I emailed Nathan over at The Argus what he thought about the lack of protests, or anything for that matter, in regards to the Tajik elections. Here is his insight:

I think the thing is that Kyrgyzstan is kind of deceptive. Akayev has run the place more or less like a normal country, and people have gotten a taste for the comparative freedom they’ve enjoyed. It’s hard to describe, but the country struck me as incredible after I’d been in Uzbekistan for about a year. People are laid back, all kinds of products are available, and you can get margaritas! The Kyrgyz are ready to be part of the world.

Tajikistan’s had none of this and would probably welcome the tightly-controlled certitudes of the Soviet Union to the nightmare of civil war and total economic collapse they went through after independence. I’ve heard that Rakhmonov is genuinely popular and has a reputation as being a peacemaker and guarantor of stability. I’ve also read that this election is actually expected to be cleaner than the last. There are really only two parties that are popular and both will get representation. Even if the government fixed everything in the least subtle way possible, I don’t think that most Tajiks would get too bent out of shape (except for militant members of the IRP who might want a new civil war). It’s much harder to get your editor to approve a week of stories from Dushanbe when Bishkek’s probably going to produce better stories.

As for the lack of blog discussion… Well, it seems to be you and I are the only ones talking about this… There are few bloggers there because there are few reasons for people to go there. I’d imagine that internet access sucks.

The context he puts it in definitely helped me better understand the situation.

UPDATE: Nathan wants to make known that he is much more knowledgeable about Kyrgyzstan than he is Tajikistan. Either way, I take him over the newswire — or what there is of one — any day.