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...