ANALYTIC REPORT

on Freedom of Speech Situation in Central Asian States

(Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan)

based on the Monitoring of Violations of Freedom of Speech in Central Asia in 2004 

The State of Freedom of Speech in General

We made a detailed analysis of international obligations of the Central Asian States to ensure free speech and freedom of mass media as UN and OSCE members, which are provided also by the National Constitution.

But there is a visible discrepancy between the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and the rest of subordinate laws, which were passed to ensure tasks and interests of the unchangeable governments were achieved.

The ruling elites came to power when there were extreme needs for democratizing societies and socializing economies, but they appeared to be unable to harmonize interests of all classes and ensure even a minimal economic growth. It is enough to say that for the recent 14 years (Europe and Japan were restored during this period) none of the Post-Soviet republics could reach economic indicators comparable to the ones reached by the USSR in the latest years.

The authorities, who are unable and unwilling to speak and argue publicly about prospects, methods and conditions for the societal development, being unable to accept alternative points of view, the authorities chose to make legislation more rigid. Not infrequently mass media are blamed for distorting and blackening the objective reality.

While so, we forget that mass media don’t create the reality, but reflect it. In other words, particular power holders set the pattern of an attitude toward mass media.

Moreover, an additional thing disadvantaging mass media is a law practice. The monitoring showed that in the vast majority of cases, courts rule against mass media and journalists. Often, state officials filed criminal defamation charges against journalists. Administrative warnings on technical violations, such as distorting outgoing data, failing to provide control copies and others are frequent as well. Amounts sought in damages are too heavy for local mass media. To illustrate in Kyrgyzstan, there were a number of lawsuits, filed by deputies, seeking USD 200,000 in moral damages. In the beginning of 2005 Akayev filed similar lawsuit. The Presidential Administration in Kazakhstan was awarded 50 million tenge ($350,000), in the case against Assandi Times newspaper; the amount they knew in advance would cause the paper’s bankruptcy. Concurrently, the court froze all paper’s and its owner’s bank accounts. Consequently, the paper had to shut down.

Additionally to the fact that the legislation is very rigid, in part covering media activities, there were many instances, where media outlets and journalists in the four countries were subjected to particular unlawful actions, ranging from criminal offences committed against them to blocking channels and sources of information. Thanks God, journalists were not killed for their professional activities, as they had been in recent years, the rest of things happening to them this year were not less dramatic than in the recent years. 

The monitoring has registered 2470 direct and indirect violations of their rights, which are provided by the national legislation. The investigations into their deaths, failed to remove community’ doubts that they were premeditated murders.

Unknown people set fire to the editorial boards 2 times. Thirty seven journalists were attacked or beaten up. Damages inflicted on their health ranged from slight injuries to heavy traumas. Often journalists linked the attacks to their professional activities, but no single action was brought against the violators under the Criminal Code for preventing journalists from carrying out their professional activities.  Frequently, there were not even investigations into the attacks and other violations made against journalists and media outlets. Many times journalists received threats and insults, but no single action was brought to protect them.

The monitoring has registered 136 cases, where journalists were physically prevented from accessing information, i.e. carrying out their professional activities. The monitoring registered 106 instances, where journalists’ creative process was interfered, including claims of censorship.  Journalists were prevented or restricted from accessing information of public interest in 597 instances. The authorities made 73 attempts to prevent journalists from distributing opposition or just “inconvenient” mediums, which were illegally seized, confiscated, blocked access to, whose providers and printing firms faced pressure. Our monitoring hasn’t registered a single action brought against the violators under the national legislation, who committed the crimes which might fall under particular articles in the Criminal and Administrative Codes.  

The situation is quite the opposite, when media outlets and journalists are to be charged with committing criminal offences, evading tax, doing illegal business, failing to fulfill court decision and defaming. The analysis showed that the court decision made, cast many doubts in terms of their lawfulness, justifiableness and fairness.

