On 2 March 2007 the Institute for Public Policy hosted a regional conference "Central Asia in 2007: Dynamics of Change and Development." The event gathered over 30 leading experts - political and economic analysts from Central Asian states as well as the Ukraine and Armenia (conference schedule).

The conference was organized in two sections. The section "Political dynamics: changes and implications" was devoted to a discussion of the political development model of Central Asian states and issues related to the substance and dynamics of democratization and modernization. The section "Geopolitics and geo-economics of Central Asia" featured discussion of the issues of regional integration, the roles of political, economic and military international organizations, perspectives of energy cooperation etc.

In his welcome speech, the State Secretary of the Kyrgyz Republic Adakhan Madumarov noted that Kyrgyzstan, being the geographic center of Central Asia, has also been turning into its political center. Despite various political issues, Kyrgyzstan is consistently progressing in democratization. The current unstable political situation is a natural stage of development of Kyrgyzstani society, according to Mr. Madumarov.

"At the moment our society is in the process of self-learning, self-identification. Everything that has been taking place in this country suggests that we are very active," Madumarov said.

Discussing the development of the democratic process in Central Asian states, the conference participants argued that while various real and imaginary reforms have been taking place, two things remain constant: the countries still have a super-presidential form of governance and substantial dialogue on democratization remains lacking between Central Asian countries and the developed democracies of the West. The latter, it was noted, is not least related to the superficial attitude of western countries to the region. Thus, out of the EU countries, only Germany has an embassy in Bishkek; the rest deal with Kyrgyzstan from Astana or cities even further afield, which is not conducive to sustainable dialogue.

Aleksandr Iskandaryan, director of the Caucasus Media Institute suggested that when assessing the political dynamics of post-Soviet states, three groups could be identified, based on the countries' experience with a rotation of the political elite. There are countries whose societies accept the rotation of the ruling elite, such as the Baltic States. The second group, which includes most of the Central Asian states, consists of countries that have not yet experienced rotation at all, or where power is inherited. These countries simply lack the mechanisms for accepting the results of power rotation. Between these two groups there is a grey zone - countries where rotation of the elite has taken place, but in a legally ambiguous way. In this group, which includes Kyrgyzstan, the unsuccessful party does not accept the results of such a rotation, and the political system is like boiling cauldron. The big question is whether these countries will move and develop towards a better system or remain for a longer time in their current state.

Valentin Bogatyrev, coordinator of Perspektiva Analytical Consortium, analyzed one such "boiling cauldron" - Kyrgyzstan. According to him, depending on the perception of the paradigm of the dynamics of political development, Kyrgyzstan could be seen as a democratic success or a failing state, to take two extremes. What is clear is that stability, at least how it is understood in other Central Asian states, has no chance in Kyrgyzstan.

"Stability is a sign of stagnation or a latent accumulation of possible social explosions. Kyrgyzstan is the most stable state in Central Asia since the processes of development are taking place here, and the ‘lid is off the cauldron'; everything boils and rages, but it will not explode," Bogatyrev said. In conclusion, he noted that at any rate, Kyrgyzstan will be a mirror for neighboring countries to look into their own future, and avoid any mistakes made in Kyrgyzstan.

Continuing with the theme of stability, the director of the Central Asian Foundation for Democracy Erkin Tukumov suggested that stability, attributed to the political situation in Kazakhstan, is deceptive. Everyone expects reforms, but they [reforms] are initiated and implemented by the authorities, with little chance for the public to influence the form and substance of reforms. The presidential elections of 2005 symbolized the beginning of the end of the current political period in Kazakhstan, and the main goal of all political reforms is to ensure a smooth transition period, he said.

Farkhod Tolipov, Professor of Political Science of the National University of Uzbekistan made a report on geopolitical aspects of regional integration in Central Asia, triggering a lively debate. According to Mr. Tolipov, the role of geopolitical factors on regional integration has been steadily increasing, with this influence having a negative impact on integration. The speaker pointed to three main factors that affect the chances for Central Asian integration. First was joining of Russia into the Central Asian Cooperation Organization in 2004, which strongly deformed the notion of Central Asia both in geographic and political terms. The second factor was the summit of the SCO in Astana in 2005, when a declaration was adopted demanding that the United States determine the date of withdrawal of military bases from the territory of Central Asian states. As Mr. Tolipov put it, it was not the will of Central Asian states; rather they followed the interests of larger powers. The third blow to regional integration was the liquidation of the Central Asian Cooperation Organization, which joined the EEC (Eurasian Economic Community).

"Now the region exists in wider structures, as some dissolved entity. We have the EEC, SCO and Americans lobbying the idea of a "Bigger Central Asia", including Afghanistan into Central Asia. So, Central Asia has ended up between three powers. It is not a subject but an object of politics, and thus, is turning into the victim of a geopolitical game," Tolipov said.

President of the Institute for Public Policy, Ambassador Muratbek Imanaliev noted that regional integration is hampered by several factors, one of which is a very low awareness of Central Asian states about each other, despite common history, culture, language etc.

"It seemed to us that it would be difficult to build relations with China, since we have no knowledge of it. But in fact, it turned out that it is much more difficult to learn about our neighbors. The majority of people in Kyrgyzstan know more about China than Kazakhstan," Ambassador Imanaliev said.

He also touched on the problem of unpredictable foreign policy among Central Asian states, conditioned by "suddenly acquired independence syndrome" as well as the degradation of social relations and values, and a crisis of religions.

The conference speakers also covered the issues of the institutionalization of political power and political opposition, perspectives on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, relations of Central Asia with western countries and Russia, perspectives of economic cooperation and others.