Parliamentary elections in Chechnya
On
November 27, a new parliament was elected in Chechnya.
For the Russian and Chechen governments, these elections
represent the last stage of a post-conflict political
normalization process. However, many observers in Chechnya
and around the word have criticized the elections as
neither free nor fair.
A report by the International
Helsinki Federation, plus an exclusive interview
with Anatol
Lieven and news coverage
from around the world |
| |
"My
own response to these elections would be to welcome
them, but very, very cautiously, with many qualifications
and criticism. It's a much smaller step than what
we hoped for." |
| Read
the entire interview with
Anatol Lieven, senior fellow at the
New America Foundation |
|
The
parliamentary elections on November 27 were the first in
eight years; Chechnya's last parliament, elected during
the interwar, de-facto independent period, disintegrated
in the turmoil that preceded the start of the second war
in 1999. Since the Russian government and its Chechen allies
reestablished control over Chechnya, they have governed
without a parliament; indeed, parliamentary elections were
meant to complete the process of political "normalization"
that the Kremlin has designed.
Criticism by NGOs
While
the steps taken, i.e. a constitutional referendum, presidential
elections and now parliamentary elections, closely mirror
post-conflict transition periods elsewhere, they are, according
to Russian and Chechen human rights organizations, a "farce".
Several Russian human rights organizations did not monitor
the vote. Russian NGOs and local observers point to the
huge discrepancies between official turn-out figures and
those reported by journalists on the ground, to the wave
of illegal arrests and disappearances in the months before
the election and the sense that the outcome, including the
seats won by opposition candidates (the ruling United Russia
party won 60% per cent, while the Communist won about 12%
and the Union of Rightist Forces 10%; the remaining parties
did not win enough votes to be represented in parliament)
was fixed. Some analysts argue that an imposed political
process will never bring peace if there are no overtures
to those who still fight, while others characterize the
power of Chechnya's strongman, deputy prime minister Ramzan
Kadyrov, as the main obstacle to peace and democracy. A
coalition of human rights groups, including the International
Helsinki Federation and Memorial,
has published an extensive report before the elections entitled
"In a Climate of Fear" (download
here).
Cautious
optimism by the international community
Some Western analysts and Western governments have been
less critical in their evaluation. There appears to be great
relief that the elections were not disrupted by violence.
The European Commission and the British presidency of the
European Council expressed cautious optimism about the peaceful
holding of the elections, but did not comment on the outcome.
The most nuanced remarks came from PACE rapporteur on Chechnya
Andreas Gross, who, referring to Ramzan Kadyrov and his
presidential guard, stated that the real power in Chechnya
was not legitimate and was creating a climate of fear, but
that Chechens nonetheless hoped that the parliament would
improve the situation. In his interview with CAN, long-time
Chechnya observer and author of "Chechnya. Tombstone
of Russian Power" Anatol Lieven argues that the elections
were not that different from the flawed and violent polls
in places like Afghanistan or Iraq (read
the entire interview).
Further
reading
For
additional news and analysis, including local reporters
for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, an interview
with Robert Bruce Ware and articles by local analyst Nabi
Abdullaev, go to the elections special in our
news section.
|