Forty six criminal charges were brought against journalists, including defamation charges, for 2004. For the same period, 21 administrative actions were commenced against media outlets, media workers and journalists, and 196 lawsuits were filed against them, based on “protection of personal non-property rights, like honor, dignity and business reputation, personal life and self-image.” Lawsuits were seeking significant amounts of money in compensation. For instance, Mr. Godunov filed a lawsuit, seeking an amount followed by 24 zeros in moral damages, against Respublika newspaper. That time neither the paper nor the plaintiff could pronounce the amount.   

In the vast majority of cases, courts ruled against mass media and journalists. Some journalists say their professional activities resemble equilibristics or mines decoding – whatever they do, the explosion is inevitable. The majority of plaintiffs in the cases against journalists and mass media are acting or former state officials and businessmen. Both state officials and businessmen don’t like when someone tries to disclose the nature of their activities. The highest numbers of violations of mass media and journalists’ rights coincide with the peaks in the election fight for the local and central representative bodies. The ruling elites along with the opposition, then, blame mass media for biased coverage. 

Definitely, the freedom of speech situation in all four countries is not so easy and unambiguous, as it was a year ago. In 2004 the authorities were forced to maneuver at least, to promise to foster democratic reforms and improve conditions for mass media.  In the earlier reports, we stopped by specifics of the reforms. Unfortunately, the time shows that 2004 was a year of desperate hopes and unfulfilled promises.

Kazakhstan

It is not exaggeration to say that the whole 2004 was marked by the fight for draft media laws in Kazakhstan; in 2004 authorities stepped up their efforts to toughen laws for mass media and journalists. Local and international community, including free expression organizations, tried to resist the draft law, proposing their own versions, which might have not fully complied with the international standards and constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, but might have radically changed the status quo in the media sphere of Kazakhstan, and eased working process fore journalists and mass media, i.e. the way they carry out their professional activities.

The authorities kept up their face, as well as kept the operating law in force, which cannot be called progressive for the moment, by developing the new draft law through all stages of the lawmaking process; the draft law was found unconstitutional on insignificant matters.

Meantime, freedom of speech situation heated up because of 2004 Majilis (the lower chamber of the Parliament) election. Both in pre- and post-election periods, the opposition made allegations against the authorities, saying they had misused the administrative resource, such as media resources, and challenged the official election results, arguing the authorities had falsified them.

Certainly, such political fight had strong impact on all media outlets around the country. The monitoring registered 1,169 direct and indirect violations of mass media and journalists’ rights. Unknown individuals set fire to editorial offices twice. Fourteen journalists were attacked. Investigations into these cases had been largely fruitless. Seventy three journalists were prevented from carrying out their professional responsibilities, at polling stations inclusively. They were driven out, threatened, denied entry to buildings and areas; in some cases their cameras were closed and equipment was damaged.  

To illustrate, Galina Vybornova and Yerlan Tastanbekov journalists in Zhambyl were driven from polling station #30 by a member of the election commission. According to Vibornova, she was pushed out of the room violently, however, and she nearly fell down.

Reporter Gulzhanat Isabayeva violently pushed outside the polling station #198 in Atyrau region. She lost consciousness and was taken to a village hospital by ambulance.

All the above and other, aimed at forcing a journalist to distribute or to stop from distributing information, amount to a crime under the article 155 of the Criminal Code of the RK, part 1; the same actions, carried out by an individual with use of his professional power, which is equal to use of violence or threat with violence, amount to a crime under the same article, part 2.  

However, the monitoring hasn’t registered a single action brought under that article for the recent years, despite its nature of public prosecution, which means it should have been instituted by the authorized bodies, regardless of a victim’s formal report. 

