Kyrgyzstan: The End Of Eternal Crisis?

In the early hours of this morning (for both those in Bishkek and us here in Europe) a Constitutent Assembly was formed to draft a new Basic Law for Kyrgyzstan. Earlier in the day President Bakiyev had presented his own document to Parliament, which offered amongst other things the right of Parliament to appoint the Prime Minister, but....not much else. Infact some argued that the document strengthened the President's hand. Unsuprisingly the opposition rejected the proposal, and somehow or other managed to mobilise it's biggest crowd yet. Estimates of 40,000 people thronged the streets. For more on the day of protests, see the excellent KyrgyzReport.

So what do the events of today mean for Kyrgyzstan?

Well one thing is for sure, the President appears to have backed himself into a corner. As I stated many times before at Democracy Rising, Bakiyev is a textbook example of what happens when an average politcian who seems to spend all day doing nothing gets to the the top of the political tree. The President has now lost the support of the Parliamentary majority. Even if the constitutional reforms fail, enough MP's now stand opposed to Bakiyev to remove his Prime Minister and prevent any effective work from taking place (making Bakiyev a lame-duck). The President has also lost the support of the police who have openly sided with the demonstrators (Bakiyev could have potentially used them to crush the protests, but didn't). However what may come to be seen as a crucial blow is the announcement by the Constitutional Court Chairwoman Cholpon Bayekova that a smaller number of MPs than the necessary quorum could adopt the law as the situation was "extraordinary". This is not an act of political neutrality. By effectively bending the law, one of the country's top judges has sided with the opposition.

As for Bakiyev's chief political partner, Felix Kulov must be cursing both his boss and his own decision making in the past few days. He had the support of the opposition and the chance to resign from an unpopular and ineffective government yet he threw it all away. Quite what his motivation in this situation was is unclear. Perhaps he hoped that by acting as a neutral arbitrator he could cut himself some kind of deal with the opposition that would allow him to keep the post of PM, whilst at the same time nudging Bakiyev into ceeding some of his powers to the cabinet. Nonetheless im sure Kulov will regret this, and his decision not to stand in last years Presidential election for years to come.

And the opposition?

Well things are still not certain, they now have just 3 and a half hours to find the required number of deputies to support their motion. This is still uncertain, yet a wave of defections may persuade even the most die-hard Bakiyev supporters to throw in their lot with the opposition. However, expect a spike in tensions, and possibly even violence, if moves towards a new constitution are blocked by certain power groups.

If the new constitution does take hold though, we can say that the opposition appears to be emerging as the likely new force of power in Kyrgyzstan. This time though no blood has been shed, in fact things have been done in a fashion which echoes that of Czechoslovakia's velvet revolution in the 1980's. However many challenges lay ahead. They cannot afford to squander this last chance for Democracy and Economic Growth. A plan (something the old tandem lacked) must be formulated to pull Kyrgyzstan out of the current mess and dire poverty.

The implications of course for the region are likely that cold water will be poured on the forces of Democracy in Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. In Astana particularly, the government has been watching Bishkek closely as a possible model for Democratic reform. Yet the Tulip Revolution in 2005 sent Nazarbayev and Karimov into panic, with clamp-downs against the opposition, and a clear turn away from pluralism. The dangers of Askar Akayev's attempt at masquerading as a Democrat are clear for all authoritarian leaders to see. By giving a little freedom, and distributing a bit of power, expectations rise and leaders often fall. Expect an extremely watered down conclusion from the Kazakhstani Constitutional Reform commission in the coming months than we might have previously expected.

I would like to conclude by addressing Bakiyev's handling of the crisis, which some may see as a positive. Whilst Akayev attempted to put down attempts at revolution, the current President has shyed away from such an approach. However I don't believe this is as a result of some deep-rooted belief in Democracy (something I doubt any of the leaders have) it is quite simply because Bakiyev is useless. Perhaps corruption has reached the highest levels of the state and the President is unaware or uninformed of the true state of affairs, but Bakiyev does not, and never did, seem even slightly flustered by the continuous state of protest Kyrgyzstan has been in since March 2005. It's difficult to see where he goes from here on in, but perhaps in the long run the inability to act on the part of the President may mean he goes down in history as the first Central Asian President to cause a parliamentary form of government. A potentially ironic hero status for a man so incompetent.

