The majority of the population in the country is favourable to the adoption of the new version of the Constitution, stating that many citizens’ proposals have been taken into account. However, those who had hoped for a continuation of democratic reforms are disappointed with the subsequent developments, believing that the main objective was to extend the term of office of the incumbent president.
The referendum on amending the constitution in Uzbekistan was held on April 30. Observers noted a high turnout of 84.54 percent, with 90.21 percent of the population voting in favor of all amendments. According to media reports, 65 percent of the text of the country’s constitution was updated.
Approved novelties to the law included bans on the death penalty and forced child labor, expanded social guarantees, responsibility for interfering with the media, and other innovations that were well received by the population.
For example, Professor Ikhtiyor Bekov, a lecturer at Tashkent State Law University, welcomes the granting of special status to teachers and educators, indicating that the state intends to improve the quality of education.
“The quality of education cannot be ensured without a teacher who is content with life and has up-to-date knowledge. For this, it is necessary to take care of the social and material well-being of the teacher, to put his respect in place,” Bekov said.
The new norm is designed to take comprehensive measures to prevent unwarranted interference by state agencies and other organizations in the activities of schools and teachers, not to allow humiliation of teachers and violation of their rights when they are forced to perform various unnecessary duties that interfere with the educational process, he said.
Meanwhile, some experts believe that the main purpose of the referendum was to create a legislative basis for a longer tenure of President Shavkat Mirziyoyev. According to amendments to Article 90, that term was changed from five to seven years.
Temur Umarov, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment, believes that the main purpose of the constitutional amendments was to reduce Mirziyoyev’s term to zero and allow him to remain in power as long as possible, namely until 2042.
“The fact that the authorities teach the current amendments as another step towards reforms or say that without changing the Basic Law it is impossible to carry out reforms further is, of course, a great deception,” he said.
According to Umarov, if the country’s leadership were really interested in reforms, the amendments would look completely different.
“For example, we could see changes to the constitution that would regulate the responsibility of the president, expand the powers of parliament, ensure the independence of the courts and prevent anyone from increasing their terms. All that is being served up now under the guise of reforms is just copying existing legislation from the codes into the Constitution. Thus, the Constitution has been expanded and now it seems that it guarantees absolutely everything in the world, but in reality this is not the case,” he says.
Political scientist Yuri Sarukhanyan, an expert in international relations, believes that some amendments to the Constitution are aimed more at the international arena to improve the country’s image, Sarukhanyan believes.
“When Mirziyoyev came to power in 2016, all of his reforms were aimed at improving the country’s image before international organizations, financial institutions, to improve Uzbekistan’s position in various ratings and indices and to get the country out of blacklists, including the cotton boycott, which has been abolished. Many points do not have to be in the Constitution, they are more regulations. But such a message is sent to the outside public: the Constitution can now be invoked when appealing to the courts. Freedom of speech is guaranteed, and protection of human rights is a priority.” – says Sarukhanyan.
But the main problem is how to make all the guarantees in the Constitution work in practice. After all, the old version also had many positive points, but they didn’t work in practice, he believes.
“The only problem with the Constitution is, will it work? And will it really become the Basic Law? Despite the fact that the guarantees of freedom of the media, freedom of conscience, the concept of a secular state, the right to hold peaceful rallies, the imposition of any religion is prohibited, the amendments regarding Karakalpakstan were not adopted, we remember that the old version was only a political tool to zero in on Karimov’s term. Considering that the laws in the country work selectively, my attitude is skeptical”, he said.
Human rights activist, Dilfuza Kurolova also believes that the old Constitution was also well-written, but it was not always respected.
“Some of the changes in the Constitution are positive and perhaps such reform was needed. But I think the old Constitution was written well enough, too. The main thing is to make it all work and really enforce it,” she said.
Experts also draw attention to the fact that in the new wording, Article 118 of the new Constitution gives the President more powers over the Parliament and the appointment of the Prime Minister.
“Previously, the article of the Constitution was worded as follows: ‘the president proposes’ and ‘parliament considers’. Now it uses a different verb, ‘ma’qullash’, which means ‘approves’ in Uzbek. Consequently, the role of parliament is reduced to approving, which may lead to a distortion of its functions. In theory, parliament now has even fewer tools to influence the executive branch,” Umarov said.
Yuri Sarukhanyan believes that the current wording significantly changes the role of political parties.
“The previous provision, albeit on paper, implied motivation for political parties to fight for the majority, forcing them to form coalitions to appoint the head of the government at a certain point. This is no longer the case,” said Sarukhanyan.
Meanwhile, some analysts say that such a scenario, when presidents change the Constitution to suit their own ambitions, was quite predictable, and one should not expect anything different from the current authorities of Uzbekistan.
“More negativity goes to changing the presidential term and possibly zeroing out the presidential term of the current head of state. I understand these fears, because this has happened more than once in Uzbekistan and in neighboring CIS countries,” said Kurolova.
Another analyst in Tashkent, who did not want to advertise it, said it was not worth expecting Uzbekistan to become as democratic as Western countries overnight and build an advanced electoral system.
“We gladly accepted the reforms that began in Uzbekistan with the arrival of President Shavkat Mirziyoyev to power. However, we need to understand that Uzbekistan is still a post-Soviet country, and Mirziyoyev is a descendant of this old system. That is to say, expecting democratic reforms in Uzbekistan in that form is silly, to say the least. The very fact that the Uzbek authorities make concessions and take into account the votes of their population when discussing amendments (for example, they were removed on Karakalpakstan) is already an achievement in itself,” he said.
The main task now is not to allow the country to slide towards total authoritarianism, as it was under Karimov.
Immediately after the referendum, President Shavkat Mirziyoyev signed a decree calling an early election for a new president, scheduled for July 9 this year. At present, four candidates have already been nominated, including himself.