The largest category of 2004 violations refers to denials and ignorance of deadline to provide information of public interest, as well as groundless restrictions on access to information. It means that in such cases, “stubborn” journalists are not beaten up, forced out or denied information, but they are not invited and denied entry to public actions being held by state bodies under different pretexts, such as: having no accreditation, even though it is not mandatory to have it for attending public actions, no passes, no seats at the venues or vehicles. The monitoring has registered 308 violations of this kind in total. Among the violators are high-ranked state officials, businessmen, press secretaries of the Ministries, ministerial departments, akimats’ officials and commercial organizations.

For the last half-year authorities have tried to hide information on emergency situations, which caused death and many injuries, from journalists, i.e. from the wider community. That refers not only to violations of mass media and journalists’ rights, but also to the threat to people’ safety. All the above cases amount to an administrative offence, provided for by article 352 of the Code of Administrative Offence. This article sets an administrative responsibility for baseless denial or ignorance of the deadline to provide information of public interest, requested by journalists, for creating conditions constraining journalists from carrying out their professional activities or depriving them of this opportunity.   

The Ministry of Culture, Information and Sport is an authorized body, which is not only entitled, but obliged to file formal reports on administrative offences in the given cases. Unfortunately, the monitoring hasn’t registered a single action taken to protect mass media or journalists.

At the same time, authorities and other right holders remain unforgiving of journalists’ mistakes, which were real or made up. Twenty one cases were brought, 14 administrative proceedings were commenced, 131 lawsuits were filed against journalists. The total amount sought in the lawsuits is equal to100 trillion 1 billion 216 thousand tenge. The court awarded plaintiffs heavy amounts of money. To illustrate, the court ruled against Assandi Times newspaper, obliging it to pay 50 million tenge to the President. The monitoring has registered 50 instances, where journalists were prevented from carrying out their professional activities, including censorship. 18 times they were prevented from distributing the medium, including blocking or slowing down access to media outlets’ websites. Sometimes, pro-governmental media were accidentally targeted.  

All the above cases certainly provoked criticism from citizens, the community, acting and former officials. The power holders were forced to maneuver. Sarsenbayev, co-chairman of Ak Zhol opposition party, was appointed as the Minister of Information, Culture and Sport. The newly appointed Minister registered dozens of media outlets, which had been refused registration before; then he withdrew all lawsuits filed by the Ministry’s officials against media outlets, and issued a new progressive draft law “On Guarantees of Freedom of Speech, Gathering and Distributing Information.”   

Unfortunately, later it became clear that most of democratic achievements in the media sphere, were the trick. The Minister resigned, after having protested against the election results. Later his draft law sank into oblivion as well. Some media outlets were suspended, some are facing charges, which means that they will have to pay heavy amounts of money in damages.

Kyrgyzstan

The ruling elite in Kyrgyzstan weren’t strong in political and economic spheres of the country from the beginning, so they should have been as flexible as possible, to maneuver. On the one hand, it was an “island of democracy” surrounded by authoritarianism, which implies initiating progressive draft laws, on the other hand – it was strong and gradual pressure exerted on the opposition groups, public organizations and mass media, for the reasons to preserve the status quo in the economy and politics of the country.  

2004 was not the exception. The President proposed a number of draft laws: on granting Russian language a status of the state language, on abolishing criminal defamation provision, on imposing 5% tax on lawsuits for protection of non-property rights, seeking moral damages. In the first half of 2004, the President gave several public speeches in support of free speech and mass media, saying that lawsuits filed by state officials, seeking moral damages for defamation, were inadmissible. The Parliament rejected these draft laws, but on the contrary passed such repressive provisions, as 50% TV and Radio Broadcast in the state language.   

Rina Prijivoit, a chief editor for MSN newspaper’s politics department, said the following to illustrate how journalists, at large, regard such an ambiguity: “the President publicly declared his adherence to democratic principles, but his associates continue pressuring those, who try to put such principles into practice. If the President were angry at his associates for their actions, who would, then, stop him from punishing them for undermining his reputation?” 

