According to Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2026 report, all five countries in Central Asia are classified as “Not Free.” Nevertheless, governments in the region are increasingly questioning the impartiality of such assessments. At the same time, some regional experts point to ongoing political and economic reforms as signs that the region is making progress.

A “Not Free” Region

In its report released on March 19, 2026, Freedom House classifies all five Central Asian states as “Not Free.” The designation is based on Freedom House’s assessment of political rights and civil liberties. According to the report’s authors, the ranking reflects pressure on independent media, tightening control over civil society, and the absence of genuine political competition.

Kazakhstan received 23 points out of 100. The report highlights restrictions on opposition groups and civil society activists, pressure on independent journalism, and tightly managed elections that do not ensure genuine political competition.

Kyrgyzstan, long considered the most politically open country in the region, scored 25 out of 100 and was also classified as “Not Free.” The organization says the score fell by one point from the previous year, reflecting continued pressure on independent media, the designation of several outlets as ‘extremist,’ and criminal cases against journalists, alongside concerns about election integrity.

Uzbekistan scored 12 out of 100. Freedom House points to the concentration of power in the executive branch, the absence of a genuine parliamentary opposition, and severe restrictions on independent human rights defenders and journalists.

Since President Shavkat Mirziyoyev took office in 2016, Uzbekistan has pursued a series of controlled political and economic reforms aimed at opening the country after decades of isolation. These have included currency liberalization, efforts to end the use of forced labor in the cotton sector, and steps to ease restrictions on business and foreign investment. While critics say political liberalization remains limited, supporters argue the reforms mark a significant shift from the policies of the previous era.

Tajikistan received just 5 points. The report highlights the long rule of President Emomali Rahmon, the elimination of legal opposition, systematic persecution of its members and their families, and a de facto lack of electoral competition.

Turkmenistan recorded one of the lowest scores globally, with just 1 point. The report describes the country as one of the most repressive in the world, citing total state control over political life and the media, the absence of opposition participation in elections, and harsh punishment for dissent.

Turkmenistan remains one of the most closed countries in the world, with extremely limited access for foreign media and independent observers. Political life is tightly controlled, and reliable information about internal developments is scarce. While the authorities have signaled gradual generational change following the 2022 transfer of power to President Serdar Berdimuhamedov, there has been little visible shift in the country’s political system.

Impartiality in Doubt?

Trust in international assessments has also been affected by developments in U.S. foreign aid policy and a wider shift in global perceptions about the appropriateness of Western-linked organizations categorising the political and social systems of Global South countries. In January 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order suspending new U.S. foreign development assistance, including funding for the United States Agency for International Development.

The administration later moved to terminate 5,800 of 6,200 USAID contract awards, according to a State Department memo reported by AP in February 2025.

USAID has previously supported analytical and reporting work in Central Asia through grants to journalists, activists, and researchers.  The agency has funded programs and reporting focused on governance and freedoms in Central Asia. In Kazakhstan, members of parliament called for a comprehensive audit of USAID-funded programs. Publicly available data indicates that USAID allocated around $2 million to support human rights and equality initiatives in Central Asia between 2022 and 2025.

Criticism of USAID from senior U.S. officials has reinforced long-standing skepticism in the region toward external evaluations. Some policymakers argue that even long-established organizations assessing democracy and freedoms may themselves be subject to deeply rooted institutional bias.

Such skepticism is not new. Governments in Central Asia have frequently questioned why domestic reforms and legislative changes are not fully reflected in international rankings. Human rights organizations, however, have maintained that restrictions on political opposition, media, and civil society in Central Asia remain well-documented and systemic.

Allegations of Bias

In 2025, Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev publicly criticized international organizations, including the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), questioning their objectivity.

“I do not care about the assessments made by the OSCE, because this organization is very biased,” Tokayev said in response to criticism of recent elections.

At the same time, he emphasized that Kazakhstan remains an active OSCE member and continues to cooperate with European partners.

Tokayev also expressed skepticism toward recent assessments by Human Rights Watch, stating that the country should not necessarily follow the recommendations of human rights organizations.

In the same 2026 Freedom House ranking, China received 9 points. China is currently Central Asia’s largest economic partner and a major global competitor to the European Union and the United States. Freedom House is headquartered in Washington, and the organization has historically received substantial U.S. government funding for its broader operations, prompting questions in the region about the neutrality of such assessments. Freedom House says its Freedom in the World 2026 report received no government funding.

Democratic Reforms

At the same time, some Western observers have viewed reforms in Uzbekistan positively. In September 2025, Detlef Prinz, president of the Germany-Uzbekistan Forum, noted growing international recognition of reforms under President Shavkat Mirziyoyev. Prinz pointed to what he described as significant positive changes in Uzbekistan, which he said have been well received in German political and business circles.

Following the constitutional referendum of March 15, 2026, the Kazakh authorities said parliament would review a package of new laws and related amendments to implement the new constitution. Five constitutional laws have been submitted to parliament, aimed at reshaping the balance of power, including presidential authority and parliamentary structures. A new advisory body, the Khalyq Keneşi (People’s Council of Kazakhstan), is also expected to be created, bringing together representatives of civil society and public institutions.

In Kyrgyzstan, meanwhile, the country’s former reputation as an “island of freedom” has come with significant political instability. Three revolutions have occurred since independence in 1991, and recurring elite power struggles have hindered sustained economic reform.

According to some analysts, current President Sadyr Japarov is pursuing a more centralized model of governance in an attempt to project an image of stability that Kyrgyzstan has, to date, failed to maintain in the eyes of international investors. 

Thus, the situation regarding rights and freedoms in Central Asia is far more complex than it may appear from an “outside perspective,” and questions are increasingly being raised about the appropriateness of Freedom House’s methodology and how relevant such external rankings are to Central Asian countries today