This photo was borrowed from here

All the major events in Tajikistan over last two weeks were related to presidential election that was held on 6th of November. Tajik citizens again gave their votes in support of Rahmonov. Rahmonov had won Monday’s poll with just over 79 percent of the vote, over the 50 percent needed to win outright although short of his thumping 97 percent victory in 1999. 79,3 percent of the vote.

Alexander Sadykov reported that it was unexpected that other candidates would get any vote. Olimjon Boboev of the Party of Economic Reforms got 6,2 percent, Amir Karakulov of the Agrarian Party got 5,3 percent, Ismoil Talbakov of the Communist Party got 5,1 percent, and Abduhalim Gaffarov of the Socialist Party got 2,8 percent. “While Rakhmonov’s landslide victory was widely predicted by experts and analysts, the reported number of votes cast for other candidates is a real surprise”, says Alexander.

Three days ahead of the election Alexander reported that the presidential campaign was low key. The candidates besides Rahmonov head a little visibility. The only other candidate with some visibility was Ismoil Talbakov of the Communist Party (CPT). Campaigns of the other candidates – Olimjon Boboev of the Party of Economic Reforms, Amir Karakulov of the Agrarian Party and Abduhalim Gaffarov of the pro-government Socialist Party – were practically invisible in most areas and were limited to regional centers and Dushanbe.

Robert thinks that Tajikistan had a chance ‘to demonstrate which way its political system is headed—in the direction of democracy or in the direction of increased authoritarians. In terms of governance, there are two models emerging in Central Asian region – one is a gradual adoption of democracy, which is apparent in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, albeit not without growing pains. The other is a hard-line authoritarian system that differs politically only nominally from the Soviet system, which is apparent in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. If this election is any indication, the direction does not look very promising’.

Meanwhile Heylog comments on two reports released by Transperancy International and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UNFAO). Both of them are related to Tajikistan. One is about corruption and the other is about the food security. According to Transparency International’s annual “Corruption Perceptions Index” Tajikistan was ‘tied for 142nd place’ in the list of 160 countries.

I think the statement of the nongovernmental corruption watchdog Transparency International is right when it said in the report that ‘there was a strong correlation between corruption and poverty’ because in the report released by UNFAO Tajikistan is on the bottom of the list of the countries with undernourished population.

Articles that appeared yesterday in two reputable Web-based sources, Eurasia Net – Eurasia Insight and the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, suggested that the presidential election in Tajikistan had presented few or no surprises. While Emomali Rakhmonov’s victory was a foregone conclusion months ahead of the vote, I believe that the rest of the election process was in fact a big surprise.

The reported turnout has probably been the greatest surprise so far. According to the latest data provided by the Central Commission for Elections and Referenda (CCER), 3,05 million voters, slightly over 91 percent of the total amount of registered voters, cast their ballots yesterday.

Turnout reportedly close to 100 percent is not a new phenomenon in the history of Tajik elections. However, given the IOM-estimated 800 thousand to 1 million Tajik citizens working as labor migrants abroad, the reported turnout seems very doubtful. Vadim in his latest post reported on how poorly the voting was organized in the Tajik embassy to Bishkek. I think it was not an isolated example and it is indicative of the entire election process in Tajik representations abroad. As it had happened before, the majority of our citizens working as labor migrants abroad either were not aware of the election and candidates, or could not vote in the few polling stations opened abroad.

The second surprise was the preliminary results announced by CCER. Mirzoali Boltuev, Head of CCER speaking yesterday evening to journalists, said Emomali Rakhmonov got 79,3 percent of the vote. Meanwhile Olimjon Boboev of the Party of Economic Reforms got 6,2 percent, Amir Karakulov of the Agrarian Party got 5,3 percent, Ismoil Talbakov of the Communist Party got 5,1 percent, and Abduhalim Gaffarov of the Socialist Party got 2,8 percent. While Rakhmonov’s landslide victory was widely predicted by experts and analysts, the reported number of votes cast for other candidates is a real surprise.

Tajik political system has a lot of peculiarities that need to be taken into account. However, that a handful of unknowns can get up to 20 percent of the vote after only one month of campaigning with no visibility whatsoever is very strange even for Tajikistan. In my very brief and totally unscientific survey with 50 voters interviewed yesterday, I have not met a single person who was going to vote for any candidate other than Rakhmonov. IWPR’s brief interviews with voters have also showed that even the members of the other political parties voted for Emomali Rakhmonov rather than the candidates from their respective parties.