Senior state officials were also proactive in persecuting freedom of speech. Courts awarded plaintiffs millions of soms in damages from media outlets in Kyrgyzstan, where poverty is still the dominant social reality. Small territory and centralized power gave the authorities extensive opportunities to manipulate media outlets through economic means. Cases, where media outlets were refused registration, denied license, where their providers, printing firms, owners of TV communications and TV transmitters faced pressure, were not rare.

In turn, low-level officials became affected by the abovementioned trend. The monitoring has registered 276 violations of mass media and journalists’ rights for 2004. This figure is not smaller, but sometimes relatively bigger than in other Central Asian states. A chief editor for independent Issyk-Kul newspaper, Beimembayev Zh., was killed, but the investigation into his death proved insufficient to remove community’ doubts. The monitoring registered 11 attacks on journalists and media outlets’ properties. To illustrate, an Osh Resource Center door guard, was brutally beaten and the office was burgled. National TV Company’s cameraman, Ashurov, was attacked and robbed by a police officer. Thirty six journalists were denied or prevented from accessing information of public interest or carrying out their professional activities. Twenty four times, mass media’ economic rights were infringed, and 6 times, the order for distributing the medium was violated.

The monitoring registered 16 defamation and blackmail charges put against journalists. This number is much bigger than in Kazakhstan, though the latter’s population is 15 millions. For instance, journalists Imankulov and Baribayev, were sentenced to prison terms for defaming deputy head of the Talas Department of Public Education. The court found Kurmashev, a chief editor for Batken Tany newspaper, guilty of defamation. Alenov, a chief editor for Yenesay newspaper, was detained on suspicion of blackmail. Another journalist-editor with Factor newspaper, Mamedov, received an official warning from the Issyk-Kul Regional Prosecutor’s Office, that they will charge him with criminal defamation and insult after the reporter published an article “100 richest people of Kyrgyzstan,” where the journalist mentioned Akayev and his relatives.

It seems like, there are no reasons to prove that such accusations were baseless, because anyway journalists, while distributing information, had no knowledge of its falsity or direct intentions to insult honor and dignity of those mentioned in the articles. Such sanctions applied to journalists, as prison sentences for defaming public figures, seem like mockery of the freedom of speech and justice. Kyrgyzstan also differs from other Central Asian states by heavier amounts, sought by and awarded to individuals, who had filed lawsuits against media outlets. 

It seems like Mambetaliyev, head of NGO “Journalists”, giving an assessment to the freedom of speech situation in Kyrgyzstan was more right than wrong: “a war against mass media will go on in Kyrgyzstan, unless a serfdom over mass media ends and state bodies are deprived of the right to compel journalists to serve the government apparatus, and finally the head of state unilaterally is deprived of the right to appoint and discharge heads of TV radio corporations and newspapers’ editors.”

The upcoming Presidential and Parliamentary elections have aggravated by the free speech situation in Kyrgyzstan. It seems like the authorities are not credible anymore, and President Akayev, who has the constitutional right to run for the next Presidential election, had to drop these plans publicly. The ruling elite are also afraid of Georgia and Ukrain upheavals. At the time, it hopes for power transfer and strives to ensure the majority in the Parliament. In particular, many relatives of the President were among candidates, standing for the Parliament. The president couldn’t stay aside from the war against mass media as well; he publicly announced his intent to file a lawsuit against MSN newspaper based on “protection of honor and dignity.” Kyrgyz mass media in 2005 expect no positive changes in terms of their relations with the authorities.

