On March 16, 2007 the Institute for Public Policy hosted a round table "Spring 2007: The Dynamics of Political Struggle and Possible Scenarios of Political Developments in Kyrgyzstan", with participation of a number of political analysts - experts of the IPP. President of the Institute for Public Policy Muratbek Imanaliev chaired the meeting. (List of participants)

The round table participant pointed out several factors, which have been worsening the current political situation. Firstly, a part of opposition leaders have been putting rather radical demands and openly ruling out a possibility for negotiations. Secondly, state civil service has recently been increasingly politicizing, with several high ranking officials voluntarily resigning and joining opposition. Thirdly, with neither authorites nor nor leaders ready for serious negotiation and compromises, there seems to be no strong and influential mediators, neither within Kyrgyzstan nor outside it.

Assessing political actors and their positions, participants expressed two points of view. On the one hand, several experts said that President Bakiev was and remains a figure of compromise himself, and that is valuable for the country in the current transitional period. Bakiev is able to compromise, at least at the last moment, and the recent events of November 2006 illustrate it well. According to this opinion, Bakiev has resources and potential for negotiations with opposition, and under favorable conditions can again become the figure, which suits everyone.       

On the other hand, discussion participants pointed out several principal differences between current situation and situation in November 2006. First of all, in November 2006 there was Bakiev - Kulov tandem, while today these two figures are in two opposing sides. Second of all, opposition in autumn 2006 was weaker than today. If in November "For Reforms!" movement opposed the tandem, then today we have the United Front "For the better future of Kyrgyzstan", led by two generals. Also, opposition leaders are equipped with an experience of rallies 2006.   

Experts also expressed two points of view regarding motivations behind political struggle, and their implications for outcome of current tension. From one side, several experts said that key point is how opposition puts forward its demands. If the demand of constitutional reform is original and a priority one, then most likely that if Bakiev makes certain concessions on constitutional reform, the demand of early presidential elections are dropped and sides avoid confrontation. But if opposition leaders insist on constitutional reform and  early presidential elections, then the tension would rise and disorders could be expected.

At the same time, participants said that main issue might not be political reforms or constitutional changes, but struggle for power, particularly for control over resources, personnel and army. In this case, only negotiations and bargaining can solve tension and prevent forced measures, with political groups agreeing on all-benefiting arrangement. The current dynamics of events does not suggest possibility for serious negotiations, and it is hard to rule out a possibility of repetition of March 2005 in one or another way, experts suggest.

Participants also discussed possible consequences/implications of political crisis. Participants said that compared to previous crisis moments, now one could observe strengthening of the role of local leaders in local politics. A big conflict in Bishkek and another collapse of the highest state power could well lead to strengthening and possibly institutionalization of regional fragmentation and autonomization. Given the current process of depreciation of state authority, political fragmentation along regional lines may lead to very serious negative consequences for the country.      

At the same time, no elections are desirable at the moment, experts suggested. Given a high level of confrontation within political elite, elections results, whatever they are, would not be accepted by a major bulk of population.

Participants said that one of the optimal constructive solutions of political crisis could be establishment of some sort of a State, or Supreme Council. Only such a collective body, which would consist of representatives from various political groups, parties, regions and etc, would be able to secure public legitimacy for state authority.