Finally, the third surprise is that Emomali Rakhmonov has probably lost a unique opportunity to conduct the first genuinely free and fair elections that could have stood the harshest international standards. Prior to the vote, many people (including me) sincerely believed that Rakhmonov, well aware of his great popular support, will conduct a model election for the consumption of international watchdogs and foreign donors. While international observers have not yet presented their findings on the election, preliminary information suggests that the yesterday’s vote fell short of meeting key international election standards. It is very unclear yet whether Rakhmonov did not or could not ensure the free and fair election. It is very likely that he tried hard to do so, but the long-standing tradition of election manipulation prevailed.

For anyone dissatisfied with the conduct of the vote, Rakhmonov had a message that western values were not always applicable to elections in eastern countries: “Tajikistan is a country with more than 99 percent of the population being Muslim. We have a different culture, and this has to be taken into account… As for the OSCE commitments, not a single country in the world has ever held an election that completely met the requirements set by OSCE”.

OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR), which had had 13 long term and 100 short term observers deployed throughout the country to monitor the election, will present its findings later today. Other international observation missions are expected to do so soon. Final results of the election are due to be announced by CCER by November 16 at the latest.

Today I went voting as many other Tajik citizens. As long as I am out of Tajikistan I went to the nearest embassy to give my vote to one of the candidates.

It was the first time I went to the poll, though I have this right for many years. I always thought that voting in our country is always unfair and one vote less or more will not change anything. However, this year I decided to go.

The embassy is far away from my office, so I asked my friend to give me a ride. Actually, he was also going to vote. On our way to the embassy he said that we need to get another Tajik guy who also wanted to vote. When we met that guy it came out that he did not have his passport with him. My friend exclaimed and said that he forgot to get his passport as well and he needed to go back to his office to get it.

He decided to call to the embassy and ask whether he can vote without a passport or not. He was sure that they will let him because people in the embassy know him very well. However the man that he was talking to, said that it is not possible, because there were a lot of observers from different international organizations.

It was half on our way to the embassy. Then we went back to his office and the other guy went home, both of them got their passports and we went to the embassy. Finally we got to the embassy, which was far from the main road and we had to go through many little streets.

In the embassy, first we met the guard, they checked us and we went to the place where we were supposed to vote. There was playing a Tajik music, and when we approached the poll- room one woman came out and asked us to wait. We waited for several minutes and finally there came two men, greeted us and asked to enter the polling room. We entered the room and it came out that they were the chair of election committee and the member of election committee. No one was inside the room before that, except the woman.

I received the bulletin, to my surprise, it was not the original copy but the хeroxed one. The chair of the committee asked me to leave only one candidate and blue-pencil the others. I could hardly read the names of the candidates. There was a bad xeroxed copy. I’m not sure but I think there were supposed to be other bulletins, the original copies. I guess the same is happening in many other places. Probably Alexander can say something about that.

I did not see the observers but when I voted and I went out of the room I saw them. They came out of the other room where they had lunch, I guess. They greeted us as the voters, congratulated us and went away.

Outside the territory of the embassy came up a journalist Radio “Ozodi” (Liberty) and interviewed my friend.

Tomorrow we will know the name of our president who is going to rule for seven years.

Polling stations have opened this morning throughout Tajikistan as presidential campaign entered its final stage. About 3.2 million Tajik voters have an opportunity to elect their president for the next seven years with the possible re-election for another seven-year term.

The voting so far has been a very calm and peaceful process. It was widely predicted by analysts that the authorities would ensure that the election is conducted in a free and transparent manner. For the incumbent president and major contender Emomali Rakhmonov this is an opportunity to demonstrate popular support and legitimate hold on power to the outside world.

Compared with the last elections, which I had closely observed in different regions of the country, this presidential election is obviously less marked by discrepancies and irregularities. My personal brief observation of the voting process in three polling stations in the Sino District of Dushanbe today showed that the voting was conducted in a smooth and transparent manner. However, minor irregularities and breaches of the procedure reported after the parliamentary elections in February 2005 were also evident today.