Tajikistan

Tajikistan is not an exception among the Central Asian states, in terms of approaches and methods used by the authorities against mass media and freedom of speech. Definitely, 2004 had shown some shifts in their attitude towards mass media, which was highly negative. 2003 and beginning of 2004 showed that mass media and journalists were facing strong pressure. To illustrate, Kanibadam Amanboyev was cruelly murdered on the porch of his house in Dushanbe in January 2004. Police failed to find the murderers. His colleagues believed that the murder was related to his reporting. Zafar Saidov, head of Habar information agency was shot, but survived by a pure miracle. Many journalists received death threats, as well as threats with setting fire to or exploding their property and prison sentences. No legal action was brought against the criminals. However, by the end of 2004, the war on dissidence took a more civilized form, transforming into civil and administrative lawsuits. The amounts sought in the lawsuits are surprising for Tajikistani living standards: USD 100 - 200 thousand, etc. In general the situation remained difficult and disturbing.   

But we can’t say that the authorities do nothing for mass media. President Rakhmonov made several public statements to support mass media. The president ordered the Parliament to exempt media outlets from paying the VAT. However all the above steps hadn’t changed the situation, as it lacked some practical measures.

It seems like the ruling elite simply don’t hear the President. The General Prosecutor’s Office accused Nerui Sukhan newspaper of all the mortal sins, following the President’s statement, saying: “the General Prosecutor’s Office determined that the content of articles was intended to incite ethnic and national enmity, insult honor and dignity of citizens, in particular, the President, Parliament members and other representatives of the state power.” The charges of being dissident are common in most of the countries.    

Certainly, such an attitude has a greater impact on the general relationships between authorities and mass media. The monitoring has registered 311 direct and indirect violations of mass media and journalists’ rights. Ten of them received death threats. Eighteen journalists were prevented from carrying out their professional activities. In 110 instances, journalists were denied or restricted from accessing information of public interest. Eighteen media outlets and journalists faced lawsuits, based “on protection of honor and dignity”, filed by public figures.  

The Parliamentary elections in Tajikistan produced negative effect on media outlets as well. Consequently, two antagonists: Social-Democratic party of Tajikistan and the Party of Islamic Restoration, were unanimous in their condemnation of the deliberate closure of two printing firms by the authorities, causing independent and party newspapers to cease publication, including Nerui Sukhan, Ruzi Nav, Odamu Olam, Najat and Adolat. In turn, state-controlled printing firms refused to publish the newspapers. The parties’ leaders accused the authorities of exerting deliberate pressure on media outlets and journalists through procuracy, police and tax authorities. They believed that the main reason for the authorities to act in such a way is to intimidate mass media and journalists prior to the Parliamentary elections. In connection with this, they stated that such a policy facilitates consolidation of the society, but can possibly destabilize socio- political situation in the country, and the Tajik government will be responsible for possible consequences, according to the parties’ leaders.         

Law enforcement officers in the Russian Federation arrested the leader of the Democratic Party of Tajikistan, Iskandarov, in December at the request of the Tajik authorities. According to the General Prosecutor, he used some newspapers, which are being printed abroad, including Ruzi Nav, to mock on Tajik people.

On 19 December 2004, President of Tajikistan Rakhmonov, who chairs the National Democratic Party of Tajikistan, accused independent mass media of violating the law “On Print and Other Media”, at the VIII party meeting (Minbari Halk, #106 of 19 December 2004). He told in particular: “Our media outlets interpret the freedom as [the right] to ignore the law “On print media.” It happens only because most of media outlets in the country are independent. Non-state radio, TV channels, magazines and newspapers are funded by different foreign organizations, so they cannot deviate from the policy imposed by their foreign bosses. The local media outlets forget about their national interests, when pursuing foreign interests. Think about it. Starting from 2004, Varorud, Odamu Olam, Ruzi Nav newspapers and Radios Vatan, Mavchi zarrin and Mavchud, which are funded by the Soros Foundation, active in criticizing the Tajik government. We won’t find such a practice, where media outlets are being funded in order to confront the state policy, anywhere else.”

