Photo by Efrem Lukatsky, Andijan, May, 13, 2005

Pulat Ahunov, one of the leaders of the People's Movement of Uzbekistan Birlik, does not think that revolutions hold much promise for his native country. The following exclusive analysis is Ahunov's personal opinion and not a party manifesto or something. If the prominent opposition leader's point of view foments debates, Ferghana.Ru will be happy to publish polar opinions.

***

"Storm warning" has been issues in the Uzbek opposition. "Renegades" suspected of collaboration with "Islam Karimov's criminal regime" are admonished and told to be wary, provisional alliances, committees, and commissions established, Karimov's overthrow promised. All of that is fomented by the presidential election expected later this year.

Whose example to follow

Some activists are seething with rage and hate. Vengeance is all they can think of. Promising Uzbekistan the Iraqi scenario and Karimov the lot of Saddam Hussein, they view themselves as would-be Nuri al-Malikis or Jalal Talabanis (prime minister and president of Iraq). Iraq in the meantime should be serving as an example of what turn of events must be avoided.

Unfortunately, founders of what they call a "new Iraq" have chosen the way of violence and revenge. Hussein's execution and its manner prove beyond the shadow of doubt that national reconciliation is one thing Iraq can forget about. Triumphant winners are feasting. They are about to "weigh their swords on the scales" and strong-arm the defeated (Hussein's followers - the Sunni and enemies of the American occupation) into obedience. Violence remains the principal means - nothing has changed since Hussein. It is just that Hussein and his regime were using violence against the Kurds and Shiah. The war has turned the tables.

Showdowns between "new" Iraq's supporters and enemies result in daily casualties among noncombatants. Needless to say, every warring side maintains that it is acting in the best interests of the Iraqi people. Violence breeds violence, vengeance sparks vengeance in retaliation. Is that a kind of future we want for Uzbekistan? Is this an example we should follow?

As I see it, we'd better follow a different example, the one set by the world's most famous and respected politician who spent 26 years in prisons and, when finally released, chose not to exact vengeance. Moreover, once he became the head of state, he did everything in his power to reconcile the warring sides. He is Nelson Mandela, President of the South African Republic. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission established on his initiative averted violence and civil war in the country. Pieter Willem Botha, one of the cruellest presidents of the South African Republic, was not even jailed. He died at 90 in his own bed on October 30, 2006.

It is from Mandela that we should learn the art of forgetting old grievances in the name of the people. I'm writing it because the opposition leaders and activists remind me of kids in a sandbox. "I will do everything for the people, but do not ask me to work with this or that person!" Or "I will never go for a dialogue or compromise with Karimov's regime". What's the use of this uncompromising attitude? What does it benefit the Uzbek people?

Uncompromising attitude is extolled as the highest virtue nowadays. It is shown off, it is admired, and pampered. This "rejection of compromises" is particularly comfortable for the opposition leaders living abroad. They are convinced that they are the focus of global politics. It never even occurs to them that they are virtual politicians and that nobody in Uzbekistan knows of their existence. Not one of them will ever summon the guts to given an honest answer to a simple question. What has this irreconcilable stand accomplished? Has it made life easier for the people opposition leaders are so fond of holding forth on?

It is human rights activists who should brook no compromises. Politics is different. It is about searching for all available ways and means to accomplish the objective. The time has come to do away with distrust and animosity within the opposition itself - for the sake of national reconciliation, for the sake of the future of the people. The time has come to start preparing for constructive cooperation with all forces of Uzbek society including the government.

Democrats do not aspire for the single-handed privilege of determining the future of the country. In the meantime, they must exert influence with society so as to set Uzbekistan on the path of the reforms and renovation. Fomenting hostility between the powers-that-be and the opposition, concentrating on confrontation and prosecution of political enemies, splitting the country into "us" and "them" will be a gross mistake. A mistake that will never be forgiven.

Radicals' tactic

To avoid mistakes, we should reconsider the methods of the opposition and choose our path. Before doing so, however, let us define the goals of the opposition.

Strategic (long-term) aims are more or less clear. They come down to establishment of a democracy where the law reigns supreme, with free market economy, division of powers, freedom of the media, and so on - everything listed in programs of the opposition.

Problems crop up with the tactic of the opposition. Logically speaking, it is the long-term objectives that determine the tactical means of their accomplishment. Here is a paradox: the objectives are proclaimed, but the Uzbek opposition remains in the dark as to the means of accomplishing them.

No, the Uzbek opposition is not passive. It is monitoring human rights abuses in Uzbekistan. Using media outlets, it criticizes the erroneous actions of the government and president. By doing so, it attracts the attention of the international community to the situation in the republic and thus puts the authorities under pressure. Not without success. The authorities do fall back every now and then. They release some prisoners and abandon fabricated criminal cases to appease foreign general public (not Uzbek!).

The opposition should continue doing what it has been doing. In the meantime, it is a vicious circle: the authorities imprison someone - the opposition makes a fuss - the authorities release the prisoners. History repeats itself afterwards as it has been doing for the last fourteen years. The opposition never acts. It reacts. Can this tactic bring the strategic objective close, that of establishment of democracy? I do not think that it can.

Some opposition leaders and activists believe that the powers-that-be will grow tired of international pressure one fine day and permit parties of the opposition. Life has shown us that these are vain hopes. The rigorous political regime was loosened some only once - and for the reasons the opposition did not have anything to do with. The Uzbek authorities shut their eyes to the opposition and its activities when Uzbekistan joined the counter-terrorism coalition and signed the Strategic Partnership Treaty with the United States.