Most voters were allowed to take part in the vote only after presenting their passports. In one of the polling station visited, I witnessed a voter not allowed to take part in the vote without a passport. However, I also observed several incidents when voters were allowed to vote without proper identification. Members of electoral committees required the voters sign for their ballots. Uniformed police officers were not present inside the voting premises. I also did not observe any government official instructing the voters on how to vote. In all polling stations I visited, representatives of different political parties and international watchdogs were present to ensure that the voting process was free and fair. One of the problems that many voters confronted at the polling stations this morning was that their names had not been included in the voter lists. However, the precinct committee members were very helpful and added the names of voters to the supplementary lists in a due procedure.

Despite these positive observations, there are some problems that may challenge the integrity of the election and result in negative assessment of the process by international observers. One of the problems is the voting of Tajik citizens working abroad as labor migrants. Official estimates on the number of Tajik labor migrants working abroad differ significantly from those provided by non-governmental organizations and the International Organization for Migration (IOM). Government officials argue that the number of labor migrants varies from 300 to 400 thousand depending on the seasonal demand for labor in the countries of destination. IOM estimates suggest that this number varies between 800 thousand and 1 million people, with Russia and Kazakhstan being the most popular destination countries for Tajik labor migrants.

This difference in estimates is very critical for the assessment of election process. Tajiks working abroad as labor migrants are all within the voting age and are among the reported 3.2 million voters. Most of them reportedly have no information on the election and candidates in their home country and do not show up at the few polling stations opened for them in the biggest cities of Russia and Kazakhstan. Therefore, with the IOM-estimated 1 million voters working abroad and not taking part in the vote, the turnout of close to 100 percent previously reported after all elections held in the country becomes very unlikely. Besides, it casts doubt on whether all voters were given an opportunity to express their will.

This time, out of country voting takes place in 26 locations, 14 of which are in CIS states. This number is obviously not sufficient to allow for wide participation of labor migrants in the voting.

Another potential point for criticism is the wide-spread and increasingly popular procedure of family voting. Patriarchic culture often leads to situations when the head of a family votes on behalf of all members of the family. While this practice is less often witnessed in Dushanbe, it is very popular in mountainous and remote regions with stronger patriarchic traditions. This practice may be reflected in the final reports of international election watchdogs.

Besides the voting process, electoral authorities will most likely make sure that the consequent counting of ballots and tabulation of results are conducted in line with Tajikistan’s internal legislation and international commitments. During the February 2005 parliamentary elections, the OSCE/ODIHR observers evaluated the counting process as “poor” or “very poor” in 54 percent of the polling stations visited. They also reported serious breaches of procedures and election law during the tabulation. In a welcome development, the Central Commission for Elections and Referenda (CCER) has recently adopted a decree directing electoral committees to place the results protocols on the walls of polling stations for public familiarization immediately following the completion of counting and tabulation.

Because the Presidential Election Law does not provide for non-partisan domestic observation, detailed information on the integrity of counting and tabulation procedures will only be available in the reports of international observers.

This morning, I have briefly interviewed 50 people who very going to take part in the vote about their voting preferences. 43 of them said they would vote for Emomali Rakhmonov, while 7 persons said they would vote against all candidates. Similar voting pattern is most likely to be prevailing throughout the country.

Election campaign remains very low key three days ahead of November 6, when Tajikistan’s 3.2 million voters will go to the polls to elect their president for the next seven years.

Incumbent President Emomali Rakhmonov is the most visible candidate with his campaign activities, proxies and materials throughout the country. Huge Soviet-style banners and billboards with his images have recently appeared throughout the central part of the capital, Dushanbe. They show Rakhmonov among older people, orphans and farmers. These images ore often accompanied by invitation to the population to actively participate in the vote.

The only other candidate with some visibility is Ismoil Talbakov of the Communist Party (CPT). He talks to journalists, meets voters and writes articles in both state-owned and independent newspapers. However, Communist Party’s candidate does not criticize the incumbent president and his main opponent. The main focus of his campaign is on social issues and return to socialism.

Campaigns of the other candidates – Olimjon Boboev of the Party of Economic Reforms, Amir Karakulov of the Agrarian Party and Abduhalim Gaffarov of the pro-government Socialist Party – are practically invisible in most areas and are limited to regional centres and Dushanbe. These candidates have created no visibility products except for unprofessional posters with their complete biographies, long platforms and grave-stone-like photos.

