Was there an ‘island of democracy’ in Central Asia? 

By the middle of the 90s Kyrgyzstan was perceived as the most advanced country in terms of democratic development according to public opinion in the CIS as well as in the West.  The major reasons for this evaluation were the efforts of the political leadership to adapt to democratic institutes in the country, as opposed to the strongly authoritarian course of other Central Asian presidents. Independent media and press had emerged to criticize those in power and to develop pluralism of views.

The opposition had been formed in parliament, and generally in the political sphere, to challenge the president and government, and the executive power could not ignore its views. Several oppositional political parties were founded in order to offer an alternative path for Kyrgyzstan’s development. Kyrgyzstan was a free country in terms of diversity of views, free expression and criticism of the authorities; there were conditions and opportunities conducive to such freedoms.  Kyrgyzstan was the only country in Central Asia where the communist leadership was replaced after mass protests in 1991; representatives of academic circles and the middle echelons of communist nomenclature, who were regarded in those days as democratically oriented , came to power.

The political leadership changed in 2005, again as a result of mass protests. Even today this event triggers various reactions; there is no commonly accepted view on whether it was a people’s revolution or coup d’etat. Therefore, there is a need to have a thorough and objective analysis of the developments in Kyrgyzstan starting from the dissolution of the USSR to gaining independence. Moreover, it is important because post-Soviet countries demonstrate different ways for development through formulating their own models of behavior within the new conditions.  In my view, all Central Asian countries have decided in most aspects their approach to democracy, pluralism, the market economy and human rights. In this view, it is interesting to look at the situation in Kyrgyzstan – the country which was rightly considered as a pioneer of democracy in the region. May Kyrgyzstan’s experience be useful for the other countries? There is the opinion that the very rapid and unprepared move by Kyrgyzstan towards democracy and liberalization did not justify many hopes, and that now the country is returning to a more natural condition, which corresponds to its historical past, culture and the mentality of the people.  To consider this question it is necessary to analyze the internal and external factors that influenced the process of defining the country’s historical path to development. No matter what kind of internal processes dominate in the country, the situations in Kazakhstan and Russia often play a substantial role in the internal politics of Kyrgyzstan. 

 Internal factors and conditions for democratic development 

Democracy, above all, is a way of forming governing structures on the basis of fair and free elections; hence, one may look at the election processes in a country to answer whether there is democracy, and in which form. There is no ideal democracy, no doubt about it. But we have to concentrate on other things, namely, how we, the people of Kyrgyzstan, including the political elite, have regarded democracy both as a principle and as a process. As a principle, how do we treat it, and what does it means for us? As a process, do we need it today or tomorrow?    Many post-Soviet countries have assured the international community that they respect this value, but in practice, they have substituted democracy for what they call an  “original method of development.” As a result, a variety of models were proposed, eg. regulated democracy or sovereign democracy. In some countries it is believed that before attaining democracy, it is necessary to pass through certain stages, for example, authoritarianism, and from there to a stage of democratization.  So, let’s turn to elections.  

Elections.

The reality is such that none of the elections in Kyrgyzstan has ever met international standards. This means that the basis for democracy is quite weak in Kyrgyzstan. The November referendum on the Constitution and the elections on December 16 were recognized by international organizations as non-democratic and characterized by a number of violations of law and falsifications. Thus, it is possible to conclude that there are no respective conditions and political culture to conduct free and democratic elections.  Let’s consider in detail those reasons that explain such a state of affairs.

The key participants of the election process were: the authorities represented by government, parliament, local state administrations, the Central Election Commission and local election commissions at polling stations, as well as the opposition represented by political parties and politicians, and finally, the voters who should shape results of any lawful elections.  Let’s look at behavior of each participant of the process. (1) Authorities.

From1995 to the present, the authorities use elections to strengthen their positions via manipulation of public conscience and behavior, falsification and fraud. Objectivity, commitment to rule of law, and fairness become secondary in the actions of state authorities during elections;  complete loyalty to the goals and interests of the ruling regime is forged.

As a result of past experience, all levels of state officials hold a persistent view that any election is to test their commitment to the ruling regime. Large-scale cadre changes have become a typical phenomenon in the actions of the executive power in the post-election period.

