Kyrgyz Crossword

A Country of Paradoxes

Kyrgyzstan is an intriguing country in post-Soviet Central Asia. The historical drama of the country is full of conflicts and crucial plots, mysteries and myths; it has more questions than answers.

It is the most open country in the region, with strong civil society and freedom of speech. At the same time, it is the most disorganized country, with weak government institutions and an inefficient bureaucratic system.

According to many experts, the country essentially did not realize itself as a state during fifteen years of independence. It still has not clearly found its position concerning main internal and external vectors of development.

Among the former Soviet states of Central Asia, Kyrgyzstan was the first to introduce a national currency, entere the WTO, and started land privatization. However, the advantages of some of these steps are not obvious. The economy is weak and vulnerable to serious external factors, and is damaged by corruption in addition. The government indeed cannot manage its huge external dept, which is why it fully depends on donor countries and international financial institutions.

Smart and dynamic Kyrgyz businessmen currently occupy medium and small businesses niches in Kazakhstan and Russia, leaving far behind the active part of the population in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in understanding the mechanisms of the market economy. Most working age citizens are massively leaving the country in search of a better life. Thanks to their remittances, which annually amount to more than $500 million, economic and social projects in the country continue to exist, and are even developing in some cases.

The population is strongly politicized; the most active part of it constantly participates in mass political events and does not allow the establishment of an authoritarian regime. In 2005, it became the only country in Central Asia to replace the system of rule by forceful pressure; it oddly presents elements of revolution and counterrevolution, coupe d’etat and constitutional transfer of authority.

The nation is divided into two regions in political terms, but is united in the strive for better changes. The economically active population feeds the authority, and has lost all hopes of getting help from them in return. The authority steadily increases its level of life at the expense of the population, not understanding how to help people substantially. Kyrgyzstan is a country of paradoxes in which many unexpected things could happen.

The Lessons of the Last Fifteen Years and of 2005

During the first years of independence, it was generally believed that the country took a route for welfare, and expectations were high. The participation of people in political and economic life became more and more active, resulting in the emergence of opposition and establishment of a private sector.

However, there was an attempt to establish clan-based rule of one family at the top instead of promoting systematic and consistent transformation of the political system with an objective to increase the efficiency of governance as a whole. Naturally, this occurrence prompted the appearance of three threatening trends: 1) the growth of corruption in the governmental system and system of public affairs management, 2) the intensification of crisis between the executive branch of authority and the parliament, 3) the moral and professional degradation of the prestige of the judicial branch of authority.

The shadow economy became almost equal to the official one. The arrogant and empty way of life of corrupt officials and new bourgeoisie promoted the quick deflation of the moral values of the society, resulting in the moral degradation of the population’s majority, who began to live according to the principle that ‘everything can be bought and sold.’ The psychology of thieves, crooks and nepotistic leaders became prevalent in the society. Elections at all levels turned into shameless exchanges, opening a way to politicians without morality or principles.

By 2005, the country had a permanent president and had gone through many prime ministers, speakers, and oppositional politicians, but had never seen a true leader of the nation.

It is necessary to stress that the factor of leadership plays a decisive role in the destiny of any country. The history of both successful and failed countries proves this point, which can especially be seen in the history of post communist countries.

After the collapse of the USSR, the soviet party nomenclatura was the only source from which to form a ruling circle. A split in the Kyrgyz Communist Party in 1991 demonstrated that there was no strong leader, and regionalist politics openly emerged in the arena. It is for this reason that a member of the mid-level nomenclatura occupied the position of the presidency, someone who was able to mislead the public from the start by positioning himself as democrat and a progressive leader.

On the sly of anticommunist rhetoric, the top of the nomenclatura was eliminated from political life and replaced by a rattling mix of blood relatives and representatives of the academic nomenclatura intelligentsia.

At the same time, the one and only criterion to get access to authority was full obedience and personal devotion to the president and his family. It is not surprising that this criterion became both a basis to reinforce family rule and a trend towards the degradation of the ruling circle. Most people did not notice that the country fell deep in dept under the thick screen of loud promises and endless plans.

