 |
|
 |
Karimov has created opposition – Abutov and Salih -in his image and likeness |
By Galima Bukharbaeva, Editor-in-Chief
The last fig leave from the body of the People’s Movement of Uzbekistan has been stripped of by Muhammadsolih Abutov, one of the movement’s leaders and the head of his own Tayanch (Support) organisation.
On 18 April he emailed a selection of porn pictures to me. They were assembled using my photos taken from my account on the odnoclassniki.ru social networking site.
Imam Abutov, who once told me in an interview that he wanted a European-style democracy, but with “higher morals”, joked vulgarly:
“I have accidentally come across your photos. And I have no idea why you needed to show your ‘charms’ to everyone. It is not decent! Everyone is saying everything [about you] now. But you know better,” he wrote with grammar mistakes.
The depictions of its opponent naked and in the most obscene poses came as if the People’s Movement of Uzbekistan was trying to put it uniquely – this is “our response to Chamberlain”.
But there is only one difference that the leaders of the movement, who are so proud of their religiosity, have outdone the finger gesture of the commie workers of 1927.
Abutov’s stunts was preceded by the movement’s statement with accusations and threats aimed at Uznews.net that is not worthy of any critique and the movement’s leader Muhammad Salih’s refusal to discuss them in public debates suggested by the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Uzbek Service (Radio Ozodlik).
The situation that has resulted in the dispersion of the movement’s claims to be democratic and civilised has not been planned by anyone but it has emerged logically: one cannot expect liberalism, fine politics and strategically deliberated steps from opposition leaders because they do not posses relevant qualities.
Credit of trust
Muhammad Salih and many other opponents or victims of Uzbek President Islam Karimov’s dictatorship have acquired a reputation and status of fighters for freedoms and democracy, as they say, by default.
They were on the opposite side of the barricades that automatically made them better, more honest, more liberal and more democratic than the rulers in Tashkent.
And there has been no chance to test their convictions, ideas and principles in real life.
Karimov’s opponents are either languishing in prison or are dead, or are in exile all over the world, facing isolation which has resulted in their being out of public control and scrutiny.
It is possible that Salih, who is a national politician, should have long been preserved in a museum of history: his ideas about independence and the status of the Uzbek language have already been implemented, and he does not have new ones.
However, the persecution of Salih and his family by Karimov and no opportunity for the emergence of new politicians in the country have ensured that Salih remains in politics with him putting minimum efforts for this.
The worse the situation has become in Uzbekistan, the more beautiful and attractive Salih has looked. And even if someone noticed his problems, they simply shrugged saying there were no-one else around.
Authoritarian Islamic democrat
Many critics of Muhammad Salih accuse him of leading the Erk party for the past two years single-handedly and compare him to irreplaceable Islam Karimov.
Actually, the length of term does not matter. South Africa and the whole world are grateful to Nelson Mandela for leading the anti-apartheid movement for decades, of which he had spent 27 years in prison.
The freedom-loving Burmese people are obliged to Aung San Suu Kyi for leading their way to freedom for the past 23 years, symbolising another Burma despite being under house arrest.
But Muhammad Salih is neither Nelson Mandela nor Aung San Suu Kyi. He is not even Ayatollah Khomeini who led the Iranian revolution against the Iranian shah from his base in Paris in 1979 – this role may rather be claimed by imam Obid-kori Nazarov.
Muhammad Salih tries to position himself as both democrat and Islamist, seeking followers and resources in both camps which, from the point of view of political science, results in nothing.
As one cannot be partially pregnant, so Salih should not claim adherence to a certain religious dogma and democracy at one time because one rules out the other.
Religion is not compatible with other ideas. It is claims to truth which should be taken on faith that make it religion, while democracy opens up a field for everything, including for the overthrow and ridicule of any idols.
That is why in democratic secular countries religion is separated from state, but some people are given all religious rights, while others enjoy the right to reject religion and its dogma.
Opposition leaders and freedom
Russian dissident Valeriya Novodvorskaya flatly rejects any pact between liberals and communists, fascists and Islamists.
She does not tire to repeat that history has repeatedly taught that, after coming to power, they first hang democrats and then unleash ideological terror clinging to power.
