Based largely on the report from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Kazakhstan's recent presidential election has received bad press worldwide. Reading these stories, some may be tempted to believe that the Kazakh elections were a big step backwards, that the Kazakhs had no intention of meeting OSCE standards, and hoped instead that by inviting its observers that they could somehow mask a rigged election.

Such judgments are simply wrong. The Kazakh government introduced important changes in its laws and practices that made this election a big improvement over the two previous elections. The OSCE indeed encountered resistance and even hostility in Kazakhstan, but the Kazakh government was quite sincere in inviting the observers. The problems say more about the OSCE's approach and attitude than Kazakhstan's commitment to progress on democratization.

In Kazakhstan, and elsewhere, the OSCE's intentions are laudable. The collection of information by its volunteer observers is extensive, and its analyses are rigorous and responsible. Both command respect. Regrettably, the reporting of OSCE findings seems calculated to arouse resentment even among the best intentioned countries that it reviews, including Kazakhstan. Specifically, the OSCE has adopted a preachy, condescending, Euro-centric and arrogant attitude that systematically offends those it seeks to persuade. No wonder that even some of Kazakhstan's confirmed democrats refer disdainfully to the OSCE mission as the "democracy police."

By its own rules, OSCE observer mission reports lead off with a statement on whether the given election satisfies the standards set down by the European and American founding members and accepted by newly enrolled countries. Inevitably, the new country is found wanting. And why should it be otherwise? If Kazakhstan had already arrived at the level of, say, Denmark, why would it have invited a 460 member OSCE observer mission to give it advice on how to improve? Besides, one wonders how many elections in the U.S., U.K. or France would meet this "gold standard"?

In a kind of inversion of what most would accept as effective pedagogy, the OSCE dwells on the negatives and is stingy with its praise for positive achievements. Only after this does one get a chance to learn whether the election represents a step forward or a step back.

In Sunday's presidential elections in Kazakhstan that gave Nursultan Nazarbayev a third consecutive term with 91% of the vote, the OSCE eventually came around to the grudging recognition that they represented steady improvement not only over the 1999 presidential election but the 2004 parliamentary elections. After its initial negative "up or down" judgment, the OSCE's report proceeds to focus overly on the administrative and technical flaws, including whining about long lines at polling stations, which merely reflected a historically high 75% voter turnout. They also questioned the "political will" of leaders who have embraced some but not all of the OSCE's post-2004 parliamentary election recommendations.

Why not instead stressing that reforms instituted by Kazakhstan in 2005 created a much more open and transparent central election commission. For the first time in a presidential contest, there were legally sanctioned, genuine opposition candidates. There were televised debates among opposition candidates. Readers must dig very deep inside the OSCE report to learn about any of these positive steps. In both the written report and especially in the oral presentation offered in Astana, OSCE officials adopt a finger-wagging tone that seems designed to elicit resistance, not cooperation.

Rather than a simplistic "black or white" evaluation under which the aspiring democracy is inevitably painted as "black," the OSCE should consider adopting a qualitative scale to evaluate elections. A system akin to bond ratings would allow the OSCE to "grade" countries on their democracy progress, or back-sliding, rather than simply pass or fail the process according to some unachievable standard. Such a "grading" would also send important signals to investors on political risk and stability.

The OSCE's treatment of Russia's cynically corrupt recent parliamentary election in Chechnya highlights a further problem: the institution's double standard. Powerful Russia refused even to invite the OSCE to observe the Chechen elections. The OSCE docilely accepted this rebuff and said nothing about what turned out to be a shameful episode in the history of democracy among OSCE members. Meanwhile, Kazakhstan, which has repeatedly invited the OSCE to observe its elections and which has instituted positive changes on the basis of its advice, is left feeling that it has been mugged.

The West must embrace countries making good faith efforts to hold free and fair elections, work with them patiently and tenaciously, and do so in a spirit of modesty and good will. The recent presidential election in Kazakhstan was doubtlessly flawed in certain respects, but overall it was a success and a significant step forward. The OSCE's duty is to point out avenues for further improvement but also to recognize steady progress that sets a high standard not only among the new and aspiring states of Central Asia but among all countries worldwide that have Muslim majority populations. Democracy is progressing in Kazakhstan. The OSCE should have said so.

Mr. Starr is chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute of Johns Hopkins University. Mr. Witt is president of the International Tax and Investment Center. Both were accredited international observers to the 2005 presidential and the 2004 parliamentary elections in Kazakhstan.

Copyright 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved