Last week, Uzbekistan’s Central Election Commission registered the five existing political parties – the Liberal-Democratic Party of Uzbekistan (UzLiDeP), Milliy Tiklanish (National Revival) Democratic Party, the Ecological Party of Uzbekistan, the People’s Democratic Party of Uzbekistan (PDP), and the Adolat (Justice) Social-Democratic Party – to participate in the upcoming parliamentary elections that will be held on October 27.
As Uzbekistan approaches its next parliamentary election, the spotlight is once again on the role and relevance of parties in the country’s tightly controlled political landscape. Following Islam Karimov’s era of strict control, political parties in Uzbekistan began to demonstrate increased activity, largely due to the reform efforts introduced by the new government after 2016. These reforms have allowed for a modest revival of political engagement by parties, though the environment remains far from fully open or democratic.
Yet, despite the government’s rhetoric about reforms and the introduction of a mixed electoral system for the first time, with the hope of energizing political parties, public interest in parties remains minimal. After all, these entities have always been perceived as mere extensions of the state. The government’s efforts to invigorate political party activism, particularly on non-sensitive social issues, may signal a desire for political opening and change. However, without genuine political freedom and fully open discourse, these attempts at reform may struggle to gain traction, leaving the political environment largely unchanged.
A New Era of Political Party Activism
After the demise of the Soviet Union, independent Uzbekistan saw the emergence of various independent movements and proto-political parties, which reflected growing civic awareness in society. During the early years of independence, entities like Erk and Birlik started challenging the new government in elections. Alarmed by the challenge, President Islam Karimov carefully engineered a fragmented multiparty system with heavily controlled pro-government parties, excluding oppositional parties.
These parties, including the later influential UzLiDeP, were carefully designed to present a window-dressing image of democratic pluralism in Uzbekistan while ensuring no real opposition could challenge the regime. The government introduced new laws in the 2000s to strengthen the role of political parties, but it only legitimized existing state-backed parties without fostering real competition. Consequently, Uzbekistan’s official political parties operated under strict oversight for years, representing various societal interests in appearance only while being disconnected from society.
With Karimov’s death and the rise of President Shavkat Mirziyoyev in 2016, Uzbekistan’s political landscape began to shift. Mirziyoyev harshly criticized the political parties for their dormancy and initiated reforms that allowed for a more active, though still limited, participation of political parties in policymaking. According to the government’s Action Strategy, the parliament was supposed to be a platform for healthy debate and discussion, leading to better policymaking and increased political culture. In line with this approach, the government introduced an online portal to solicit feedback from citizens so that they can express their opinions on important issues. Following these changes, the political parties started showing signs of life, becoming more vocal in addressing issues like economic reform and governance.
The people witnessed an active electoral campaign during the parliamentary elections in 2019. National television hosted debates that were very dynamic, with the heads of the parties criticizing one another and concrete government officials. The election was, in some ways, a breakthrough for the new government. First, the election was portrayed as a milestone in Mirziyoyev’s policy of openness and liberalization. The election attracted a record number of foreign observers, including a full-fledged mission from the OSCE. The election coincided with Uzbekistan being named “Country of the Year” by The Economist, increasing international interest.
Second, the government sought to demonstrate a departure from previous electoral practices with the “New Uzbekistan – New Elections” campaign. The initiative aimed to show citizens that elections could be a genuine mechanism for influencing decision-making and enacting change. The media’s coverage of the elections revealed a controlled yet notable shift toward freer expression on certain issues.
As a result, a number of new MPs that were actively engaged in Uzbekistan’s social and political life emerged. For example, MPs Rasul Kusherbayev, Doniyor Ganiyev, and Alisher Kadirov became popular. They earned the hearts and minds of Uzbek citizens by expressing positions on issues such as deforestation or the monopoly in the car industry, thus challenging the interests of some elites. More importantly, however, unlike other MPs who might also be active in contributing to the legislative discussions of social and economic issues, Kusherbayev, Ganiyev, and Kadirov actively used social media platforms, which allowed them to build a fanbase, and ultimately, connected with their constituents.
Compared to Karimov’s rule, the emergence of new political figures expressing alternative opinions on main social and economic issues in Uzbekistan was a positive development. The parliament also gained the right to approve ministers, endorse the annual budget, and hear quarterly government reports, thus obtaining some leverage over the executive branch.
Another surprising development during the 2019 election campaign was the proposal by some parties to put forward their own prominent candidates for the position of prime minister. During Karimov’s era, candidates for the post were purposefully selected from among government officials unknown to the public so as to avoid the emergence of potential leaders that might cast a shadow on the authority of the president. However, this time, parties nominated influential figures for the post of prime minister, including Achilbay Ramatov, a candidate from the PDP, while Adolat nominated the promising young Minister of Justice Ruslanbek Davletov.
Will the Changes Bear Fruit?
However, the extent to which the “New Elections” campaign was actually new in terms of bringing fundamental changes to the party system in Uzbekistan leaves much to be desired. Despite the positive changes, the multiparty system remains paralyzed and uncompetitive for obvious reasons. While the government has granted the parties space for discussing social issues, allowing them to be more active, they still have to operate within predefined boundaries set by the government.
Seeking to increase the role of political parties further and boost the legitimacy of the government in the eyes of both domestic and external audiences, Mirziyoyev’s government recently proposed a switch to a mixed electoral system. However, the upcoming elections will be held with the existing five pro-government parties and without independent candidates. Doniyor Ganiyev was the only MP to vote against the initiative. Additionally, the upcoming parliamentary elections will take place without Kusherbayev, who resigned from his position prematurely, and Ganiyev, who stated that he will not be running in the upcoming elections.
Moreover, the influence of the existing parties is severely limited as they still lack strong connections with their constituencies. According to a survey conducted by one of the most popular news agencies, Kun.uz, most people do not recognize MPs, except the few figures mentioned above who have made active use of social media. This disconnect prevents the parties from effectively understanding and advocating for the people’s demands.
At the same time, due to the unofficial but known boundaries set by the government, the parties’ ability to engage in more substantial debates on critical topics is curtailed. Many observers might be surprised to find out that political parties in Uzbekistan rarely discuss foreign policy issues or propose alternative agendas. The political parties pursue almost identical political programs, which results in a lack of meaningful choice for voters and a stifling of political diversity.
Other parties with contending agendas still face significant challenges as they struggle to register and gain formal recognition. For instance, Khidirnazar Allaqulov made several attempts to register his Haqiqat va Taraqqiyot (Truth and Development) Social Democratic Party. However, state authorities have refused to register his party because, allegedly, the party could not gather the necessary signatures to participate in the elections. This reality highlights the ongoing struggle for political inclusion and the significant gap that remains between the government’s rhetoric of reform and the actual practice of political opening.
It is fair to conclude that the reforms initiated under the new government have undeniably injected new life into the political landscape, allowing registered parties to engage more actively than before. However, this increased activity has yet to break free from the strict limitations constraining the multiparty system. Despite the progress, the parties often remain tethered to state interests, struggling to represent diverse viewpoints or catalyze meaningful policy changes. They also struggle to connect with the citizens whom they ostensibly represent.
As Uzbekistan prepares for its upcoming parliamentary elections, it is important for the government to explore ways in which political parties can evolve into genuine forces for channeling public interests into effective policymaking. Addressing the limitations and enhancing the role of parties in representing diverse viewpoints and advocating for substantial policy changes will be crucial for fostering a more dynamic and inclusive political environment in Uzbekistan.