For more than a month now, Uzbekistan has been discussing the amendments to the current Constitution: are they needed only to reset presidential terms and extend his powers? CABAR.asia analyses how and why the Constitution of Uzbekistan changes and what is the main problem of amending this document.
Some experts and a number of non-state media believe that a nationwide discussion and a referendum on these amendments is just a measure taken by the current administration to maintain its status and privileges. However, by doing this, the authorities want to create an impression among the population that this is a necessary measure; moreover, that this is people’s personal and conscious choice.
During a meeting with members of the Constitutional Commission on June 20, President of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev proposed a number of amendments to the country’s Constitution. Later, the draft amendments to the Constitution were published in the state-owned newspapers “Xalq so’zi” and “Narodnoe Slovo” [“People’s word” – Tr.]. It was planned that the country’s citizens would be able to review the draft amendments and submit their proposals before July 5; later, this period was extended until July 20.
After that, a special Commission will once again consider all the proposals, and later, at the initiative of the President, a referendum will be held for the people to choose the necessary amendments and vote for them.
President Mirziyoyev, known in the region as a reformer, announced a constitutional reform immediately after he became the President for the second time. During his inauguration on November 6, he addressed the Senate noting that the reform was not his idea, but that of the electorate, that is, the country’s population.
“During the pre-election meetings of all candidates, the representatives of the electorate put forward another important proposal, which is requested by our life and dictated by the logic of our transformations. This is the implementation of constitutional reform in the country,” he said.
Thus, the introduction of amendments to the Constitution was only a matter of time. The main intrigue was whether the current President’s terms would be reset and whether the presidency term duration would change. According to the current Constitution, the President of the country can be elected twice for a term of five years.
The answer to this question can be found in the interview of the First Deputy Chairman of the Senate of the Oliy Majlis Sodiq Safoyev to the Uzbek media Kun.uz shortly before Shavkat Mirziyoyev’s speech to the Constitutional Commission. In that interview, Safoyev stated that if a new Constitution is adopted, the incumbent President will be able to participate in presidential elections again.
In the CIS countries, there have already been precedents when the Constitution was changed in favour of the ruling heads of states to extend their powers. This situation was observed in almost all neighbouring countries of Uzbekistan, including Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and most recently, Kazakhstan.
“In the post-Soviet countries, it is completely normal to rewrite the Constitution; this is not Mirziyoyev’s invention. Every time the country’s government tries to rewrite the fundamental law of the country, they explain it by stating that the situation has completely changed, “We live in completely different times and that is why we are changing this law”. However, this is a stereotypical excuse used by everyone. Putin used it, as well as Karimov in 2002. The only real result of the constitutional reform is the reset of the presidential terms,” said Temur Umarov, political expert on Central Asia and China.
It is noteworthy that the idea to hold a national referendum belongs to Mirziyoyev, just like other important, fundamental, and serious changes in the country. In his speech on June 20, he noted that, despite the Parliament’s right to independently amend the country’s Constitution, it would be fair if the country’s population participates in a referendum and expresses its opinion on this matter.
“However, I think that if we implement a constitutional reform through a referendum, relying on the opinion and support of our citizens, this will be our people’s will – a real people’s Constitution. This complies with the principle that states, “the only source and author of the Constitution is the people”. Then, each of us will be able to proudly say, “The new Constitution of Uzbekistan is my Constitution,” the President explained.
The date for the referendum has not yet been set, although it is planned that the Constitution should be amended no later than this December.
The Republican Centre for Public Opinion Research “Ijtimoiy Fikr” has already conducted a phone survey and published its results, according to which 83% of Uzbekistan residents agree to change the Constitution and are ready to approve amendments. However, the transparency of the methodology and the survey itself raises doubts, as some Uzbekistan residents say on social media.
Problems of Karakalpakstan’s Autonomy
The discussion of amendments to the Constitution was not very visible in the country until, after almost three weeks, the protests began in the Autonomous Republic of Karakalpakstan.
The Gazeta.uz media drew attention to the fact that the amendments affect the status of the Republic of Karakalpakstan and an expert Komil Jalilov spoke about the reasons why the constitutional reform is being initiated. However, on June 27, the Press and Media Workers Day in Uzbekistan, both materials were deleted from the resource. To support and express solidarity, Mezon media and several other media in Uzbekistan republished this op-ed.
On June 25, journalists from Karakalpakstan Lolagul Kalykhanova and Dauletmurat Tazhimuratov (both in custody now) published their opinion on the amendments related to the region’s autonomy on their pages on social media and urged people to resolve the issue of violation of their rights via “My Constitution” resource. After that, a discussion of the current situation went viral on social media. Since June 27, the Internet was partially cut off in Karakalpakstan.
The situation in Karakalpakstan escalated on July 1. The protests were crushed; there were casualties.
On July 2, President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, having visited Karakalpakstan twice during the events, announced that the draft law on amendments to the Constitution of Uzbekistan would be finalised after a nationwide discussion, and only after that, it would be put to a referendum. Amendments to the status of Karakalpakstan will not be introduced.