While 3,600 Somoni (approximately 1,000 USD) received by each candidate from state funds is obviously not enough to organize an effective election campaign, the candidates have not even attempted to raise funds from non-state sources. This indicates that the candidates are not really serious about the quality of their campaigns or about the campaign itself.

Observers suggest that there are no signs of competition between presidential candidates in the country. Four candidates, along with a proxy of Emomali Rakhmonov, tour the country together and attend joint public meetings arranged by the election administration.

While talking to voters, candidates refrain from criticizing their main opponent or his policies and actions. They focus their campaigns on solutions to problems in narrow fields of interest, such as agriculture, education and transport. They also praise Emomali Rakhmonov for his achievements and avoid giving interviews to foreign journalists.

Due to the low key election campaign there is little reporting of the campaign in the mass media. The state-owned television channels TV Safina and TVT broadcast free airtime programs featuring candidates and their platforms. Each candidate is entitled to 30 minutes of free airtime on state-owned television, while their proxies are entitled to up to 10 minutes each.

Most of the state-owned newspapers provide the majority of their coverage to the incumbent president and his People’s Democratic Party. However, a few private newspapers appear to be more balanced in their coverage of the campaign and the candidates. Media analysts suggest that the tone of the campaign coverage in Tajikistan’s mass media is mostly neutral and there is no negative or critical coverage.

The voting process on the election day, as well as counting and tabulation, will be observed by representatives of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR), observation mission of Commonwealth of Independent States, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, IFES, International NGO “For Fair Elections”, International Group for Crisis Prevention and representatives of foreign embassies.

Conflict within and around the Democratic Party of Tajikistan (DPT) has recently developed into a political stalemate. Less then 10 days before the presidential election, the DPT’s old guard led by acting chairman Rahmatullo Valiev still struggles to prove illegitimacy of the splitter faction of Masud Sobirov. The latter was recently registered as chairman of the DPT by the Tajik Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Most experts believe that MoJ’s decision was a revenge for DPT’s boycott of the upcoming ballot and another step in the government’s strategy to marginalize the opposition.

So far, the both wings have launched massive media campaigns trying to win over the public opinion. Masud Sobirov’s faction is actively using state-owned and government-controlled media, while Rahmatullo Valiev’s mainstream use what is left of independent media in the country. While the old guard was more successful in attracting public sympathy and support through media, the splitter faction led by Sobirov enjoys unprecedented support of public servants and government officials. Representatives of the Ministry of Justice and Central Commission for Elections and Referenda have repeatedly announced Sobirov the only legitimate representative of the Democratic Party.

The struggle for control over the party has intensified in the northern province of Sogd. Last week, regional chapters of DPT in all districts of the province voiced a protest against what they called the Ministry of Justice’s “erroneous” decision. They confirmed their loyalty to the DPT’s old guard and refused to recognize Masud Sobirov’s faction.

Jumaboy Niyozov, deputy chairman of DPT said only one out of 862 DPT members in Sogd province has supported Masud Sobirov.

“Sobirov’s people are trying to make our members switch sides. However, only one of our members has done so,” Jumaboy Niyozov said.

Meanwhile, Davron Karimov who represents Masud Sobirov in Khujand, administrative centre of the Sogd province, argues that their wing enjoys wider support in the province.

“We collected over 50 thousand signatures in support of our candidate for president. This would be impossible if we did not have popular support in Sogd,” Karimov suggested.

Another controversial point in the rival wings’ dispute is the DPT’s official newspaper Adolat (Justice). Immediately after MoJ’s contentious decision to recognize him as DPT chairman, Masud Sobirov demanded that the Ministry of Culture, which is responsible for mass media regulation, suspend the printing of Adolat by Valiev’s group. The Ministry of Culture sent an official letter to the group requesting to stop publishing the newspaper. However, Valiev’s team ignored the Ministry’s demand and continued publishing the paper. For the last three weeks, there have been two versions of the paper coming out of print every Thursday, one published by Valiev’s group and the other by Sobirov-led faction.

Most analysts agree that the future of the Democratic Party is currently far from certain. Although the government has masterminded the schism within the party and openly supported the splitter wing, the immediate uproar on the part of the Tajik public and international watchdogs made the authorities not go further. Sobirov’s candidate for president “failed” to collect the 160 thousand signatures needed to be officially registered as a candidate.

It is most likely that the situation with DPT will be resolved after the presidential election in which the incumbent Rakhmonov is expected to easily secure another 14 years in office.

