On 2 April 2007 the Institute for Public Policy held a round table on “The Current political situation in Kyrgyzstan”, with the participation of IPP experts. The meeting was organized to discuss the increasingly tense political situation and the possible political development scenarios.

The participants suggested that the appointment of Almaz Atambaev as Prime Minister is an interim decision, which cannot principally influence the political situation. “This cabinet cannot be called a coalition, since opposition leaders representing “For Reforms!” Movement and the United Front refused to take part in it. The only positive thing is that several odious figures were removed from the government, which may have eased some tensions,” experts suggested.

The main problem relates to Feliks Kulov, and in order to address the current political situation effectively the President and his team should talk to him, according to round table participants. In his recent interview to the Vremya Novostei newspaper, Feliks Kulov indicated that he is ready to talk with the President if the latter shows the initiative.

The round table participants noted that the major issue is that President Bakiev has been demonstrating his inability or unwillingness to take initiative. He also seems to see compromise as defeat or as a sign of weakness, which hampers healthy negotiations and the process of mutual concessions. At the same time, the opposition also demonstrates a lack of deep understanding of what it wants, except power as such. “So far some sort of ‘extremist’-type actions prevail in the opposition’s moves, devoid of a serious vision of the process of constitutional and other reforms,” experts argued.

The problem of constitutional reform was basically absent as an element in the political debate. According to participants of the round table, they are just going over the text of the constitution, i.e., moving certain powers from one paragraph (branch of power) to another. Some salient points of constitutional reform, such as the direction of development of local self-governance and other issues, have simply been neglected.

Round table participants also discussed the possible scenarios of political development in the immediate future.

One option suggested was that the 11 April demonstrations will gather about 5-7 thousand supporters of the United Front, and will last for several hours. Today, despite the statements of opposition leaders about unity and support for the goals of the United Front, it is obvious that there is great diversity in the goals, priorities, and tactical plans within the party, which may result in a weakening of the opposition movement.

“For instance, the joint declaration of the “For Reforms!” Movement and the United Front of 30 March 2007 did not mention early presidential elections, while the Front claims early presidential elections to be one of their major goals. If by 11 April some opposition leaders end up in the process of negotiation (on constitutional reform etc.), then others will just have to gather and dissolve, or postpone the demonstrations for later. This would not be good for the opposition, damaging its legitimacy and influence,” round table participants noted.

According to another scenario, demonstrations will gather, as leaders of the United Front promise, between 50 and 100 thousand people forcing authorities to engage in negotiations. These negotiations may lead to the adoption of some “special” law, which would radically strengthen the Prime Minister vis-à-vis the President. The process of constitutional reform could be given more time, until autumn or winter of 2007, for instance. This option is only possible under heavy public pressure on President Bakiev and a lack of meaningful dialogue at that moment. In this case it cannot be ruled out that Feliks Kulov return as Prime Minister, but with reinforced power.

Round table participants did not rule out the possibility of the provocation of mass violence and the emergence of some “third” party to take power. It is not a secret, experts noted, that neither Bakiev nor Kulov is the undisputed leader for the whole Kyrgyzstan. “Both in Bakiev’s and Kulov’s surroundings may emerge people with their own ambitions, ready to crush both leaders at the right moment,” it was said.

Violence may lead to unpredictable consequences. According to round table participants, there are no strong and joint slogans: various groups with various demands and concerns, usually of a local nature (protests against local mayors etc.), are being united under the ‘opposition’. The danger is that in the event of violence, neither side will be able to control the situation, and some forms of parallel governance structures may emerge, possibly with the direct and open participation of criminal groups.

Commenting on the role of external actors, the roundtable participants noted that all states have been following the situation in the country with great interest, but none has been actively incorporated into the process. Almost all neighboring states are interested in stability, and, according to political analysts, no foreign country is remarkable in supporting one specific political leader. As for some politicians’ claims that they have support of a greater power, that is more wish than reality, it was said.

“Whichever leader comes into power, he/she would have to act within the frameworks already built by large powers. Large powers already understand that there will not be principal changes in the foreign policy preferences of Kyrgyz leaders in next 10-15 years,” experts suggested.