Document #2029667
Freedom House (Author)
Democracy Percentage | 2.38 100 |
Democracy Score | 1.14 7 |
By Anonymous
The year 2019 saw great changes in Uzbekistan, which the Economist named as the country that had “improved the most” during the year.1 The Uzbek government completely eliminated the longstanding practice of using child labor in the country’s cotton fields, according to Human Rights Watch.2 The parliament passed two important laws on women’s rights3 and is adopting a strong stance on the issue of gender equality. These are some of the dramatic social, economic, and political changes that society witnessed over the last three years, since the death of the dictator Islam Karimov in 2016. His successor, President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, is still positioning himself as a reformer, promising liberalization of the economy and openness to the world. General reforms are indeed evident, but deeper structural changes that would enshrine a democratic system rather than a personalized power vertical are still a long way off.
President Mirziyoyev has delivered on his promises to liberalize the economy and maintain closer relationships with neighboring countries. However, these reforms have had certain downsides. The economic reforms are contributing to an emerging oligarchic system in Uzbekistan, which poses a considerable threat to social stability and equality. Liberalization, including privatization, in a context that lacks regulatory transparency and a developed civil society risks bringing about social tensions, and, as a consequence, a tightening of government screws. Key foreign policy decisions, such as enlisting Russian help to build a nuclear power plant, have been made behind closed doors among elite circles. Uzbekistan has committed to ambitious construction projects inside the country, and given the opaque economic and political environment, the long-term negative effects of these projects are unknown.
One goal that has already been achieved and can actually influence the course of events in the country is the expansion of the freedom of speech. Free expression by the wider public on issues of popular concern has helped to call out bureaucratic abuses and create accountability. However, there are still no institutionalized mechanisms for expressing the will of the civil sector regarding government decisions.
The government remains firmly in the hands of President Mirziyoyev and his allies. In 2019, he took further steps to consolidate his control over state apparatuses, purging rivals and installing family members in high-level positions. Uzbekistan held parliamentary elections in December, which were more dynamic than previous elections despite the continued absence of opposition political parties. Public engagement in the electoral process continues to be low, while fraud remains endemic.
Although authorities officially welcome nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the civil sector remains under strict government supervision in practice. Efforts to make the registration process easier for groups did not translate into more independent NGOs in 2019. The media are also tightly controlled by the authorities. However, the government unblocked a number of new independent portals. A more permissive environment prevails on social media networks, which continued to grow during the year.
Local democratic government remains flawed. Uzbekistan’s centrally appointed governors carried out a spate of unlawful demolitions in 2019 to make room for development projects, eliciting rare public protests. A number of formal improvements were made to the justice system during the year, and the notorious Jaslyk prison was closed, but informal abusive practices like torture and forced confessions persist. The country recorded mixed progress in the fight against corruption in 2019. The government has taken effective measures to curb petty corruption among state functionaries, but grand corruption—a problem compounded by the emergence of oligarchs—is often ignored.
Considers the democratic character of the governmental system; and the independence, effectiveness, and accountability of the legislative and executive branches. | 1.00 7.00 |
Examines national executive and legislative elections, the electoral framework, the functioning of multiparty systems, and popular participation in the political process. | 1.00 7.00 |
Assesses the organizational capacity and financial sustainability of the civic sector; the legal and political environment in which it operates; the functioning of trade unions; interest group participation in the policy process; and the threat posed by antidemocratic extremist groups. | 1.25 7.00 |
Examines the current state of press freedom, including libel laws, harassment of journalists, and editorial independence; the operation of a financially viable and independent private press; and the functioning of the public media. | 1.25 7.00 |
Considers the decentralization of power; the responsibilities, election, and capacity of local governmental bodies; and the transparency and accountability of local authorities. | 1.25 7.00 |
Assesses constitutional and human rights protections, judicial independence, the status of ethnic minority rights, guarantees of equality before the law, treatment of suspects and prisoners, and compliance with judicial decisions. | 1.00 7.00 |
Looks at public perceptions of corruption, the business interests of top policymakers, laws on financial disclosure and conflict of interest, and the efficacy of anticorruption initiatives. | 1.25 7.00 |
The ratings reflect the consensus of Freedom House, its academic advisers, and the author(s) of this report. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s). The ratings are based on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 representing the highest level of democratic progress and 1 the lowest. The Democracy Score is an average of ratings for the categories tracked in a given year. The Democracy Percentage, introduced in 2020, is a translation of the Democracy Score to the 0–100 scale, where 0 equals least democratic and 100 equals most democratic.