“In the absence of an effective representative government that can defend the interests of the citizens of Uzbekistan both at the local and national levels, the draft “initiative budget” clearly demonstrated the attractiveness of the direct democracy mechanism as a partial alternative to representative democracy,” notes a participant in the CABAR.asia School of Analytics Akrom Avezov (Uzbekistan).
In Uzbekistan, the third wave of the new project “Initiative Budget” has been completed, which provides for the direct participation of the population in the distribution of local budget funds. A total of 5,735 socially significant proposals out of about 101,000 were selected for funding by the citizens themselves based on the popular vote in 2021-2022. While members of the public and officials give an ambiguous assessment of the results of this project, in this article we will try to summarize some of its results and assess the possible challenges and prospects for the development of the participation budget mechanism in Uzbekistan.
World experience testifies to the diversity in the motives of states that implement participation budgets. In the case of Uzbekistan, the official goal of this project is “to involve citizens in the budget process and, as a result, to identify current problems, disturbing the local population.” At the same time, it is important to note the active cooperation of the Ministry of Finance of Uzbekistan with representatives of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in the development of this project. In this regard, the “Initiative Budget” can be defined as an attempt by a group of technocratic reformers in the government to make real changes in the redistribution of public resources with the support of international organizations.
However, one should not forget about the colossal consequences of the global pandemic for the economies of countries around the world. Especially, the slowdown in economic growth has become a serious challenge for the new government of Uzbekistan, which relies on socio-economic indicators as a source of legitimacy. As in many countries of the world, the leadership of Uzbekistan is actively using budgetary measures in response to the reduction in incomes of the population. However, the situation is aggravated by the fact that the already modest fiscal opportunities of the state are also limited by deeply rooted corrupt practices in the public sector. Apparently, the government considered the fact that in the absence of proper official channels for dialogue, dissatisfaction with the economic situation and deteriorating living conditions could lead to social tension in the country. It is for this reason that the introduction of the participation budget mechanism can be considered a timely solution to partially restore public confidence in the state as an institution that ensures a fair distribution of public goods.
However, for the “Initiative Budget” to produce the expected results and be considered a successful project, it must follow four basic principles. Political scientist Brian Wampler defined these basic principles as voice (participation), vote, oversight, and social justice. However, it is not possible to assess such far-reaching consequences for Uzbekistan as supervision and social justice due to the early stage of the project and the requirements for the article format. Therefore, in this article we will evaluate the success of the project in Uzbekistan through the prism of the above first two key aspects: voice, and vote.[i]
How is the “initiative budget” arranged?
Before proceeding with the analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the “initiative budget”, we will outline the legal and technical component of this mechanism. As a result of the adoption of the Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan in mid-April (PP-5072), local authorities are required to allocate at least 30% of additional funds to finance events formed on the basis of public opinion. The concept of additional funds refers to local budget revenues that exceeded forecasts for the previous year. But taking into account the fact that not all districts and cities have the potential in terms of financial opportunities, under certain circumstances, the decree obliges the allocation of 5% of the approved expenditures of the budgets of districts (cities) for the “Civil Initiatives Fund”. All projects within the “initiative budget” are financed through this special fund.
The process of determining the winners is quite straightforward and consists of four stages. It all starts with the creation of proposals by individuals or groups of individuals based on their priorities and needs. The next stage is a kind of filtering of projects by working commissions consisting of members of the local executive and legislative authorities, as well as representatives of civil society. These commissions must select proposals according to predetermined criteria, for example, the amount of one project should not exceed the base value of the calculation by 4 thousand times (approximately 116 thousand US dollars at the time of writing).[ii] More importantly, only those proposals that are of public interest and not of personal or departmental interest should be allowed before the general vote. In the three waves of the “initiative budget”, 55.8%, 57.8% and 61.2% of the proposals, respectively, passed such selection. Therefore, next comes the general vote – the third and main stage of this project. Based on the voting results, the winning proposals are determined, which will receive funding from the Civil Initiatives Fund. However, an equally important component is the process of monitoring by the central government and the public.