Two scenarios may be played by the government with respect to DPT. In the first scenario, Valiev’s group will be allowed to prove their right to represent the party in the court of law. In this case, Rakhmonov’s administration will add to the democratic façade that it has been creating for the consumption of international donors and foreign watchdogs. In a worse scenario, the authorities would let the rival wings to further struggle for control, thus losing popular support and what is left of the party’s influence. Although very appealing for the hard-liners in the government, this “divide and conquer” tactics may further alienate international donors and foreign investors, whose money is so much needed in the impoverished Tajikistan.

At least a few members of the United States Congress have their eyes on the impending presidential elections in Tajikistan. Today (October 26), the offices of Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) held a briefing to educate members of Congress on the prospect of democracy and long-term development in the former Soviet republic featuring Khamrokhon Zaripov, Tajikistani Ambassador to the US, Eric McGlinchey of George Mason University, Dennis de Tray of the Center for Global Development, and Anthony Bowyer from IFES. neweurasia has reported on previous lectures of all three participants aside from the ambassador (McGlinchey, de Tray, Bowyer). There should be a transcript of the event up soon. Update: The transcript is now available.

The Ambassador
As I noted in another event summary, presentations by diplomats are — with some notable exceptions — notoriously dull, and Zaripov was no exception. This is not to demean Zaripov in the slightest — he was just doing his job, repeating the government line (“Tajikistan’s made a lot of progress, especially given the civil war, yada yada”). To his credit, he was a good sport and engaged when McGlinchey painted a much different picture of the future prospects of Tajikistan (read on).

The Professor
Professor McGlinchey, sitting directly beside the ambassador, immediately signaled that his account of events would differ wildly with that of Zaripov. Not only was McGlinchey pessimistic about the upcoming elections, he believes they are a harbinger of turbulent times to come.

He argued that the past ten years in Tajikistan have been relatively good. The war was resolved, and opposition parties were allowed to participate — to a small degree — both in the parliament and in the government. In recent years, that has changed for the worse. Now there is less general participation in politics and fewer means of expression.

McGlinchey outlined three avenues outside of the legal system that Tajikistani citizens might take to express themselves politically, all of which will lead to instability for Tajikistan:

1. They may turn to Islamic leaders. While this could mean extremist groups such as the Hizb ut Tahrir, it could also be more democratic, moderate Islamic movements.
2. People are turning to the internet as a pressure valve. He referenced the fact that for three days several internet websites were blocked in Tajikistan.
3. Increasingly, the public will turn to “warlords.” He elaborated that unlike Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and even Kyrgyzstan, the patronage system is weaker in Tajikistan, and the center therefore has more difficulty asserting control on the periphery. This means that as citizens are frustrated in the political system, they will turn to the regional strongmen.

McGlinchey pointed out that it does not take a majority to stage an insurrection. While the population is tired of fighting, it is facing an increasingly young demographic that soon may not remember the war.

The Development Wonk
The tide turned again, as Dr. de Tray began his speech by indicating that his analysis diverged drastically from McGlinchey’s. An economist by training, de Tray even joked that Political Science is the real “dismal science.”

De Tray characterized Tajikistan as one of the few post-conflict success stories in the world. The Tajik government inherited a country with an 85% decline in per capita income, which he put in perspective by comparing that figure with the 30% decline suffered in the American Great Depression. Since then, largely as a result of remittances from Russia, Tajikistan’s economy has done remarkably well, and has reduced its debt.

He also commented that President Rakhmonov has done a remarkable job at consolidating power and improving security in the country. De Tray recalled that only several years ago one could barely venture outside Dushanbe because of security risks, and many streets within the capital were unsafe as well. This situation has improved dramatically and rapidly.

De Tray emphasized two factors as crucial to Tajikistan’s future: how economic resources are distributed among the population and those in power, and how the government deals with the drug trade. A mismanagement of either could have disastrous consequences for the stability of the country.

When asked about America’s role in democracy promotion in Central Asia, de Tray made a particularly prescient comment. He said that the upcoming Russian presidential elections are far more important than anything American can do to directly influence the country. Whether or not Putin stays in power will have dramatic consequences in Central Asia.

