Interview with prominent opposition leader

Although the five-year civil war ended in 1997, Tajikistan still suffers the legacy of the conflict. The peace agreement between the government and the United Tajik Opposition (UTO) brought relative stability to the country, but the recent constitutional referendum aimed at strengthening the position of incumbent President Emomali Rahmonov has done little to foster reconciliation and accountability. In an interview with IRIN, Mahmadruzi Iskandarov, the leader of the opposition Democratic Party of Tajikistan, called for transparency in the allocation of international aid and warned that growing authoritarianism could destabilise the fragile peace process. QUESTION: What are the most pressing political issues in Tajikistan currently? ANSWER: On the political front we have a lot of demands. There are a lot of things hampering the work of the political parties. The law on mass media needs improvements so that freedom of expression is enhanced. The law on elections needs improvements as well. We have called for all local governments in the districts and villages to be elected and not nominated. The most important thing we are demanding is transparency in the budget and the distribution of resources, especially international aid - it should be spent in a transparent manner. Corruption is destroying our society so we are demanding strict mechanisms to fight corruption. We also feel that for a small and poor country like Tajikistan the law enforcement structures are too large. We need reforms in the security sector as well. Q: Why did your party boycott the constitutional referendum in June? A: The main reason is that following the peace accords in 1997 and the referendum in 1999, we had an understanding that the president would run for one seven-year term, and this was one of the major reasons for making peace. This was also included in the constitution. In this referendum the major changes will give President Rahmonov the possibility of running for two more terms. If a new president is elected after three years in the upcoming presidential elections than we will keep silent. That’s why we boycotted the referendum. We knew that in many polling stations there was cheating. In Dushanbe not more than 20 percent of the city's inhabitants participated in the elections. Q: What will be the long-term consequences of the referendum for the country? A: The referendum will have negative consequences for the country. It is a step backwards. These recent amendments limit the possibilities for candidates in the presidential elections. Under the new laws anyone who has not lived inside Tajikistan for the past 10 years will not be eligible to stand for president. There are many high-ranking officials and senior politicians who were away from Tajikistan for years. Most of the officials in the central election committee were close to the president and they certainly influenced the elections. Q: Could it have an impact on the fragile peace the country currently enjoys? A: The peace process in Tajikistan is fragile because everyone involved in politics here and abroad was hoping for changes after the referendum, but all such hopes were shattered and I understand that the situation will now be more difficult. The head of the Social Democratic Party, Rahmatullah Zairov, who was an adviser to the president, has already resigned. Q: How big a threat is Islamic fundamentalism to peace and stability in Tajikistan? A: Although Tajikistan is an Islamic country, only 10 percent of the electorate voted in favour of the Islamist political groupings such as the Islamic Renaissance Party. The rest of the population are trying to follow non-political Islam. The kind of fundamentalism that you see in neighbouring Afghanistan and Pakistan does not exist here. Hizbu Tahrir, the most radical Islamist group in Central Asia, does not have any following in Tajikistan. Q: After eleven years of independence how would you compare the situation in Tajikistan to other Central Asian nations? A: The immediate post-civil war period in our country was better than any other republic of the former Soviet Central Asia. Every war has negative effects. The war here also caused a lot of misery but wars have positive aspects too, especially in terms of changing from a socialist system to a free market capitalist economy. During the war our people learned to survive on their own.