PRESIDENT KARIMOV "REELECTED" WITH 88 PERCENT OF

C O N F I D E N T I A L TASHKENT 002164 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/26/2017 TAGS: PGOV KDEM PHUM PREL OSCE UZ SUBJECT: PRESIDENT KARIMOV "REELECTED" WITH 88 PERCENT OF VOTE Classified By: P/E Chief Ted Burkhalter; reasons 1.4 (b, d). ¶1. (C) Summary: Uzbek President Islam Karimov was re-elected December 23 to a third term, by a reported 88.1 percent of the vote. The OSCE's ODIHR limited election observation mission released a statement December 24, saying the election failed to meet most norms for free and fair elections. This is a fair assessment. The criticism is directed not so much at balloting formalities - rules were largely observed - but rather at the lack of a genuine choice. Three strawman contenders failed to offer any policy prescriptions and vowed merely to continue "the successful policies" of the current (Karimov) regime. The Uzbek government marked the day with an all-out charm offensive for monitors. End summary. ¶2. (U) The Uzbek Central Election Commission (CEC) issued preliminary results December 24. Final tallies are expected within two weeks. According to the CEC, 90.6 percent of voters cast ballots, with 88.1 percent voting for Karimov. Of the other candidates, Akmal Saidov received 2.58 percent; Dilorom Tashmukhamedova, 2.94 percent; and Asliddin Rustamov, 3.17 percent. Another 2.94 percent of ballots were voided. ¶3. (SBU) In general, the balloting formalities were above board. However, certain practices, such as family voting, were widespread. However, this practice is apparently a cultural phenomenon common to much of Central Asia, and election officials tended to shrug it off. Voter turnout was high (no doubt in part due to the ease of sending grandpa to vote for the whole family). In addition, post has heard anecdotally of several cases where polling station or mahallah (neighborhood) officials cast votes for neighbors they thought were not going to make it to the polls. Comment: This is likely a reflection of officials' desire at the neighborhood and city level to demonstrate their own ability to get out the vote. It also reflects on the relative lack of importance procedures occupied in this exercise. End comment. ¶4. (C) Embassy Tashkent sent 11 Americans and 6 local staff in teams to monitor the balloting in Tashkent City, Tashkent Province and Surdarya Province. The teams spoke with other observers, including one Russian CIS delegation representative who characterized the elections as "technically in compliance with Uzbek law." This official, Vladimir I. Simonov (please protect),of Yaroslav, is probably in his mid-50s and noted that the elections reminded him of Soviet elections. He contrasted the Uzbek process with the Russian, noting that despite Western criticism, Russia at least can claim spirited debate in its campaigns. ¶5. (SBU) The GOU marked election day with a charm offensive for monitors. U.S. Embassy officers reported in one city being followed by what they assumed were local security officials, only to learn later that the Uzbeks were concerned that they planned to dine at an establishment not deemed suitably upscale. Polling officials at another site, which once hosted Peace Corps volunteers, insisted the Embassy monitors share "osh" (pilauf) with them. In another instance, our monitors reported electricity being routed to the local grid when they arrived, to provide heat to the building. (The Uzbeks were embarrassed they had no power and said it had been out for only a few minutes. However, as we learned later, it had been out for three days - a telling example of the scarcity of power in some areas.) OSCE/ODIHR Ambassador Siegl on the elections -------------- ¶6. (C) ODIHR's limited election observation mission issued an initial press statement December 24, saying the elections failed to meet democratic norms for free and fair elections. The statement criticized the GOU for failing to implement any of the recommendations ODIHR made after observing flawed 2004 Parliamentary elections. The statement also incorrectly said that the three strawman opponents had all endorsed Karimov. In fact, they had been a bit more subtle, offering no policy formulations of their own but praising the present state of affairs and vowing to continue the policies of the current regime. Ambassador and DCM met December 26 with Ambassador Walter Siegl, the head of ODIHR's observation mission, to discuss initial findings before Siegl departs for Europe. ODIHR's final report may be more critical than expected, particularly regarding restricted access to the Central Election Commission during the processing of the vote count. Siegl says, though, that he does not want to slam the door shut on the GOU and is therefore trying to point to positive developments where possible. (More septel.) Comment -------------- ¶7. (C) This election was not about democratic choice, in any Western sense of the phrase, and should not be treated as such. It was, we think, about Karimov's own need to validate his rule, his system, and his legacy. He is almost 70 and, barring a Castro-like longevity, is likely to depart the political scene in the not-distant-future. How his country and the world remember him is, we believe, important to him. As for the rest of the Uzbek citizenry, GOU officials included, the elections seemed to have been one large Kabuki play. With the fairy tale of elections past, we intend to redouble our focus on the broad bilateral relationship, including the contentious issues of human rights and political and economic reform. NORLAND