Concluding The Revolution?

Thousands have gathered in Bishkek today as the opposition calls on President Bakiyev to reform, or to resign. The entire crisis stems from the violent uprising last year against long-time leader Askar Akayev. However the extent to which that was a true 'velvet' revolution is open to debate.

Unlike in Ukraine the protests in the capital lasted just a day before the storming of the Presidential residence. Unlike in Georgia the 'revolution' lacked any uniting, charismatic leader. And unlike in both countries, the progress since is barely noticeable - if any has been made at all.

The problem in Kyrgyzstan was that the events of March last year share a greater resemblance to a coup fuelled by public anger than a popular uprising. The general public at the time were more greatly concerned with an improvement in their economic situation than with the finer points of improving and enhancing Democracy. This is an understandable tendency in such a poor republic. However the drawbacks of searching for an authoritarian, fix-all-problems leader are starting to emerge.

Bakiyev quite simply has made no effort to improve or reform either the economic or political situation in Kyrgyzstan. He seems to believe that he cancontinue to govern in the style of Askar Akayev without actually addressing any of the root causes of the original frustration. This is a mistake on his part (he might be able to rule as a Dictator if he actually sorted out the economic mess) but it can be partially explained by his link to the former regime. Bakiyev is part of an old-breed, looking for easily obtainable selfish gains (such as positions of power for his family) rather than working towards more difficult but more widespread benefits. If he sorted the economy out his own salary would also grow (but perhaps this would take too long for the President to be patient). In addition Bakiyev's hands are tied to the corruption and human rights abuses of the past. If he were to free up the political scene he could leave himself exposed to criminal investigations. This is why the current President cannot truly reform.

Yet what concerns me about the past year and a half is that not a single, unifying figure has emerged as a rival to Bakiyev. Most of the opposition seems to have put their faith in the Prime Minister, Felix Kulov, as a potential successor to the current President. This is also a wrong turn, Kulov is of the same mould as Bakiyev. If Kulov was really the saviour of the Kyrgyz people he would have made better use of his own position, or would have resigned in protest at government inaction.

The people leading the demonstration are cut from the same cloth as Bakiyev and Kulov too. The demand that the President distribute power to parliament would hold more weight if the legislature was not stacked with ex-Akayev loyalists, most of whom were elected in a rigged parliamentary ballot last year. I see little protest from them about the falsifications that earnt them a place in the country's highest body. Thus, it is hard to see that they are going to clean up government or bring about a new Democracy. Instead all of this looks like a second attempt for those that failed the first time around, to grab power.

Until a charismatic leader, with no attatchment to the former regime, can emerge Kyrgyzstan will be bogged down in eternal crisis. If this spiral of poverty and unrest continues, groups with an anti-democratic and extremist flavour such as Hizb ut-Tahrir will gain popularity - a situation that will benefit nobody. Kyrgystan is corrupt to its core. It's leaders and even its opposition are acting on purely selfish motivations rather than to assist their compatriots. Whatever happens today, and in the coming hours, the people of Kyrgyzstan seem destined to be the true losers...

A Fresh Start

After a year and half posting at Democracy Rising I have decided to start a new blog - Eurasian Voice. A change in my social situation, and an acceptance that one man leading a busy life cannot provide quality analysis day-after-day led me to this point. At Democracy Rising I often tried to cover the breaking news, and more often than not strayed away from the analysis I actually found most interesting. Furthermore, Democracy Rising lacked a real focus, occasionally covering bits of Africa, but not establishing itself as a home for followers of a particular region or ideology.

Eurasian Voice will act as an analytical blog, providing my take on the news and current opinions of the former Soviet Union. Updates will likely come in dribs and drabs, and then sudden gushes. But rest assured, that when I can, I will, update.

Thank you to everyone who has joined me here and happy surfing!

Matt