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.