The unique natural resources of Kyrgyzstan turned into objects of shameless exploitation, robbery, and means of trade for the ruling circle and its associates. The Kyrgyz opposition was formed under conditions of growing discontent among the people with the method of rule and personal qualities of the president and his close associates.

The first group of opposition consisted of representatives of the intelligentsia, who began political activity during perestroika. The number of opposition later increased with the addition of representatives of marginal groups in the society. It seems that the social origin and level of political culture of the political elite gave birth to two types of opposition: ideological and pseudo opposition.

Pseudo oppositionists grew only on the basis of bare protest against the owner of the White House and his policies. They were always driven by only bare interests – to get into authority themselves by any means. Their number continues to increase from time to time with the addition of those people who have been stripped of opportunities to get rich at the expense of other people, and have thus become exploited themselves. Moreover, these people did not pay special attention to the doubtful origins of politicians’ money. Such politicians never possessed idealism.

For this reason, it is no coincidence that some of them who have gained government power currently cannot change the essence of authority for the better; they are mirror reflections of their rivals of yesterday. It is logical that the property of losers passed into the hands of winners.

It is utopia to expect constructive politics in the form of alternative projects for the country’s development and positive ideology from pseudo oppositionists.

In contrast, politicians who had certain a political philosophy and democratic commitments were not able to connect their political goals with the hopes of simple people. Now they are desperately searching for a cure against regionalism in order to find a way to reach the wider public. They have not succeeded in turning their ideology into a philosophy of the masses.

Thus, Kyrgyz oppositionists, not having a clear political plan, unity, or solidarity on the basis of principles, and also lacking a leader with firm democratic commitments, could not play a large historical role. When protesters brought them to the top of the political pyramid in March 2005, giving them a rare chance to become authors of a better history for people, they did not use it. After 24 March, 2005 the power of protesting people was not directed towards progress. Great efforts yielded little result…

Look back at the past. The Kyrgyz nation appeared in history as a union of tribes with an elected khan, the authority of whom was not hereditary. Tribalism in the political life of the Kyrgyz people played a large role over a long period of time, and did not allow the creation of a centralized state. Ethnic unity and regionalism gained important meaning during a period in which the political struggles of the Kyrgyz entering into the sphere of influence of (and a system of relationships with) despotic oriental states. Russia used intertribal and regional contradictions as an instrument of influence and colonial management. Soviet authority attempted to replace tribalism and regionalism with class struggle and to introduce an ideology of modernism into Kyrgyz society. However, it was not able to fully destroy remnants of the past. Tribalism has been reanimated in the years of independence, and manipulation by a regional factor has taken place for the sake of reinforcing personal power, instead of substantial attempts to unify the nation and search for nationwide ideology. Return to the spiritual ancestry and the roots of Kyrgyz statehood has remained in the shadow of greedy self-interests. In ideological terms, there is always a contest between truth-seekers like Toktogul and the high and mighty among the Kyrgyz people.

In 2005, political life did not flow in a new direction of transfer from regionalism to ideological contest in politics. Conservative thinking, involving retrograded populism and world outlooks, and the political immaturity of political elite hindered the country from progressive development.

In many countries, progressive politicians, especially some outstanding leaders who had historically short terms, performed revolutions in the minds of their people and build a new beautiful world for all on that basis. Kyrgyzstan also has a chance, but the country is allowing it to pass. The system of governance remains weak. The political system is in crisis. Confrontation between the executive branch of authority and the parliament have attained a permanent, dead-end character. The condition of the parliament discredits the model of a multiparty system and parliamentary form of ruling in the eyes of the population. Corruption and inefficient management of public affairs has destroyed the remaining hopes of the population after the change of authority. Neither the authority nor the opposition have a competent, consolidated position on any of the principal issue of national or foreign policy. The HIPC program demonstrates this state of affairs best.

People do not have a leader; they have a tandem. There is combative opposition, many-headed and many-voiced, which still does not know what kind of society to build. In short, the historical ancestry and future of the country, the hopes and expectations of people are in the hands of an immature political elite.

What we can expect in the nearest future?