This loosening of the regime enabled opposition leaders to convene conferences and congresses. Birlik [Unity] was given a chance to collect the signatures required for registration. (Signatures were collected but registration was denied all the same.) Quite modest a result of international pressure, isn't it? but a part of the opposition remains hopeful even now.

Let us now try and imagine a situation where the opposition is permitted by a miracle to return to Uzbekistan and work legally. It stands to reason to expect parties of the opposition to concentrate then on their ultimate objective - that of coming to power.

This turn of events stipulates two options. Mass protest actions (peaceful, of course) are one of them. Opposition leaders make speeches exposing the policy of the authorities as absolutely inadequate and condemning the authoritarian regime for having made paupers of the population of the country. Protest actions sweep the country. Backed by the population, the democratic opposition demands resignation of the leadership and organization of early parliamentary and presidential elections. Needless to say, its representatives come in first in both campaigns.

This is how (or approximately how) some opposition leaders fancy the developments. But surely, that's not all. This turn of events requires that certain conditions are met:

a. actions of the opposition should be coordinated;

b. democratic opposition needs a single leader;

c. the people should respond to the calls for mass protest actions;

d. democratic opposition should see to it that peaceful actions do not degenerate into violence; and

e. the opposition must prevent religious extremists from seizing the initiative in protest actions, or these peaceful rallies or whatever will deteriorate into an armed revolt of the Islamic opposition.

There is more. How will the authorities respond to the actions of the opposition? Will they permit the opposition to carry out its plans and designs? The authorities control the police, army, and National Security Service. What will they do when protest actions begin? Will police officers and servicemen of the regular army stand aside when protest actions are under way? Do not forget that street protests in whatever form are banned in Uzbekistan.

In fact, the list of the conditions is actually longer than that. Only opposition leaders in their Ivory Tower may think that this is how they will accomplish their mission. Particularly since it is common knowledge that:

- the opposition lacks a single leader, and some of its activists hate others more than they hate the president;

- democratic opposition is not organized, it is scanty and divided;

- democratic opposition and its leaders have never arranged a single joint action in all fourteen years, and failed even to set up any coordination, much less cooperation;

- the opposition lacks a program of dealing with the economic crisis, it does not know who should be elevated to the future government; what staff potential it has remains a mystery to the opposition itself; and

- since they have never participated in the political life of the country (or practically never which is essentially one and the same thing), opposition activists lack the political or organizational experience in running state structures.

Ergo: this is an Utopia. Following this path means pushing the country into chaos and disintegration. This path is suicidal for the democratic opposition and fatal for the democratic future of Uzbekistan.

Is it any wonder then that the authorities fear the return (legalization) of the opposition precisely because they anticipate this turn of events? What shall the opposition do therefore, what path should it choose?

What should be done

All things considered (weakness, lack of organization, paucity of the opposition), power struggle is definitely beyond out reach at this point. The opposition should concentrate instead on exerting what influence it can summon with establishment of civil society in Uzbekistan.

Choice of the correct path requires that we take the state of affairs in the country into account. The last fifteen years saw establishment of a system in Uzbekistan that involves thousands and thousands and includes regional and republican groups with their own financial and economic interests. There are lots of wealthy man making money even now. A whole new generation of the youths has never heard anything about the opposition. This generation has its own values and ideals. Will these people back the opposition that is going to prosecute them for their living standards, ability to make money, and service to the government and president?

We should recognize two truths. First: the situation being what it is, the opposition is not ready to assume state power. Second: the situation being what it is, chances that the opposition will be permitted to be installed as the new powers-that-be are non-existent. Once these hard facts of life are recognized, the opposition should reconsider its priorities and slogans. Power struggle as the first priority should be abandoned in the name of diligent and painstaking work on civil society establishment.

Legalization of the democratic opposition in Uzbek politics must become number one priority and objective. Aspiring for legitimacy, we should remain the opposition. Cooperating with the authorities in strategic matters, the opposition should retain the right to constructive criticism of the regime. Emphasis should be shifted from the struggle against the government to the struggle - side by side with all political forces - for doing away with impoverishment on the national scale.

Democrats' new policy will eventually do away with the distrust and animosity between the powers-that-be and the opposition. It will offer the opposition a chance to show to the people and authorities that the opposition are normal and sane people and not some bunch of conspirators obsessed with the idea to topple the regime. It is possible for the opposition to prove that the powers-that-be and it can and should co-exist. It is possible for the opposition to prove that there is more to it than banal criticism of everything that comes to mind. It is possible for the opposition to prove its ability to work and contribute. Along with everything else, it will enable the opposition to nurse its own personnel and to acquaint the population with what the opposition is really about. Let voters themselves decide then whether or not the opposition is to be trusted.

This is the second possible option. New slogans and methods will require certain organizational work of course. It is common knowledge that the opposition is mostly concentrated in Tashkent. There are few, if any, members of the opposition in districts and kishlaks. That is why the opposition does not - actually cannot - wield any clout with the authorities. It follows that recruitment of new activists is a must. This is where new slogans may attract whoever sympathizes with the opposition on the one hand but refuses to risk his own life and lives of his relatives for the sake of radical policy of the opposition bent on confrontation.

I'm aware of the futility of appealing to the radical and uncompromising democrats who have already proclaimed their readiness and determination to fight for power. Blinded by hatred, they will never heed any arguments. This is where out paths split. Radicals want upheavals and turnovers. We want a democratic Uzbekistan.

***

Pulat Ahunov is a former deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Deputy Chairman of the People's Movement of Uzbekistan Birlik, he is a citizen of Uzbekistan.