Kyrgyzstan is trying to recover after the April revolution that ousted President Kurmanbek Bakiyev from power. In my previous post about the revolution I outlined some reasons for this outcome. Today the big question is whether the newly-born democratic movement will survive in Kyrgyzstan. To find out, I wanted to get different perspectives on the future of the country. That is why I spoke with an external expert on Kyrgyzstan, a prominent Kyrgyz blogger, and a representative of the Kyrgyz Coalition for Democracy and Civil Society.

Erica Marat is a Research Fellow at the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and Silk Road Studies Program. Elena Skochilo is a prominent Kyrgyz blogger living in the US that provided valuable information and updates during the events. Alima Aitieva is a representative of the Coalition for Democracy and Civil Society – a major human and civil rights NGO network in Kyrgyzstan. Below is an account of their feedback.

The Bakiyev Debacle

All three respondents agreed that the main reason for the violence was the conduct of President Bakiyev. He surrounded himself with relatives, and alienated and tried to crush the opposition. Erica Marat says that Bakiyev “created really small power structures” and was “ruthless”. One of the main issues was the cost of social and utility services – Bakiyev made it really difficult to survive economically. All in all, as Alima Aitieva said, there was “suppression of civil and political rights, and then socio-economic rights of citizens”.

The Situation on the Ground

There are many reports that the supporters of the ousted President Bakiyev are still trying to seize control of some parts of the country, especially in the South. The situation is still unstable. One of the reasons is that, as Elena Skochilo pointed out, there are many unregistered guns still distributed among the citizens.

On the one hand, as Alima Aitieva said, there are supporters and relatives of Bakiyev, as well as other new political forces that wish to gain power. On the other hand some of the citizens have created a voluntary people's patrol and assist the Interim Government in stabilizing the situation.

The media is currently controlled by the interim government, but Aitieva said that they have established a Committee of civilian control, which includes 69 active NGOs that respond to signals for unlawful pressure on the media.

The Priorities of the Interim Government

Social and economic policy should be at the focus of the interim government according to all respondents. Erica Marat paid special attention to the prevention of racketeering by government officials and law enforcement officers that was casual during Bakiyev ’s rule. This practice stifled the growth of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Alima Aitieva paid special attention to the necessary tax reform that should allow entrepreneurs to work normally. Both Skochilo and Aitieva noted that the farmers missed the sowing season.

The energy policy of the country was also mentioned, as well as the supply of gas and oil for the farmers.

Skochilo said that the huge government debt and the closed border with Kazakhstan are a matter of concern. Indeed, borders with both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan remain closed.

The Structural Difficulties

Beyond the immediate concerns of the interim government, I wanted to know more about the continuing structural difficulties of this small country. Here I was mostly helped by Erica Marat, who explained to me that the shift from a relatively liberal regime under president Akayev in the 1990s to a new regime after 2000 has been a major issue in Kyrgyzstan. The power structure was reduced, cutting out new strata of society. However, the NGOs did not back down and continued to challenge the regime, first against Akayev, and later – against Bakiyev . One of the reasons for the success of the protest movements has been the small territory of the country, allowing for the quick transportation of many protesters to the capital.

Alima Aitieva pointed to the “enormous” corruption in the country, corroding the public administration, and diminishing education quality.

All respondents renounced the idea that there was a cleavage between the North and South, so this theory for Kyrgyzstan’s difficulties was not supported.

However, the respondents gave no substantial explanation for the shift from a more liberal Kyrgyz regime in the 1990s to the more restrictive regimes in the 2000s. I can only speculate about that. A correlation with the developments in Russia is obvious – where after the rise of Mr. Putin civil rights and democracy deteriorated. Now, correlation is not causation, and these may well have been parallel processes that were caused by some overwhelming dynamics. In any case Kyrgyzstan is still definitely a case of competitive authoritarianism.

Will Kyrgyzstan Rise or Fall?

This is a very difficult question. Both Erica Marat and Alima Aitieva were cautiously optimistic about the democratic future of the country. Aitieva underscored the importance of an effective strategy for reduction of corruption practices in government, ensuring the transparency of decision-making and rule of law.

Marat made an important observation – that in the long term the fate of Kyrgyzstan will be instrumental for the promotion of democracy in Central Asia. Should the new government fail to stabilize and gradually democratize the country, the notion of failure may discourage democratic movements in other Central Asian countries currently under authoritarian control.

That is why it is so important to observe the developments in Kyrgyzstan. I will post updates should the situation change substantially in the near future.