Interim analysis of participation budget
The first serious attempts to decentralize the financial system by the Mirziyoyev government began when the heads of local governments were allowed to use the funds received from over-fulfillment of revenue forecasts freely from Tashkent. However, cases of purchases of expensive service vehicles for hakims and their deputies with these funds caused dissatisfaction with both the public and the central government. Realizing that there is no turning back, the government did not curtail the process of partial delegation of power to local self-government bodies, but rather launched a new project – the “initiative budget”. Despite some criticism and skepticism, the project can be called one of the most successful for the current administration.
Firstly, the initiative budget was able to involve a fairly large part of the population in the process of distributing funds at the local level. Previously, the draft republican budget was formed by the government on the basis of the recommendations of the heads of local authorities. Following this, the Parliament (Oliy Majlis), as the highest representative body, confirms the draft. In fact, the question of which region to receive funds for the implementation of their plans was decided at the government level and depended on the political heft and perseverance of certain hakims. In the absence of an effective representative government that can defend the interests of the citizens of Uzbekistan both at the local and national levels, the draft “initiative budget” clearly demonstrated the attractiveness of the direct democracy mechanism as a partial alternative to representative democracy.
In 2021–2022, three waves of the Initiative Budget were carried out. During these three waves spent within two incomplete years, 172,390 proposals were received from citizens throughout the republic. It is noteworthy that in the third wave, proposals were sent from 9201 mahallas – the basic body of local self-government at the community level. This is more than 98% of the total number of mahallas in the Republic of Uzbekistan. That is, proposals for spending from the local budget came literally from almost all parts of the country.
However, the lack of institutionalization in the processing of these proposals can be a serious hindrance to the long-term perspective of the project. While the introduction of some new restrictions or requirements during the proposal development stage may negatively affect the activity of citizens, improving the filtering process may be enough to solve this problem. At the moment, the approximate composition of the working group on moderation of proposals consists of the majority of deputies of the hakim and other employees of state and quasi-state institutions. Even apart from the fact that these committee members may be biased, the question of the adequacy of their resources and capacity for such a large amount of work raises reasonable doubts. For example, it was announced that half of the rejected proposals from the work commissions in 2021 were unfounded. Moreover, the analysis of the decisions of the working groups on the selection of proposals revealed that almost two-thirds of the regional authorities did not indicate any reasons for rejecting proposals that did not pass the selection.
Secondly, the experience of holding elections in 2021-2022 has shown that the citizens of Uzbekistan are far from being indifferent to the process of distributing public funds. According to the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Uzbekistan, almost 8 million citizens voted in the third phase of the initiative budget, which is approximately 40% of the population with the right to vote. In comparison, turnout in elections to the legislative chamber and local councils of people’s deputies in 2019 amounted to 67.8%.
Groups of people came together around a common proposal for funding (road repairs, school repairs, drinking water, etc.), using various methods to attract the votes of their fellow citizens, ranging from mailing lists in chat rooms to street mini campaigns. Footage has circulated on social media illustrating how enterprising representatives of the people are urging their fellow citizens to vote for their proposal, even in exchange for sodas and other “prizes”. Enthusiasm and willingness to fight for their interests indicates that the people of Uzbekistan have well received this project. And more importantly, they believe that the outcome of the vote depends on the votes of their compatriots.
However, it should be noted that the method of voting raises questions among many participants in the process. Following the completion of the first two waves of the “initiative budget”, several members of parliament expressed their concerns about the observance of the “one person, one vote” principle. In particular, Gulbahor Saidganieva noted the unreliability of SMS voting, as citizens have the opportunity to buy an unlimited number of mobile SIM cards. In fact, this method of voting does not allow to establish either the age or citizenship of the voter. The consequences were not long in coming – during the voting phase of the third wave of the project, social media users in Uzbekistan were outraged by the abnormally rapid growth of votes for certain proposals. The Ministry of Finance announced additional checks, but without systematic solutions and, most importantly, without a worthy alternative, this problem can undermine the credibility of the entire project.
Ultimately, the “initiative budgeting” format more or less corresponds to both of the principles of a successful participatory budget defined by Brian Wampler: voice and vote. At the same time, a sufficient number of shortcomings can be observed in each of the above aspects, which call into question the viability of the project on a long-term basis. Below we will present several proposals to eliminate the identified disadvantages, based on world experience and analysis of expert opinions.
