On 14 May 2007 the Institute of Public Policy hosted a round table discussion on "Constitutional reform in Kyrgyzstan as of May 2007." Participants of the round table discussed the state and prospects of the constitutional reform, the role of constitution in political struggle and possibility of changing the current political situation through constitutional reform. (See list of speakers).

Participants of the round table discussion noted that at present the Constitution in Kyrgyzstan does not serve to determine the general rules of the game; conversely, it generates conflicts among the main political actors. Evolution of the constitutional reform in Kyrgyzstan demonstrates that both the public and political elite have not agreed on rules on how to develop rules, i.e. the Constitution. On the one hand, as noted by experts, this situation is explained by the lack of historical and political experience of independent designing of development models among the Kyrgyzstani public.

However, on the other hand, under careful study of the dynamics of the attempts of reforming the Basic Law, particularly for the last year, it becomes clear that several basic elements, which would represent the philosophy of the constitutional reform, are presently nonexistent in the country.

According to experts, first of all, the public does not know the purpose of amending the Constitution. Participants of the round table discussion agreed that one could hardly identify a common goal, which would require a constitution with certain principles and parameters, and thus, explain and justify all these efforts on constitutional reforming.

Secondly, one could hardly observe demonstration and articulation of certain values and ideals, which certain groups would want to have enshrined in the Basic Law. As it was pointed out by one of the participants, the current constitutional reform, whereby Western and Soviet notions of constitution and reform are intertwined, represents nothing but political struggle for control over resources. According to experts, as of May 2007 this struggle is focused on the control over the executive.

According to experts-political scientists, for a successful constitutional reform in Kyrgyzstan there should be mental changes. Particularly, the attitude of the public towards law should be quickly changed, to be accepted by everyone as the main general rule. "If the lack of the culture of law-abiding during the pre-Soviet and Soviet periods was compensated by other political rules, then at present it is vitally important to raise the status of the law, make it inviolable," said a number of discussants.

For mental changes to take place it is also necessary to reanimate the status of the central government. According to experts, the ‘sacral' nature of government, which was lost on 24 March 2005, still has not been restored; moreover, strengthening of regional trends further exacerbates this issue. "It is no longer prestigious to work for the government, which is indicative of many things," noted discussants.

Another issue raised during the discussion was the problem of vague wording virtually in all drafts of the constitution, which lays grounds for future conflicts, notwithstanding active public discussion and political struggle over the constitutional reform. Thus, after all debates and consultations, the process of appointing prime minister remains unclear, each step of nomination and appointment is not specified. The question was raised, whether this demonstrates incompetence of involved actors, or purposeful play for long-term goals?

Discussants noted that on the one hand, a number of "mistakes" are made on purpose, so that later there would be enough room to interpret norms in a convenient way. "It is important for the authorities to adopt a new constitution officially, to support the reform, but at the same time to do everything to keep the real leverages of control," noted experts. Another problem is that experts in constitutional law, lawyers are kept away from the process of drafting amendments when it comes to the decisive stage, especially in the opposition camp.

"Experts are involved and they do contribute, but the final decision is made by politicians, who destroy the integral scheme of amendments trying to strike compromise with each other," noted participants of the round table discussion. According to them, this results in a great number of legal mistakes, which lay grounds for future conflicts, and this should be taken into consideration by those leaders, who actively participate in the process of constitutional reform.

In conclusion, participants of the round table discussion found the increased attention of the public to the constitutional reform, to the issue of separation of powers as positive development. "So far the public discourse is taking place on amateurish level, but this is the beginning of the process. At present the content is not as important as the process of disputes, debates on the constitution, during which public opinion will be gradually crystallized and able to influence the political elite," concluded discussants.■