«What are we voting for?»

That was the question I heard most frequently while working as an observer during the October 21 referendum.

The referendum proposed changes to the wording of the Constitution and changes to the voting code of the Kyrgyz Republic. But hardly half the voters at the polling district I observed understood this.

«Who are we voting for? Who is the best one?» some old women asked.

I was one of about 190 students from Bishkek universities who had been trained by the social association «Taza Shailoo» to be observers during the referendum. My trainers had said: «There are no personal interests in this referendum — it’s not like elections for seats in the Jogorku Kinesh or for the president. There won’t be any big violations.»

They were wrong.

According to the official results, more than 75 percent of voters supported the changes to the constitution, which was read as a vote of support for President Kurmanbek Bakiyev, who proposed them. But what I saw suggested that those results were questionable and that support for the president was not so strong. I would say that the referendum was a well-played performance — theater.

It’s not only student-observers who have questioned the legitimacy of the referendum. The head of the OSCE Centre in Bishkek said he was concerned about reports of ballot box stuffing, obstructing observers, and other «irregularities.» The U. S. Embassy in Bishkek has issued a press stating that the referendum «did not meet international standards.»

Voters I saw were angry with Bakiyev’s government. When I approached two old women who’d been standing inside the polling place for a long time, I found that they were writing a letter to Bakiyev. Later, during the canvass, it turned out they were asking him to reduce corruption and the prices of bread and butter — they were begging him to make their lives a little bit better.

Other people were more aggressive. They yelled insults about Bakiyev and his government. Some even accused members of the election committee of lying.

I saw sleepy students arriving, fresh from their dormitories, as early as 6 a.m. They kept coming until about 8 p.m. It was clear that their teachers and supervisors had brought them.

I saw older people, who had gotten used to voting during Soviet times, arriving to cast their ballots because it was their civic duty. Many of them didn’t understand what was going on. Some of them were even surprised that they had two choices, rather than just one, as in Soviet elections.

I saw drunken people who said they’d come for the «holiday» and that they were 100 percent sure how they would vote. The same people who gave them their vodka probably gave them their political opinions.

What I saw was nothing compared to what other observers told me they’d witnessed at their polling districts. They said people tried to play tricks on them to keep them from watching the ballot boxes. People suggested they take breaks, get something to eat, or have some vodka «just to get warm.»

The most egregious violations that other observers told me about included: turning the lights off and then throwing ballots marked «yes» onto the table where all the ballots were being counted; and physically expelling observers from polling places for «excessive curiosity.»

Although official reports claimed that 80 percent of registered voters cast ballots in the referendum, our observations at the polling places suggest that less than half that many voters participated. That raises the question: where did all the extra ballots come from?

The saddest thing happened after the referendum. When I interviewed other observers, they refused to give their names. Someone had intimidated them. Even my good friends among the observers would not give me information about this frightful «theater.»

The violations that we observed on October 21 were just one part of the problem with referendum. Don’t forget: voters were only given 38 days to make their decisions. Also, there were other fine points and artful actions by Bakiyev’s government that tainted the election but are hard to explain and even harder to prove.

In the end, I’d say that by serving as an observer during the referendum, I got a rich experience and 616 soms. But the main thing I gained was a piece of the truth about our «democracy.»