Is State Policy Truly Focused on Protecting Women’s Rights and Interests?

Tashkent, Uzbekistan (UzDaily.com) — In recent years, the leadership of the Republic of Uzbekistan, including the Presidential Administration, has repeatedly emphasized the priority of protecting women’s rights, supporting families and motherhood, and creating conditions for women’s professional self-realization without compromising their reproductive rights. These objectives are reflected both in legislation and in public statements by the country’s top officials.

However, in practice, certain regulatory acts raise legitimate questions: to what extent do the decisions taken genuinely align with these stated principles?

Regulatory Framework: Formal Logic vs. Real Impact

According to paragraph 3 of Article 404 of the Labor Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the procedure for granting and paying maternity benefits is determined by the Cabinet of Ministers.

On December 17, 2025, the Cabinet of Ministers adopted the resolution “On Additional Measures to Improve the System of Payments to the Population under State Social Insurance,” which came into force on December 19, 2025.

Paragraph 24 of Chapter 3 in Appendix 4 of this resolution establishes maternity benefit rates based on insurance experience:

• 75% for a work history of 10–24 months;
• 85% for 25–60 months;
• 100% for 61 months or more.

At first glance, this approach seems logical and fair: the longer a person works and contributes to insurance, the higher the level of social protection.

The Key Problem: Income “Ceiling”

Yet Chapter 2 of the same resolution substantially changes the picture.

According to paragraph 3 of Article 26, the average monthly earnings used to calculate benefits are capped at ten times the minimum wage in effect on the date the benefit is granted.

Currently, the minimum wage is 1,271,000 soms, meaning the maximum considered income is 12,710,000 soms (approximately US$1,000).

This means that a woman with over 61 months of insurance experience and an actual average monthly salary of, for example, 25,000,000 soms will still receive benefits calculated not from her real income but from the established ceiling.

As a result, payments for the maternity leave period (about 4.5 months) would amount to around 57 million soms, whereas calculating based on actual earnings could yield about 112 million soms.

Social Signal: Who Does This Model Demotivate?

In practice, this system:

• fails to account for the real earnings of highly skilled women;
• diminishes the value of long-term professional growth;
• creates hidden disincentives for women who have:
• invested years in education,
• built careers,
• paid substantial insurance contributions,
• achieved financial stability before childbirth.

A natural question arises: does this model align with the stated policy of supporting motherhood and promoting gender equality?

Questions About the Decision-Making Mechanism

The procedural aspect also warrants attention.

A decision directly affecting the social and reproductive rights of women was adopted by a Cabinet of Ministers resolution, without parliamentary discussion, broad public consultations, or assessment of social impact.

This raises further questions:

• Why is such a sensitive area governed by a regulatory act rather than a law?
• Was an analysis conducted on how this resolution specifically affects working women?
• Were long-term demographic and socio-economic consequences considered?

The issue is not personal criticism but the quality of institutional representation of women’s interests in decision-making. To what extent was the voice of women in their active reproductive and professional years heard during the discussion process?

Conclusion

Supporting motherhood is not only about slogans and strategies; it is about concrete financial mechanisms that either build trust in the state or undermine it.

If state policy is genuinely aimed at protecting women’s rights and interests, such norms require at a minimum open discussion, review, and adjustment to reflect the real conditions of life and work for modern women in Uzbekistan.

After all, social justice is not “the same for everyone,” but fairness relative to each person’s contribution.