The situation in the country and the condition of its citizens will depend on the policy of the White House and opposition, as well as on the level of participation in politics of the active part of society. Let us take a positive, desired scenario as an example – one which could be called the spurt forward-overcome model. The new Constitution has been adopted, and both sides agreed in general that this is a step forward.

The executive branch of authority and the parliament will seriously start to reinforce the political system and the basis of governmental authority according to the new Constitution, smoothing the contradictions and optimizing mutual relations.

At last, both sides will reach consensus in understanding the main directions in the development of the country. All politicians will become united and patriotic in lobbying the interests of nation, and will also clearly define their roles in the process and assume mutual obligations to observe the clear rules of the game of politics.

The opposition will acquire official political status and rights which are protected by laws, and will finally become a significant force in society. The body that will preside over reforms will consist of highly educated youth, honest professionals, and politicians. A real fight against corruption will begin, and stolen money will be returned to the treasury of government.

Economic freedom and efficiency will increase as the government promotes the growth of production, the expansion of exports, and the increase of goods turnover in the country. The government will set up a professional, non-confrontational foreign policy, achieve the understanding of donors, and take a favorable position on credit return.

The advantages of this model are that it highlights a way to achieve systematic change and demolition of the conditions which give birth to self-interest and corruption. In addition, there are opportunities within the model for intellectual and ideological competition, which will result in forwarding the opportunities of the best minds and characters in the system of governance and economics, while limiting those of untalented grey impostors and robbers. However, transition to and realization of this model require historical thinking, great political will and a strive to serve to one’s nation truly.

The other model is negative, and more likely. Let us call it the full backtrack model. If we proceed from reasons, background and dynamics of May-November events of 2006, and analyze behavior of three main political forces in the country (executive branch and its parliament satellites, opposition and politically active population), then grounds for the model’s realization are more than enough. Main characteristics of the model are: a) full distrust between political opponents and scorn against each other; b) efforts to undermine resources of opponents by any means using governmental power mechanism; c) escalation of interregional tension by intentional use population’s prejudices, exploitation of term of historical fairness and also parity of presence in government; d) formation of supporters’ group on the grounds of regionalism. If the present parliament stops its work then the government will be in even more vulnerable position, the whole state authority will weaken, protest in politics will intensify manifold and all these may finally throw the country into chaos. Implementation of such kind policy will promote corruption in the economy, bandit redistribution of property and gradual decay of financial and investment system. A war of all against all in politics and economics will completely bring the country under the control of donors, creditors, rich neighbors, and the current disputes about the HIPC will appear as a very minor issue. The continuing foreign policy based on preferences the country will be isolated from main international relations actors and political leadership of the country will lose credibility on the international arena. Intentional incitement of regional confrontation, full fallback from sound compromise will results in forceful confrontation and separatism. The state authority will collapse, the society will completely come apart and there will be a search for a new state composition, with active participation of other countries.

Intermediate Way to Nowhere model is also possible. There are also conditions for its realization. Mechanically, the country moves in neither a good nor a bad direction, but somewhere in an unknown direction. Meanwhile, there is a lot of noise about imaginary success. The authority imitates reforms and continues to bargain with donors, not having a clear perspective or fully understanding the consequences of the decisions that they take. They cannot pay the national dept, but at the same time, they are afraid of the HIPC Initiative. They keep the population ignorant about where and how credits disappear, and do not take real measures in the fight against corruption. The notion that ‘in Kyrgyzstan, only fools and lazy people do not steal’ will be even more topical. The moral degradation of the society will reinforce tensions and weaken government institutions further. In foreign policy, tactics of preferences, sharahanie, and nonobservance of obligations will only intensify the neurosis and irritation of important partners, and thus a serious problem will emerge with a trust deficit. There will be a strange parity in politics: the authority will have a desire to overcome the opposition, but in the end no power to do so, and the opposition will not have a clear understanding of what to do with this authority despite its criticism of the authority. The parliament, more dead than alive, will try to drag itself through until the end of the term. New youth leaders and lesser-known politicians will try to create an alternative to the authority and opposition, hoping that existing elites will discredit themselves totally in the eyes of public by the next elections. Thus, we can arrive at the same point in 2009 as we reached in 2005 – running without moving.

We choose, or we are chosen.