COMPARING EU AND OSCE APPROACHES TO AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES IN CENTRAL ASIA: THE ROLE OF PARLIAMENTARY COOPERATION.

Central Asian regimes have effectively maintained autocratic systems and have been rather impervious to western-led policies of democratization, since the dismantling of the Soviet Union. Either in bilateral or multilateral relations, western partners have failed to devise effective policies for democratic change in this region. One are of action is election monitoring and parliamentary cooperation, with the European Parliament and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly have been actively engaging with Central Asian states. This paper takes a historical-institutional perspective to map the main areas of parliamentary cooperation, from a comparative perspective. Despite obvious differences between the two institutions, with direct relevance for legitimacy, a comparison provides a fruitful approach in terms of the potential for learning and cooperation at the parliamentary level. What this paper sets out to do is to explain the differences in the EU’s and the OSCE’s approach to these regimes, namely in their parliamentary cooperation. What is the role assigned to these institutions? What contribution can they give to the EU’s and the OSCE’s work on democracy promotion and protection of human rights? How different are their approaches and the outcome of their policies. These are some of the questions this paper provides answers to.