The Implementer
Mr. Bowyer wholeheartedly encouraged engagement with Tajikistan to gradually improve the political process there. He said that foreign countries should consider the history of the region when passing judgment on Tajikistan, as well as their own history of democratization. He also pointed out that unlike many other countries in the region, at least Tajikistan has a stated commitment to democracy.

Because the authorities care so much about Western opinion, they can be prompted toward gradual reform. To improve the current system, Bowyer advocated greater TV time for opposition candidates, a vote-by-mail system for citizens abroad, and greater voter education.

James comments: Although McGlinchey and de Tray clearly differed on what the future holds for Tajikistan, their divergence stemmed from differing interpretation, not different perception of the facts. For instance, de Tray didn’t dispute that the political process has taken as many steps backward as it has forward, and McGlinchey acknowledged that Tajikistan has made economic progress. Their disagreement was more fundamental: do people care more about being heard, or security — economic or otherwise? Nathan discusses this exact point over at Registan.

Recently, there were two good news about journalists in Tajikistan. One was about the initiative of the Republican association “Media Alliance Tajikistan” there will be fixed up a memorial plate “In the memory of journalists of independent Tajikistan”. The initiative was supported by all the journalist associations of Tajikistan.

The memorial plate was designed by the local designer Nataliya Vasilievna and it was crafted by the chief architect of the Ministry of culture, Nizomitdin Valiev.

The plate was designed in the memory of all the journalists killed during the Civil War. The real number of all murdered journalist in the period of civil confrontation is not known. Different sources give different numbers. Some of them were killed by the United Tajik Opposition and some were killed by the Popular Front.

The US-based Committee to Protect Journalists recorded at least 29 killings of journalists over the five years of conflict, while the Foundation for the Commemoration and Protection of Journalists in Tajikistan, FCPJT, believes the number lies between 73 and 81.

Besides that the Reporters Without Borders released their annual report, which puts Tajikistan on top of the list of Central Asian countries where the journalists have the most favorable environment for activity. In the list of the countries Tajikistan is standing on 117the place out of 168 countries. Other countries among the Central Asian stand as follows: Kyrgyzstan (123), Kazakhstan (128), Uzbekistan (158), Turkmenistan (167).

It is worth to mention that Afghanistan stands on 130th place, less better than Kazakhstan, and much better Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

The rating was done with the help of many organizations which promote freedom of speech, correspondents, independent experts, researchers and human rights activists. However the results of the poll barely coincide with reality.

Probably, those who have done this rating have never been to this region if the report states that it is much safer to work as a journalist in Afghanistan then in Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan, or the conditions for the journalist activity are better in Tajikistan than in Kyrgyzstan.

This photo is taken from the Flickr collection of Babasteve.

The main event in the history of Tajikistan is going to happen in the nearest future when the Tajik citizens will again elect their president and again everybody knows the results of the elections. It is interesting that the Tajik blogosphere keeps silent about this event but only tajikistan.neweurasia.net keeps reporting.

Alexander Sadikov probably is now the best expert in the Tajik blogosphere in terms of the upcoming presidential elections. He wrote many posts this month in this direction. However, the last time he wrote about the Tajik-Uzbek relations, arguing that the Tajikistan’s ambitious energy projects cause tensions with Uzbekistan. This is a really interesting post about the Tajik-Uzbek relations and how the water resources of Tajikistan can become a reason of conflict with its neighbors.

I’ve posted a post about the presidential candidates who were interviewed by the Asia Plus journalist about their advantages before Rahmonov. I made a translation of some excerpts from Russian to English and made some comments. None of candidates gave a clear answer to the question about what makes them better than Rahmonov. Probably, the main reason is that all of them are afraid to criticize their main opponent.

Sean S. Roberts wrote a good post about the Islamic Renaissance Party. He argues that the reason for the IRP’s decision not to participate in the forthcoming elections is the deal which is made with the Tajik government. But he assumes that the main reason can be a crafty policy of Muhiddin Kabiri, the new leader of IRP. He thinks that Kabiri is aware that the people of Tajikistan will eventually be ready in the long-run for an alternative to the corruption that is now widespread in the country and IRP will be the best alternative.

With the help of Technorati I’ve surfed through the Tajik blogosphere and found some other blogs which mainly contain the travel stories and some other posts on different issues.

Adrienne shares with us some beautiful pictures from Tajikistan. She traveled through Pamirs and to Dushanbe. These pictures are accompanied by thorough description.