“Democracy cannot take root there where there is no equality even in elementary gender terms,” she said in an interview with the Ekho Moskvy radio, commenting on the 2011 protests in Bahrain and Yemen.
The People’s Movement of Uzbekistan is categorical about the issue of women: the opposition led by Salih do not consider women as equals.
The best example of their view on women is their film “People’s Voice”, which shows women as sexual objects who are capable of only roaming from one man’s bed to another’s depending on their wealth.
When I last saw Salih in October 2009 at an opposition meeting in Brussels where they united into the 13May Union, discussing my article about Nazarov’s life in Sweden, he said the imam should not get offended because “it does not matter what a woman may write”.
The same day he reprimanded my 44-year old colleague, Kudrat Babajanov, for drinking beer with me.
Freedom of speech
The People’s Movement of Uzbekistan’s lack of understanding of the role and functions of journalism is a separate topic.
Salih wants independent press to serve him and present him as a hero all the time – this, he believes, is a journalist’s objectivity and neutrality.
He and his followers do not understand that journalists have a right to look at things critically and decide who they want to cover and analyse, assess and discuss their statements and deeds and inaction from all angles.
Because their opposition to even the Karimov regime does not automatically make them the ones who would bring better times to the country or politicians for whom I, for example, would want to vote for.
The opposition should convince me and other voters that they are the ones who would rule the country better. But the movement has so far showed that they could not be better.
In a statement against Uznews.net the movement made many accusations, but they mainly concern one thing that journalists dared to raise certain topics and publicise opinions of, in this case, Mutabar Tajibayeva.
Lack of political skills
The situation in which Salih ended up after human rights activist Elena Urlayeva was admitted to mental hospital in Tashkent after returning from Turkey where she was hosted by Salih and adopted Islam could have been played differently had he had any idea about politics and techniques of working with public opinion.
What Salih did was he attacked the publication that covered the events surrounding Urlayeva and made a statement on the admission of the activist to mental hospital that smacked of grudge and humiliation.
Salih got offended and he complained that his house was not a catacomb and despicably told the whole world that he had bought shoes for Elena.
A wise politician would have behaved differently.
He should have said that neither he nor his wife had nothing to do with Urlayeva’s insanity, and should have expressed sincere support for the human rights activist and genuinely wished her to recover soon.
After that he should have demanded immediate access of the Tashkent office of the International Committee of the Red Cross to her and an independent examination. And nothing more!
Refusal to debate
Salih’s inability to find political compromises, enter discussion and convince people answering their questions and paying attention to their concerns is being talked now by everyone but lazy.
His refusal to debate with me on the Ozodlik radio, above all, means the following:
Muhammad Salih represents a cohort of politicians of the old guard who do not think about the behaviour of politicians in the modern world, especially in a democratic society.
Politicians in a debate show their respect for voters first of all. They aim at the listener and try to convince them of their correctness, and make an impression with their bravery and wisdom and openness.
For genuine politicians a debate is a present thanks to which Salih could have improved his approval rating which was shaken after the Urlayeva case.
Obviously, Salih does not need it. He would not convince people – he would conquer them with weapons. In an interview with the BBC Russian Service on 16 April, Salih said that he did not rule out an armed fight against the regime. He was ready to spill people’s blood, so why would he need their support and sympathy?
Better nothing than like this
Muhammad Salih has a group of supporters who day and night repeat that thanks to him Uzbekistan may claim that it has an opposition.
Russian politician Irina Khakamada, commenting on a wave of protests in Russia ahead of the March presidential election, positively assessed the lack of a united opposition leader in Russia.
She said that this leader was about to appear somewhere and that politicians like Boris Nemtsov, Vladimir Ryzhkov and Mikhail Kasyanov should step aside not to hinder this leader because so much, including negative, is associated with their names.
A ballast of the past would still prevent Boris Nemtsov and others from getting power, Khakamada believes, but the fact that they remain in the first rows of the opposition would prevent new actors from emerging.
Asked why these people did not leave the stage, Khakamada said: “Vanity is hindering this, while pride is one of the seven deadly sins.”
Asked whether she would consider returning to politics, she said: “No, no, I cannot return but I am ready to help and consult, but I have to retire.”
