“What is elsewhere a riot of discord is here a device for registering unanimity. In other countries the sovereign electors choose their own governors. In Russia they ratify their governors’ choice”.

This remark was made by H.N. Brasilford in his book How the Soviets Work in 1927, but there is every reason to suspect that the same logic could apply to the local elections being planned in Turkmenistan for 23 July.
As News Central Asia reports, the Central Elections Committee in Ashgabat convened recently to discuss the procedure for nationwide elections to the Gengesh, which are the main self-government administrative units in Turkmen towns and cities. According to recent report featured on the Turkmen state channel:

“Polling stations have been provided with everything necessary for the campaign, including reference books, office equipment, communications means and so forth. The delivery of glass ballot boxes, which will be used for the first time, is also well under way. They are intended to ensure a high level of transparency of elections in line with requirements of international norms.”

In advance of the vote, regional electoral commissions have been formed over the previous months in line with resolutions adopted at the most recent session of the Khalk Maslahaty, or People’s Council.
There are a total of 625 Gengeshes in Turkmenistan’s five velyats - 116 of these are situated in the Ahal Velyat, 58 in the Balkan Velyat, 142 in the Dashoguz Velyat, 143 in the Lebap Velyat and 166 the in Mary Velyat. Meanwhile, there is a total number of 5,322 electoral constituencies set up for the upcoming local election is, of which 4,550 are located in villages, 686 in townships, and 86 in districts towns.
Also in preparation for the elections, a delegation of Turkmen politicians visited Sweden on a fact-finding mission organised by UNICEF to gain some insight into the work of councils and municipalities at the local level in Sweden, according to a report on Turkmenistan.ru.

“A delegation of Turkmen MPs … recently returned from Stockholm to Ashgabat. The delegation consisted of deputy speaker of the Mejlis of Turkmenistan, members of the parliamentary committees on economy and social policy, on the protection of human rights and freedom and on working with the gengeshes.
< …>
Members of the delegation have been shown the work of municipalities and councils of districts at local and regional levels in the Swedish association of local authorities.”

Some surprise was caused some weeks ago when Hudayberdy Orazov and Nurmuhammed Hanamov, representatives of the opposition Watan Social Political Movement and the Republican Party of Turkmenistan respectively, signed a statement appearing on the watan.ru website stating the readiness to engage in the electoral process earmarked for July. They expressed their willingness to nominate candidates in all constituencies while appealing to the authorities to allow equal access to all contestants in the poll. However, while stating their desire to engage in the political process of electioneering, Orazov and Hanamov also called for the international community no to take the outcome of the polls at face value:

“The international community should also not recognize the results of the elections in order to avoid being a passive participant in the lawlessness [in Turkmenistan]. Leaders elected in this way would fail to represent the Turkmen people.
We are ready to take part in an active political process in the country, and we state that elections are the only way to determine the political preferences of voters. We intend to conduct our political campaign peacefully and let the people decide themselves whom to elect at polling stations.”

The limited drive for democratisation is perhaps more reminiscent of the Saudi Arabian local elections held last year than the Soviet local elections alluded to in the introduction. The distinction that may or may not become clear as soon as the elections take place is the extent to which the polls are designed as a response to a modernising social impulse that requires an adequate, albeit limited, democratising effort on the part of the authorities or, alternatively, a fraudulent mechanism designed to artificially legitimise the regime’s standing. By all accounts, the Saudi elections were a relatively vibrant affair, resulting in a genuinely dynamic campaigning process. It is unrealistic to hope that a similar situation will replicate itself in Turkmenistan, but the hope nonetheless remains that the elections will not be a reprisal of Soviet custom, which often meant that most contests only saw single candidates, making a mockery of the entire exercise. The authoritarian nature of President Saparmurat Niyazov’s government is such that the elections will not serve to create debate over issues over public policy or the provision of choice, so the success (real or otherwise) of the elections may depend to a great degree upon the extent of Turkmen citizens’ responsiveness to nominally democratic structures.
The cultivation of a democratic culture, even in a grotesquely manipulated form, would come as some relief, especially in view of Freedom House’s recent publication of its 2006 Nations in Transit report on Turkmenistan, which saw democracy rating slipping yet further from 2005, from 6.93 to 6.96. Considering that 7.00 is the lowest rating one can get on the scale, the news comes as unwelcome. Furthermore, a Freedom House press release accompanying the report suggests that the growing strategic value of energy resources is serving to hamper the development of democratic institutions across nations in transition. Consequently, the conduct of the July elections may serve as an invaluable indicator of what limited opportunities the Turkmen people may soon have in making their voice heard.