Uzbekistan

 The heaviest conditions for freedom of speech and mass media’ and journalists’ rights among the Central Asian countries were registered in Uzbekistan. The total control over mass media and journalists, ranging from the control over their financial and economic activities to creative activities, give reasons to state and public figures in Uzbekistan and abroad to deny any presence of free expression in the country. For instance, Alissen Gill, a Human Rights Watch representative, commented on mass media situation in Uzbekistan, saying the following: “Free local media outlets do not exist. Mass media say nothing about human rights. Only local journalists, working for foreign media outlets, cover this issue…” Marat Zahidov, a chairman with the Committee to Protect Human Rights in Germany, shares this point of view: “Unfortunately, there are no free media outlets in Uzbekistan. Thus, foreign media outlets, operating here, are the great support for us, because, only with their help, we can express our opinion about the events happening in the country.”

Journalist and human rights activist Ruslan Sharipov, who was forced to move to the USA, confirmed that journalists and mass media are being persecuted here, in an interview with the Voice of America’s branch in Russia: “Unfortunately, I believe I have to confirm, that today there is no freedom of expression in Uzbekistan. Most of Uzbek journalists and human rights activists have to cooperate with the Special Service and authorities, and follow political orders given by them. Journalists have no chance to act freely under the Karimov’s authoritarian regime. Those, who refuse to cooperate, have to self-censor reporting, in order to avoid authorities’ cruelty. Because, otherwise, they will be taken into custody or will be compelled to work for the authorities.”

The above opinions seem to be not far from the truth. Writer Mamadali Mahmudov, journalists Gairat Mehlibayev, Muhammed Bekzhanov and Jusuf Ruzimuradov were sentenced on different charges.  

In November 2004, Abduvahid Abduvahabov, 25 y.o., was sentenced to 7 years in prison, for undermining the constitutional order, being a member of extremist organization and distributing materials, aimed at undermining social security. 

The charges stemmed from materials taken from transcripts of materials broadcast by Radios BBC, Svoboda and Voice of America in Uzbekistan. The court ruled that the materials were critical in nature and propagandizing against Uzbekistan policy. Theater of absurd – 7 years’ prison sentence for criticizing the Government and its policy that was actually his constitutional right.

Perhaps, independent journalist Bobomurod Abdullayev, head of the Ozod Ovoz Organization to Foster Freedom of Expression in Uzbekistan, is not that wrong, when saying: “the main problem for journalists in Uzbekistan is dictatorship. We cannot say a single word about the freedom of speech and journalists’ and human rights, until dictatorship rules the country. But cowardice and fears of the authorities are the secondary problems. Even courage journalists cannot publish their materials in newspapers, because the law, instructions and printing firms serve the dictatorship.”   

We can debate long over why Uzbekistan, whose inhabitants love hard work and are talented, got into such situation. Reality is, though, different, a bureaucratic-police clan complex has emerged and developed in the country for the years of independence, striving to keep the occupied positions unchanged and preserving no openness and publicity.    

The Government’s attitude toward them takes sometimes rough and uncovered forms. Any hokim, who is usually deemed all-powered within his territory, can force any journalist to leave a meeting or territory without any obstacles. Any critical remark is considered as blackening and enmity against the state and people. Criticism against law enforcement agencies is likely to result in threats against the one, who expressed criticism, unlawful detainments and prosecution of him. Actually senior officials don’t try even to hide their attitude to the press and the freedom of expression. Boikuziyev, a deputy hokim of Fergana, prohibited hokimiyat employees from communicating with journalists, working for foreign media outlets and representatives of the human rights and independent organizations, under the pretext that they wash dirty linen in public, disregarding the reality. Fergana Hokim Boltaboyev obliged hokimiyat employees to prevent average population from communicating with journalists. Atabayev, a hokim of Fergana region, promised to consider demands of striking teachers, only if they promise, in return, to stop giving any information to the journalists. As we see, senior and mid-level officials dare to violate the law “On Guarantees and free access to information,” and abuse their professional positions, i.e. commit crimes. Low-level officials, like clerks, do the same. Baimetov, a Buhara hokimiyat employee, accused a journalist of being incompetent, because the journalist should have asked what the authorities thought first. Sergeant Bahodilov, the firefighting service, prevented a cameraman for Samarkand Vestnik newspaper, Masev, to film the fire, and ordered two unknown individuals to beat him. They managed to beat the journalist, broke the photo camera and light the film. Additionally, a militia officer broke journalist Tajibayeva’s dictaphone.  

