The fact that President Karimov of Uzbekistan is ruling his country illegally is not a secret anymore. According to the Uzbek Constitution his last term was supposed to end on January 22 of this year. Everybody knows that – representatives of the state, citizens of the country, opposition leaders, and international community members.

Likewise, it is not a secret for them that according to the same constitution, Uzbek presidential elections are to be held in December 2007 (a legal gap that leads to different interpretations of the main law). The closer we are to the date, the more they are intrigued by the potential move of the current office holder.

Some believe that he will stay in power either by means of yet another plebiscite, or by amending constitution – both were already successfully tested in 1995 and 2002. Others think he would appoint a successor from his own circle – Inoyatov (chair of Uzbek KGB), Mirziyaev (current Prime Minister), or his own daughter Gulnara. This option implies security guarantees and certain influence on politics of the state after resignation.

There is also a third alternative. This is the one that opposition leaders have been calling for – Karimov must go and power should be transferred to a democratically elected leader.

When considering these options from realist perspective, the last one looks rather utopian – it is widely preferred, yet close to impossible in present day Uzbekistan. All of those having access to power, including Karimov himself, realize there is no benefit for them from the accession of democratic opposition leaders.

One example is a fate of the former Kyrgyz leader Askar Akaev who fled to Russia as a result of democratic revolution. Although criminal cases against former president and his family fell apart, there is a negative residue from the whole story. Akaev does not plan to return to his country, his family lost businesses there, and his two children were stripped of parliament mandates. In other words it is a result of an absence of security guarantees to the president whose term got “slightly overextended� – if guilty then pay relevant price either in international tribunal or back home.

Karimov & Co know that angry and impoverished people, as well as enraged opposition would not pardon repressions and humiliation of the people. Besides criminal punishment, they are also concerned with the fate of accumulated (pillaged) capital. To prevent such a grim outcome, Karimov will most probably go for either of the two options in December elections given they take place in the country. Otherwise, similar to Pinochet he will need to bargain for absolute immunity and security guarantees.

To note – Augusto Pinochet had similar attitude towards human rights as Islam Karimov, and his rule is known for repressions, tortures, massacres, and disappearance of dissidents. To cut it short, it is a full dictatorial kit that promises little joy if its owner is subject to independent justice with a little hand from once repressed opposition.

Pinochet was aware of his fate, hence agreed to transfer power to democratically elected congress in exchange for immunity and security guarantees. Ironically he died on international human rights day, never being tried for the crimes of his regime.

It seems that Uzbek constitution implies the parallel between the two dictators. Article 97 says, that “Upon completion of his term of office, the President shall be a lifetime member of the Constitutional Court.� However, Karimov must be realizing that he himself showed a bad example to the repressed and exiled opposition when breaking the main law so many times during his perpetual rule.
Now he must be considering who of his former colleagues to follow. These are presidents Niyazov of Turkmenistan (died in office as a life-long president), Eltsin of Russia (transferred power to a KGB colonel), Pinochet of Chile (exchanged power for immunity), and Akaev of Kyrgyzstan (fled the country while in office).

Taking into consideration his “merits� in human rights activism, Karimov will most probably go for either of the first two choices. Both of them would guarantee him fame, access to power, and peaceful life after resignation. The third option, although possible, is nevertheless questionable. For it to happen, immunity guarantees and aspiration for liberation from dictatorship should outweigh retaliation for defied human rights. As for the last option – Karimov’s pride would not let him follow Akaev’s example unless there is an event more violent than the 2005 Andijan massacre.