the entrance of his house. In November, the Air Force Corporation announced the closure of the Tashkent bureau. Most recently, the authorities also closed the Radio Liberty / Radio Free Europe bureau in Tashkent. Journalists were denied accreditation. This decision of the Foreign Ministry in its letter motivated by the fact that the radio station “... in its work on the territory of our country actively uses the so-called freelance correspondents (“ stringers ”) from the citizens of the Republic of Uzbekistan who illegally engage in journalistic activities without accreditation at the Foreign Ministry which is a gross violation of the law ... ”.

A few days ago, under the pretext of re-registration, the activities of the local newspaper Advokat-Press, the last periodical publication, which dared to criticize the actions of the government, were suspended.

By such actions, the government shows that it is not only unwilling to carry out political reforms, but is also seeking by all to suppress any independent voices. Independent observers believe that the complete destruction of the non-governmental organizations sector signals a qualitative change in the state system. Until 2004, there was relative freedom of association for the non-political civilian sector in the country, but the new system is similar to the one in Turkmenistan, where the state is suspicious of any form of non-governmental associations. According to Freedom House, for the last few years Uzbekistan has been among the top five countries with the most repressive regimes, and the recent actions of the government prove that this honorable place was not obtained by chance.

According to experts, Islam Karimov really hopes for friendship with Russia and China. These countries may at this time provide him with political and financial support, but they will not be able to withdraw Uzbekistan from the international isolation of Western democratic powers.
All messages are moderated by the webmaster.
* Email
* Message
[fields marked with * are required]