Many experts from Uzbekistan believe that the introduction of amendments to the Constitution of the country without taking into account the citizens’ opinion, without a wide and critical discussion, and the authorities’ intent to present their opinion as the opinion of the population, showed on the example of Karakalpakstan how dangerous it is not to consider the people’s opinion.
Political scientist Temur Umarov believes that if the authorities realised the power of the protest potential both in Karakalpakstan and in the country as a whole, they would not even think of changing this Article of the Constitution or they would do it quietly, without drawing much attention to changes in this document.
“Apparently, the government thought that if this was presented as an expression of the people’s will, as if they say, “you sent us these amendments and we collected them into one document”, the society would buy it and agree. However, it turned out that this was not enough; the protest potential in society is higher than the government thought. […] This situation demonstrated the contrast: Uzbekistan as the government sees it and Uzbekistan as people see it,” he said in a CABAR.asia interview.
What Else, Besides the Reset of the Terms?
Even though some political scientists believe that the changes are needed to reset the presidential terms only, not all amendments are meaningless; some of them are useful and necessary.
For example, it is proposed to introduce an absolute ban on the death penalty into the new version of the document (Article 24). Probably, this is one of the few amendments that sparked fierce disputes among the population of the country.
In addition, a number of amendments are aimed at consolidating the social strategy of the state. For example, in the new version of the Constitution, it is proposed to consolidate the human right to the inviolability of the home. Given a large number of house demolitions and illegal eviction cases, Article 27 in the new version of the Constitution promises to put an end to the unauthorised seizure of land and housing, making the right to the inviolability of the home constitutional right of the people of Uzbekistan.
The same article guarantees eviction only by court order, as well as the right to freedom and secrecy of correspondence and protection from illegal wiretapping of citizens’ telephone conversations.
The new version also intends to consolidate the right of citizens to free Internet access, except for situations related to the protection of the existing constitutional order, the rights and freedoms of others, and public safety and order.
The new version of the Constitution pays much attention to social initiatives, women’s and children’s rights. However, according to political scientist Farkhad Tolipov, the main problem with all the amendments is that they come as a package deal.
The citizens cannot choose only some amendments and vote against those they consider unacceptable. In addition, the procedure for selecting opinions on amendments and the Constitutional Commission’s work is not clear.
“Let’s assume the referendum takes place now. How many thousands of proposals for constitutional changes have been made? If I like the amendments to some articles but do not like the amendments to others, I will have to vote for the whole new text when I go to a referendum. We have not seen any proposals. The Commission allegedly collects them and there is a website with proposals. However, this is not enough. As soon as proposals are received, they are mechanically collected and announced. This approach is too narrow,” Tolipov said.
Does it Need to Be Amended?
The main message of the experts commenting on amendments to the Constitution, as well as of the few media analysing the new amendments, is that all additions could be introduced by separate laws or by-laws. The document itself lacks the most important things – a separation of the branches of power, tools for ensuring a checks and balances system, as well as a point on change of power and strengthening of representative democracy.
Temur Umarov believes that there are very few reasons to change the existing Constitution. In global practice, the Constitution is a fundamental set of rules that establishes the framework for the society’s existence, a kind of state contract that does not allow the state to go beyond defined authority, and it rarely requires revision.
“I can imagine a situation in which the Constitution does not change for centuries; no state collapsed from this, no reforms were stopped, and there were no obstacles to the work of domestic politics. […] Whatever the Constitution is, and the 1992 version is excellent in many ways, the bottom line is that the law must be enforced not only on paper. I think that the current changes are the preparation for the future transition of power, the most sensitive issue for authoritarian regimes,” he said.
Political scientist Yuriy Sarukhanyan agrees with him; he believes that the Constitution of 1992 could be amended slightly.
“I think the 1992 Constitution is not outdated, but it could use some renovation.”
He believes that many of the proposed restatements (not innovations, but precisely the concepts that were supplemented and expanded) will be useful. However, the problem is not that the Constitution is outdated but in how its provisions are implemented.
“The laws in Uzbekistan work selectively, at best. Our country has not yet achieved the rule of law, which was proclaimed as one of the main principles of development under Islam Karimov. Therefore, no matter how beautifully the laws, including the Constitution, are written, there will be no positive result until they are put into practice,” Sarukhanyan said.
Now, the reset of presidential terms looks like the most likely reason for changing the Constitution. Based on experience, the amendments in their current form will provide a legal justification for the reset. The only question is whether the authorities will decide to exploit this legal loophole or not, the expert believes.
Meanwhile, the way in which the process of adopting amendments to the Constitution is taking place indicates that the external image (especially in the West) is still important for Uzbekistan, as well as for President Mirziyoyev, who builds a personal image of a reformer.
Now, it is important for the presidential administration to show that these changes are not the President’s initiative but the real will of the people who want to participate in the political life of the country.
“Personally, I have a feeling or, maybe, I am wishful thinking that the issue with resetting the terms has not yet been finally decided by the government. Now, there is an active process of testing public opinion through the expression of personal opinions of individual officials and intra-elite consultations,” Sarukhanyan said.