Бахтиёр Эргашев
резюме
|
Analysis of the possible niche of UNDP and its strategic role in political sphere testify to the followings:
First of all, strategic role of UNDP might enclose the activization of political discussion on problems of “Millennium goals”
All the political forces of various countries can be attracted here. This will create a necessary base for cooperation with political parties and institutions. Namely this will be addressing urgent questions of human development in the agenda of the political parties as well as poverty reduction.
In the second place questions of support of legislative branches of authority (parliaments), encouragement and stimulation of professionalism of its representatives, as well as in whole – study of the international practice of organization of elections and activities of parliaments can be highlighted in the agenda of the UNDP.
In the third place extremely perspective direction of UNDP activity in Central Asia can be the questions of integration in the region, especially- participation in the process of various political powers, including parties. It is urgent, since the issues of integration in the region today attracts a special attention on the agenda of the government of the Central Asian states. Moreover, integration in Central Asia considered as an important chance for improving of living standard of the population and strengthening of human development in whole. At the same time the niche on the given issue is left free of other international donors as for now.
In the fourth place, task of “forming of democratic government” can not be as the objective of the UNDP activity, since it will change the format and the entire strategy of UNDP, and may substantially complicate the work, as well as other spheres of UNDP activity. This will not be beneficial for the government, to the population and UNDP.
As in whole, the most important, UNDP is a unique tool and as of now there are not a lot of international institutions, which have such authority by the governments of developing countries. This authority is based on objectivity, independency and transparency of the activity of UNDP in every country, especially in cooperation with the government.
Because of above mentioned UNDP should not impose its own strategies to the government. UNDP is not a world bank or IMF. UN DP should be especially cautious in the political spheres, especially in activities with opposition parties. Considering the specifics of the developing countries, it is easy to loose earned UNDP authority and trust of local authorities and at the same time not to earn a new authority. In the upshot refusal from elective support of any political parties and holding back from imposing recipes- forms and maintains the UNDP authority.
As an example of necessity for development of flexible strategy of UNDP in various countries we can examine Uzbekistan. Examining the current situation of political party development in Uzbekistan, it is necessary to point out the followings:
1. Political parties as a democratic institutions are on the stage of development and self-identification;
2. They are organizationally and financially weak;
3. As a result, they do not have any influence on development of political processes in the country.
This picture will not be complete if we do not look at it as in dynamic.
In examining the processes of developing political parties in the country, in dynamics, we can notice that there are institutional bases for their development.
If till 2004 in Uzbekistan there was a single-chamber parliament active, where 250 deputies were working sessionaly and worked over a legislative project for about 5 to 6 days in a year, now the situation is cardinally changing.
In December of 2004 there will be parliamentary elections held. As a result there will be double-chamber parliament formed, where the lower chamber- Legislative chamber (130 deputies) will be working constantly, in other words there will be a professional corpus of deputies formed in the country, that will be constantly working in the parliament. And here the role of UNDP will be really important, since there will arise few problematic knots, where in solution of them UNDP might find its niche.
1. Parliament control over activity of the state is not completely developed;
2. Existing majoritarian election system, when the deputies from the party are elected not based on their political list, but elected in every electoral district independently, and that complicates development of political parties.
For the reasons mentioned above it is necessary switch to a mixed electoral system, were half of the deputies are elected in mandate districts, and the other half is elected based on the party list. At the same time in strategic perspective it is necessary to underline the necessity of transition of deputy election based on party list, because only this will provide a base for effective political party.
In particular at this point UNDP may be a neutral power- where it can help parties, society as well as the government initiating the process of social discussion on this question, holding expertise of local legislation and ensuring opportunity to study foreign experience of electoral process organization for parties and state authorities.
Accordingly, the strategy and entire UNDP activity on support of state initiated reforms in political sphere, by not confronting the legislation of every state, will ensure effective dialogue between UNDP and political parties, provide leading role to UNDP in the process of development of noncompetitive political parties, in whole- atmosphere and bases for their functioning in the constitutional frameworks of every state.
The main ally of the UNDP in enforcement of the political parties must be the state, not other players in the political arena. Only at that case UNDP will save its authority and niche in support of holding reforms.
The most important is that UNDP cannot play the role of mediator between government and political parties, as well as the role of mediator between government and other “players”. Particularly UNDP cannot lose itself playing to long with some political powers. And no “player” and no “game” will not contribute to the advancement of the role of UNDP as a “partner” for the state.
Bakhtiyor Ergashev, Vladimir Paramonov
Center on Economic Research,
Tashkent, Uzbekistan. |
.gif){kind=logo}