There were numerous cases, where journalists were prevented from carrying out their professional activities, denied information of public interest, intruded with creative process and censored. One journalist was killed for the reporting period. Ten journalists were attacked. Many of them were brutally beaten. Four journalists were victimized during the Ist quarter. A group of activists, while taking part in the protest, was beaten up. Six of them were victimized during the IVth quarter. Journalists Rustamov and Karimov suffered heavy injuries, whereas the rest four suffered slight injuries. The circumstances of the attacks give reasons to believe that they were politically motivated. Anyway, none of the attackers was punished. Eleven journalists received serious threats, mostly from police officers, which were related to journalists’ reporting activities. Four times journalists were insulted; 69 times they were prevented from carrying out their professional activities. Six journalists were unlawfully detained by police officers. All the above cases fall under the Criminal Code, deemed to be criminal offences or serious professional offences. However, the monitoring hasn’t registered a single criminal action commenced against the violators.

The administrative bodies, which made all possible efforts to prevent the journalists from accessing information of public interest, distributing medium or to interfere with their activities, do, in fact, impede work of journalists in Uzbekistan. So, for the elapsed year, journalists were prevented from accessing information in 128 instances, and prevented from distributing medium in 48 instances. In many cases TV broadcast was halted and access to websites was restricted. The monitoring has registered 33 cases, where journalists’ creative process was intruded, including 13 claims of censorship. 

Seven criminal charges were filed against journalists for the year and 29 lawsuits were filed against them, based on “protection of honor and dignity” seeking moral damages.

Definitely, some modern trends spread within Uzbekistan to certain extent. Islam Karimov, the President of Uzbekistan, gave several speeches to support the freedom of expression. The ruling elite have to trick and maneuver under the growing criticism. A full, open and negative assessment of freedom of expression in the country, given by the UK Ambassador Craig Murray, on the occasion of the Press Day, was right for the end of the year. 

“I would not praise Uzbek Government for the media support. It could ensure free speech, if granted freedom to independent mass media outlets, whose editors are not Government appointees. But democracy is impossible without giving opponents access to election. But the Uzbek Government doesn’t believe in democracy, and now it has no chances to become democratic. We are told that the process reflects Uzbek traditions and mentality. When one family is in power gets rich and population is sinking into impoverishment, I don’t think it is Uzbek tradition. Uzbek people love freedom as all the others. But the secrete police operates in the country, and people are being thrown into jails for their beliefs. Uzbek mass media write nothing about this. There are many educated and trained people. It happens not because Uzbek journalists are unable to do their job and they lack professionalism, but because they are stopped from doing it, they don’t want, because they fear.

The recent Parliamentary elections hadn’t affected the situation in Uzbekistan as well.

Summary

To summarize, the monitoring analysis of freedom of expression in Central Asia showed that status of the constitutional right to freedom of speech has not changed in 2004, tending to worsen. Definitely, the Government had to maneuver, in an attempt to convince the community and people of their efforts to adhere to democratic ideals under criticism and protests and make some steps to build a public dialogue, and observe human rights, including the right to freedom of speech.

Unfortunately, there are no visible achievements in this sphere. All the positive steps, that the authorities planned to take, remained unrealized good faith plans. Furthermore, Parliamentary and Presidential elections, upcoming or held, in the four countries not only intensified the political fight, but also aggravated freedom of expression situation and the way mass media and journalists’ rights are observed.

Freedom of expression situation would hardly change in 2005. The ruling elites are tasked by keeping their power or transfer it, but this process doesn’t mean freedom of opinion.