Dear Mr. Jekshenkulov,

I read your statement on the results of the presidential elections in the Kyrgyz Republic with great interest. Nevertheless, I disagree with you on a number of points and I would therefore like to argue these points with you.

In your statement you said: "The election campaign was widely and thoroughly covered by the State-run and independent media. The range of opinions expressed was a reflection of freedom of speech in the Kyrgyz Republic."

I do not know whether you have or have not seen the media monitoring reports published by the Association of Journalists of Kyrgyzstan and the European Institute of the Media. If you have not seen them, I would recommend you to please take a close look at them. (I can email them to you if you wish.) If you have seen them, I am wondering whether you did not understand them or whether you just do not want to see the facts that they offer. The European Institute for the Media, a non-governmental organization based in Duesseldorf, Germany, draws the following conclusions:

The report of the Association of Journalists of Kyrgyzstan, a local Kyrgyz NGO, offers very similar results. Please explain to me how that corresponds to your above mentioned statement? If the "range of opinions expressed was a reflection of freedom of speech in the Kyrgyz Republic", then the picture of freedom of speech in the Kyrgyz Republic is a rather bleak one…

In your statement you also said: "The candidates enjoyed every form of access to the media and they were provided with free air time on State television. The media coverage of the current head of State was not used to exert pressure on the electorate and was broadcast in the usual news programs."

I am sorry to say that it seems like it escaped your attention that the biggest independent TV station, Pyramida, and another TV station in Bishkek (KOORT) refused to take paid commercials from the candidates. How can you say that "the candidates enjoyed every form of access to the media" when you see these facts? Also, with 90% of the airtime given to president Akaev by the state-owned TV station KTR and the broadcasting of a two hour live press conference attended by the President two days before the elections on KTR, how can you say that "the media coverage of the current head of State was not used to exert pressure on the electorate and was broadcast in the usual news programs"?

Let me quote your statement again: "We wish to stress in particular that the presidential elections in the Kyrgyz Republic were held in complete conformity with the Republic’s constitution and election code." To our perception, the above mentioned obstructions of the mass media violate the following articles in the Election Code of the Kyrgyz Republic:

• 30.3 ("Candidates, political parties, election blocs shall be guaranteed to have equal conditions for the access to mass media")
• 30.9 ("Mass media companies the founders (co-founders) of which are state authorities or local government bodies, organizations, institutions, that are financed fully or partially from the republican or local budget or funds of the local government bodies and also mass media companies that enjoy benefits on payment of taxes and obligatory fees if compared with other mass media companies shall be obliged to provide candidates, political parties, election blocs equal possibilities to conduct pre-election campaigning.")
• 30.10 ("Mass media companies that do not come within the provisions of item 9 of this Article shall have the right to on a contract basis provide air time, printing area to candidates, political parties, election blocs. (…)").

I enjoyed your quoting of Bernard Shaw who said: "A democracy cannot be any better than the human material of its electorate." That is true, but I think a democracy should also not be any worse than the human material of its electorate. And I am sure we all agree that the human material of the Kyrgyz electorate has a very high quality. Considering the history of democracy in Kyrgyzstan I also agree with your point that, despite all the shortcomings "the presidential elections in the Kyrgyz Republic have convincingly demonstrated that, during what in historical terms has been a short period in its autonomous and independent development, the Republic has, despite all the difficulties, made significant progress in building a democratic society…". But I would not go as far as to call the Kyrgyz civil society and its democratic institutions "mature" as you did in your statement. In my view it would still be a bit premature to talk about "maturity".

I am writing to you because I would like to start an open discussion of the problems the media had during the election campaign and because it is our intention to support freedom of speech and democracy in the Kyrgyz Republic. We did not come here to criticize the authorities, we came here to support the independent journalists and to protect their officially guaranteed rights. We have always been, are and will always be open for recommendations, are happy to help, to give advice and to discuss media issues with anybody interested in freedom of speech in Kyrgyzstan.

Thank you for your attention and please feel free to answer my questions!

Sincerely,

Chris Schuepp