Presidential election in Uzbekistan lacked genuine competition and contravened the rule of law, says OSCE/ODIHR report, recommends measures to bring process in line with OSCE commitments
The final report by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) on the 29 March 2015 presidential election in Uzbekistan recommends a comprehensive review of the legal framework well in advance of the next election to bring it in accordance with OSCE commitments and other international obligations and standards for democratic elections. The report points out that fundamental freedoms including the freedoms of association, assembly and expression, should be adequately protected by the law.
The report, published on 23 June 2015, notes that despite a clear limit of two consecutive presidential terms in Article 90 of the Constitution, the Central Election Commission (CEC) registered the incumbent, contravening the principle of the rule of law.
The report points out that the electoral legal framework does not provide for the conduct of democratic elections. It says that despite changes since the last presidential election addressing a few previous ODIHR recommendations, the possibility of running for president as an independent candidate was abolished and fundamental freedoms of association, assembly and expression are effectively curtailed by overly broad limitations. The right to stand for election faces further limitations based on the length of residency, language proficiency and professional occupation, as well as blanket restrictions of those convicted of a crime or still to stand before a court, contrary to OSCE commitments and other international obligations and standards.
Noting concerns over freedom of expression, the report highlights that rigidly constrained media did not provide for genuine political debate with a plurality of opinions. This diminished the opportunity for voters to make an informed choice. Although the ODIHR Limited Election Observation Mission (LEOM) media monitoring showed that the state-owned media granted candidates an ample amount of free-of-charge airtime and print space, as foreseen by the law, it also notes that current affairs programmes were virtually non-existent and did not air direct speech by any candidate, except for the incumbent.
While the report says that election administration met all legal deadlines and performed its work in a generally transparent manner, it recommends revising the legislation to ensure that the CEC is appointed in an inclusive and pluralistic manner to ensure its independence. It also makes a recommendation to amend the legal framework to allow for observation by non-partisan civil society organizations to increase transparency of the election process.
The report calls on the authorities to demonstrate political will to resolve the widespread and persistent practices of proxy and multiple voting. It also recommends establishing uniform voter registration procedures that would enable updates, revisions, crosschecks and the elimination of multiple entries in voter lists.
The ODIHR long-term election observation mission issued a preliminary statement of findings and conclusions on 30 March 2015. The mission stated that the election was marked by lack of genuine political alternatives. The legal and organizational shortcomings highlighted in the statement are addressed by the recommendations in the final report.