The Organization for Security and Co-operation of Europe (OSCE) is expected to face a democratization test in February, when Tajikistan holds parliamentary elections.

It’s already a safe bet that the governing People’s Democratic Party of Tajikistan will retain its hammerlock on the legislature. The election will nevertheless be interesting to follow as a gauge of the West’s commitment to promoting democratization.

Unlike previous voting cycles, Tajikistan’s parliamentary election campaign season has begun with little visible international effort to promote transparency or democracy. Like most of its Central Asian neighbors, Tajikistan has never held a vote judged free and fair by the OSCE.

The governing party currently controls almost four-fifths of the seats in parliament. Experts don’t expect any big change in February’s voting. Opposition politicians have complained that the odds are stacked against them. In September, opposition leaders mounted an unsuccessful attempt to annul the registration fee for individuals seeking to run for a parliamentary seat. The fee is currently $1,600, which opposition leaders say is exorbitant in a country where the average monthly wage is roughly $60. In mid-November, the governing party brushed aside an opposition attempt to push back the parliamentary elections until April.

The quiet international response to Tajikistan’s electoral process is prompting some to suggest the United States and the European Union are growing fatigued with democratization in Central Asia.

Back in September, the secretary of the Central Elections Commission (CED), Muhibullo Dodojonov, appealed to international organizations to assist in creating favorable electoral conditions. In comments carried by the Asia-Plus news agency, Dodojonov said that, due to the effects of the global financial crisis on the Tajik economy, international support was needed for the upcoming elections.

"The Commission does not have enough funds to effectively supervise the upcoming elections. [. . . ] Therefore, without the support of international organizations and diplomatic missions working in the country, the 2010 parliamentary elections in Tajikistan might have more shortcomings than previous elections," Dodojonov said.

International organizations and international NGOs have not responded to Dodojonov’s appeal, a western diplomat said on condition of anonymity. "Why spend money on an electoral process that is pre-determined? In essence, assisting in pre-election efforts now with the close collaboration of the CEC would be tantamount to aligning oneself with the regime," the diplomat said.

Under existing conditions, the diplomat added, western donors are "afraid of wasting money for projects that will most probably not achieve results." And beyond the money issue, the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan is prompting foreign officials and observers to "prefer a stable, rather than a democratic Central Asia," the diplomat suggested.

There aren’t many experts in the West who would dispute the diplomat’s take on the situation. Still, many Central Asia watchers, such as Lincoln Mitchell, Professor of International Politics at Columbia University’s School of Public and International Affairs, think it would be a grave mistake to abandon the idea of promoting civil society in the region.

"If our policy is that we’re not doing this anymore because this region is lost, [that] we’re not in the democracy business anymore, that is unfortunate, that will come back and bite us," Mitchell cautioned. "It’s a big mistake to give up on Central Asia."

Mitchell suggested that officials in Western capitals should place less emphasis on elections, and do more to assist civil-society construction on a day-to-day level. "I would disaggregate support for elections and support for democratization programs," Mitchell said. "Elections cycles are like an 18-month ball of yarn. The cats, meaning democracy assistance donors and implementers, run after it for 18 months and forget about what they were doing before."

That suits regional leaders just fine, Mitchell added. "Smarter authoritarian leaders understand that by having elections they can stop the building of democracy because they can shift the focus of the democracy assistance community away from longer-term, and often more important, projects," he said.

"The real building of civil society and political parties takes time and money and real enduring work," Mitchell continued. "If you stop [and focus only on polling] every time there is an election, you end up hurting democratization."

Opinions expressed in this article may be different of those held by ASIA-Plus