How to improve the draft initiative budget?
Some researchers note the huge potential of non-governmental non-profit organizations (NGOs) as an intermediary between government agencies and citizens within the framework of the participation budget. Therefore, it is necessary to take measures to involve representatives of public organizations more actively in the process of conducting the “initiative budget”. Especially, this approach should be taken in the proposal moderation stage. Here, the working commissions are made up mainly of representatives of the executive branch, who are severely limited in resources and opportunities. The participation of NGOs in determining proposals eligible for voting will not only reduce the risk of unjustified refusals, but also increase citizens’ confidence in this process.
One of the possible ways to achieve this goal is through the allocation of state grants in this area. The Public Fund for the Support of NGOs and other civil society institutions under the Oliy Majlis of the Republic of Uzbekistan can become the main source of such initiatives. One of the main tasks of this fund is the implementation of programs aimed at ensuring the participation of NGOs in solving socio-economic and humanitarian issues. In addition, a recent decision by the Cabinet of Ministers challenges the Ministries of Justice and Finance to deepen partnerships with this public fund to involve NGOs in socially important projects, which the “initiative budget” certainly is.
Secondly, despite a number of scientific papers proving the positive impact of digital voting on the representation of the interests of large groups of the population, there is still no unconditional systemic evidence in favor of this method. However, when following certain principles in the use of electronic voting methods, it can only serve the benefit of the project and its goals. For example, to establish cooperation with cellular operators functioning in the country in order to create a single base of users of mobile services. This base should serve to suppress voting by one citizen more than once by sending SMS. If this task proves difficult in the near future, another stopgap measure could be to give more weight to votes through the “Open Budget” portal. This way, citizens will have more incentive to vote through a process with built-in authentication.
Thirdly, two presidential decrees were passed to allocate additional funds from the republican budget to proposals that collected more than 2,000 votes in the second and third waves. A total of 450.4 billion UZS (just over 40 million USD) was allocated to 503 proposals. However, such measures are temporary and may not have the desired positive effect in the long term. Therefore, the relevant bodies should consider the option of including in the legislation a rule that projects with a certain number of votes, but not funded from the local budget, will be funded from the republican budget on an ongoing basis.
Uzbekistan has been experiencing a budget deficit for the fifth year in a row. But the government must also try to find resources to fund the over 100,000 proposals that failed to win enough votes. The recent decision to increase funds for initiative budget projects by 3.5 times by redirecting funds from other government investment programs is a good step in this direction. However, as the activity of citizens increases and, accordingly, the number of incoming proposals, the government will probably have to reconsider its priorities and reduce spending on less socially significant areas. For example, hundreds of projects under the “initiative budget” can receive funding through the reduction of the state apparatus, which has been rapidly expanding in recent years.
Overall, the project, which was partially launched in 2019, only gained a truly nationwide scale in 2021. According to initial estimates, the “initiative budget” can be considered a successful and timely attempt by the authorities to solve the pressing problems of people on the ground. As shown by the state’s policy in this direction, there is a willingness to include proposals that did not pass the selection within the framework of the “initiative budget” in the draft national budget and in the future. Importantly, there is an intense resonance of civic activism to attract public money to improve their living conditions. However, despite the obvious early success, the draft “initiative budget” still has room to develop. And in order for this project to become a sustainable channel of dialogue between citizens and authorities, and further contribute to the emergence of truly independent representative bodies at the local level, it is necessary to quickly resolve the existing problems and strengthen the confidence of citizens in this process.
Acknowledgments
This work was partly financially supported by JST SPRING, Grant Number JPMJSP2125.The author Akrom Avezov would like to take this opportunity to thank the “Interdisciplinary Frontier Next-Generation Researcher Program of the Tokai Higher Education and Research System.”
[i]The principle of “voice” implies the active participation of citizens in the discussion and proposals for the budget, especially those who previously did not have such an opportunity.
And the principle of “vote” means expanding the power of citizens over the formation of the budget, and that they decide where to allocate resources.
[ii] The exchange rates used in this article are current as of 23.11.2022