All this is correct regarding Muhammad Salih too. A powerful protest wave following the May 2005 Andijan bloodshed and many people in the West who offered assistance to the opposition were sucked by him as a hoover and then drowned in his two-decade thick dust.
Media role
Some independent media outlets have provided tribune to opposition leaders for the past many years.
Their attachment to Salih is explained by many factors, for example some journalists were members of Erk and still sympathise with their former leader, others do not see an alternative to him.
But my colleagues should ask themselves about the purpose they are serving – whether they should relay truth and objective information to their readers and listeners or whether they should support any opposition just for attacking and criticising the Karimov regime or whether they should obey a feeling of some loyalty.
They should not present a person who has backward views, for example, about women’s rights and striking half of the population out of public life, as a democrat.
After all, the point is not about Salih but that we, the independent press, should work on building democratic institutions in society and distribute and introduce democratic values, freedom of speech and the accountability of politicians to the public in public consciousness.
All this is new for us. Uzbekistan has never been a democratic society, which is why let us do this now, at least with those who live abroad and can afford to be open and honest.
No-one is insured against mistakes. We will make mistakes, as Uznews.net has done by letting an unacceptable comment slip through but we have to learn to admit and correct mistakes. This is what we have done and Salih has accepted our apologies. And only this way will we move towards a better society.
Right to risk others’ lives
I was in Andijan when people came under fire shot from armoured vehicles and I know what it is like. Salih admits an armed conflict. But what right does he have to provoke the regime into a new slaughter? This is my question.
Who has allowed him to dispose of the lives of people in Uzbekistan and to endanger them sitting snug in Turkey surrounded by several bodyguards?
His former comrade-in-arms, Dilorom Iskhakova, who was invited to a conference in Brussels in 2009, openly asked Salih and other opposition members what they were doing there. She said every statement made by Salih affected her and others living in Uzbekistan and that now they were not even able to gather in choikhonas (oriental tearooms) and embassies were no longer inviting them.
According to Iskhakova, Salih did not give any answer, not even when I asked him to comment on her question. Later I learnt that he managed to persuade the woman during a conversation on the sidelines.
Risking others’ safety is dishonourable
The aforementioned example once again proves Mutabar Tajibayeva’s unbiased assessment of Salih’s moves.
Salih is not to blame at all for the despotic and murderous regime in Tashkent but he has no right to endanger others knowing that the regime takes revenge on anyone for close ties with him.
Why did Salih work with young and gifted Osh-based journalist Alisher Saipov? Why did he dare to send this boy, who had just become a father, leaflets calling for a revolt in Uzbekistan? Why did he not think about Saipov’s safety?
I believe that one must stay in Osh and receive leaflets personally if this person wants to organise an uprising in Uzbekistan. But Salih does not think this way and uses others, sometimes even without their consent.
In 2006, he sent his newspapers to one of my acquaintances in Kazakhstan without even asking for her permission and also gave her address to his courier who picked up the parcel from the shocked woman to take it to Uzbekistan.
Union with Islamists
Today PMU leaflets are distributed by religious fanatics. A member for the PMU has said that their purpose was not to make addressees to understand the meaning of leaflets. They are spreading them testing their spirit’s durability and Allah’s grace for them.
None of leaflet distributors, who have acted thrice as of now, has been detained. Instead, poor day-labourers have been arrested, the PMU member said.
The opposition leader does not even think that something dreadful has happened. Opposition leaflets with the silliest call on taxi drivers caused innocent people to suffer.
What will happen to them now? Where are they? Maybe some of them have already been forced to confess under torture to everything while their starving wife and children are awaiting him at home.
Another question is what this titbit that Salih is promising Islamists for cooperation with him? Is it a ban on joint education of boys and girls, modern clothes, music and sport? Or is it punishment for the breach of these rules of Shariah?
I have a right
As a journalist and a person concerned about my motherland, I will keep asking these questions.
Both I and Salih will die sooner or later but today I must make it clear to leaders that they do not enjoy immunity otherwise Uzbekistan is doomed to change one dictator to another one, or Karimov to Salih.
I also want people to realise one thing – they must not obey blindly, they have the right to ask questions and demand their rights be observed, as well as by opposition members.
Discussion should start in society and debates should be held. Only then there will be development.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.