Peter and his friend traveled from Osh to Dushanbe also through Pamirs. He gives some beautiful pictures and tells us a fascinating story about how exciting it was to travel by motorbikes through this mountainous region.

Ekhglobetrotter has opened a new blog on Tajikistan and in her first post says that finally she created a blog to describe life in Tajikistan and provide a sign of life from the other side of the world. I hope she will write some interesting stories so I can add in my next round up.

Elizabeth in her blog “Dans le meilleur des mondes possibles” is one of the most active bloggers in Tajik blogosphere. She usually posts very good stories about Tajikistan life. Recently she gave a birth to her baby. I sincerely congratulate her and hope that soon we will read her new fascinating stories about Tajikistan.

The author of Me-go reports that the US Aid goods are properly recycled in Tajikistan and gives some photos. He says that it is nice to see that his tax dollars are at work in this part of the world.

The National Bank of Tajikistan has minted two jubilee coins dedicated to the Year of Aryan Civilization at the St. Petersburg mint.

You can also look at beautiful pictures placed in the Tajik Photo Gallery and Pamirs Photo Gallery.

On 21st of October, the presidential candidates, besides the incumbent Rahmonov started their pre-election tour in the regions of Tajikistan, reports AsiaPlus.

The most interesting thing in this news is that all of them are going to the regions together. They will meet the same people, at the same time and at the same place. As I understand they share the expenses of the tour.

Before this tour all of the presidential candidates gave many interviews and most of them have claimed that they are strongly convicted that they will win the forthcoming elections. Daler Gufronov, the journalist of Asia-Plus has conducted a shotgun-interview with all the candidates except Rahmonov. He asked all of them the same question about their advantages before Rahmonov and what makes them better than him.

He assumes in his article that it makes sense to run as a candidate for presidential position only if you are at least convicted that you will win the race. Or, if you believe that you can do something better than the incumbent. For example, run a more balanced foreign policy, or effectively battle the corruption, or faster feed the population. If you do not have such a conviction, Daler Gafurov thinks that there is no sense “to litter” the list of candidates.

The interview showed that the candidates are absolutely not ready to criticize their main opponent and popularly tell their electorate about their advantages before the current president.

Here is what responded the presidential candidates:

We should have our own political culture!

Ismoil Talbakov, the candidate from the Communist Party of Tajikistan respects all of his opponents, no matter what is the level of their public acceptance. The election campaign of the communists is based on promulgation of the best achievements which were made during the Soviet Union and the period of Independence. It will also propagate the advantages of plan economy and state ownership.

- Emomali Rahmonov did a lot for our people and he already has his place in the history. I can not judge what he can do and what not…

We need realistic reforms of the economy!

The leader of the Party for economic reforms of Tajikistan, professor Olim Boboev was more specific. He thinks that his advantage before the current president is that he is going to conduct the realistic reforms of the economy. He is not satisfied the reforms carried out by the Rahmonov. However, he admits that “people recognize Rahmonov as a hero”.

It is not easy to be on the same level with great Rahmonov!

The leader of the Socialist Party Abduhalim Gaffarov in the interview professed that “it is not easy to be on the same level with such a great person of the nation as Rahmonov”. He was even at loss and could not say what he can do better than Rahmonov.

- I can not respond anything to this question, while I am not the president. It is abstract.

However, A. Gafforov, as he said, “is not satisfied with the personnel policy run by Rahmonov”. He refused to amplify this scrupulous issue.

Do not disorient the people!

The Leader of the Agrarian Party of Tajikistan, Amir Karakulov decently refused to enumerate his advantages before any of the presidential candidates. “One should not disorient the people” – foggily said the agrarian. Thereat he said that he is running as a candidate for presidential position in order to show his advantages. The Agrarian Party, as he said, will pay more attention problems in the agrarian sector.

This interview again proves that all these candidates were nominated by one person who wants to make Tajikistan look more democratic than it is. If the candidates can not even publicly say what makes them better than their opponents then what is the reason to bear the expenses for the campaign. They will not even try to spend more money for the campaign than the allocated sum because they know that it is useless, and probably that is why they share the expenses for the tour around the country.

There is not even a reason to make worse the relations with the current president. It is better to use general words in the election campaign and use the opportunity to publicly praise Rahmonov. That is what the presidential candidates are going to do in the pre-election tour around the country.