This is not surprising news and it is amusing to think that Russia might think they can actually fool someone into thinking that they are an impartial observer. However, the role that electoral observer play, not only in the context of the polling process but also in the subsequent reporting, is something worth close examination. Though, I should add, not from John Laughland and the gaggle of idiots at the International Helsinki Federation.
Consider the current example of what is happening in Kyrgyzstan, however, and one cannot help but think that there is something more to the game than mere impartial monitoring. Firstly, though the OSCE has, by and large, been reasonably complimentary about a vote that has been relatively clean. Not clean, but relatively clean. Relative to Tajikistan, relative to Azerbaijan, relative to Armenia, relative to Russia and Ukraine even. Without for a moment condoning the nature of the skullduggery, I must however express my dismay at quite how this C- in democracy has been twisted into another fight against the forces of evil despotism, in the mould of Georgia etc.
What has been mysteriously absent from all coverage is what it is that Akayev’s opponent’s stand for (apart from the actual removal of Akayev that is). There is no agenda to speak of, aside from the predictable calls for freedom and liberty, which is the easiest strategy to aim for when there is nothing else to campaign for.
What is quite transparently happening in the case of Kyrgyz, and perhaps less transparently in Ukraine, is that there is no real conflict of ideologies and interpretations of government, but just a plain, old-fashioned struggle for naked power. Something that feel bears this out is the following piece from IWPR;

http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/rca2/rca2_352_1_eng.txt

This article, perhaps unwittingly, demonstrates that the real protests are not taking place in the name of democracy, but are orchestrated by local regional powerbrokers.
Indeed, the most sickening piece of election-rigging that has taken place in Kyrgyzstan, students have been threatened with various punitive measures if they failed to vote appropriately. The student population in that country is still vunerable enough to give serious consideration to actively taking part in Pora-, Otpor-style organisations like KelKel. And without wanting to sound cynical, it is far from clear what agenda that particular group has.
So, in a broader setting, this example illustrates I think, how these struggles for power are not perceived as simply by the Russians as by the Western press. For every CIS country that comes under the considerable influence that a negative OSCE report brings with it, it is hardly surprising that Russia acts the way it does. After all, the have notable strategic, financial, and ethnic stakes in all these states, and they no more reason than us in the West to give up on these.
Not surprising therefore that Gryzlov announced the other day that the Duma would takes measures to withdraw Russia’s not inconsiderable financial support for the OSCE.
Why must we necessarily put our blind faith in this organization that succeeds in disappointing everybody; the long-suffering victims of Russian bullying, and the Russians themselves of course.
What we need to do, instead of mocking the foolish offers of Russian observations, is call for the reform of the OSCE into a more accountable organization that responds genuinely to the needs of its constituent members in a fair and even-handed way. This is what is needed instead of the knee-jerk, politically orchestrated declarations we get now, which fail to give full appreciation for the difficult reforms that countries crippled by decades of communist oppression must undertake.