Therefore, officials easily ignore the law, comprehensively use administrative resources, and in essence perform criminal activities. This line of behavior of state officials resulted in the moral degradation of the whole vertical governance,  a sad state for the executive power. Not one group of people among state officials has emerged who would strive to follow democratic values within the 15 years of independence. The majority of them are temporarily oriented to more easily adapt to any dominating political trends.

They are ready to serve a leader with any views in order to keep their niches in state power and to have the opportunity to realize their personal vested interests. The path of independence of Kyrgyzstan requires having a layer of state officials who are able to develop sustainable models for the country’s development and by their patriotic attitude, be capable of creating a favorable climate in the corridors of power.  

It is quite logical that authorities constituted by unconscionable officials, guided by leaders of limited vision, who in their turn defy a historical responsibility given to them, failed to form common values in the public that could have served as a guide as well as a consolidating factor.  There are dangerous gaps in the values of different generations, populations of different regions and ethnic groups. Nothing is done to form a sustainable and respectful approach to history, national values and strategically important concepts for national development.

Further advancement of capitalism’s wild morality contributes to the deformation of the young generation’s thinking, who are ready to do anything for quick benefits. The culture of corruption is widening in people’s conscious and then reflected in the real life.   Parliament was not able to create an effective and well thought-out basis for the legal protection of state officials. They are also not protected in view of the absence of fair and independent judicial power.

The major reason for the authorities’ irresponsibility towards law is their consistently unpunished condition. Most serious corruption scandals end nowhere. In such conditions, an honest official feels unprotected and less rightful, and he has no way to protect his right to perform his state duties in accordance with the law.  A separate topic concerns the activities of election commissions at all levels.

Commissions mainly include representatives of the intelligentsia. By looking attentively at their activities, one may conclude that for most of them elections have become a kind of ‘seasonal’ business and a means to manipulate voters. They, despite the absence of pressure from above, consciously participate in fraud without conscience. Such an attitude to the elections has been formed as a result of their domination in society, especially in the sphere of their activities, a loose approach to the law, and ignoring the concepts of fairness and transparency.

The widespread corruption in high-schools and universities, the health system, in most budget organizations has contributed to the widespread moral corruption of people who are not then capable of securing free elections. The long-term pressure of authorities on budget organizations’ employees, where the latter is used for shady purposes during political campaigns, led to conformism and the absence of principal positions. At present the national intelligentsia is not a leading progressive force in society and plays a very weak role in the process of society’s improvement.

Opposition.

The Kyrgyz opposition has the most distinctive history in Central Asia; it is the most active in the region. Opposition members have lost in all presidential elections but succeeded in the parliamentary elections. The opposition continues to contribute to pluralism and working out an alternative vision for the country’s development, as well as trying to strengthen civil society. The Kyrgyz opposition exists rather more politically, but lacks a solid ideological basis and theoretically it is weakly prepared.

Therefore, it is not a well-consolidated political force, but a group of politicians who exploit temporary alliances and associations, which at the same time continue to compete with each other, to the detriment of common interests.  The opposition is constantly renewed with officials who are not needed by the current authorities and have no democratic stance. The inclusion of some opposition representatives to high-level state structures after the events in March 2005 shows that the concepts of ‘democracy,’ ‘freedom,’ ‘human rights’ are not key values for most of the opposition. On the contrary, some of them openly rejected the course of democratic development and preferred  a strongly authoritarian direction.

Thus, we can conclude that for the opposition as well as for the ruling elite, that between two political courses- the struggle for power and the struggle for democracy- the former is primary, and the latter is not even a component of political struggle in most cases. The amorphic state of ideas and the absence of leaders attracted to do most for public democratic convictions, does little to help Kyrgyzstan develop alternative models for development in coming years.  

The major hopes of the opposition relate to a protest-oriented population in line with the formula “ketsin,”, which  may expand under the worsening economic situation in the country and the sharp decrease the living standards of the majority of people. This is the main mistake of the opposition, because reliance on the discontent of the poor is a narrow vision of political perspective.

Reliance on protest-oriented poor people will radicalize the opposition, pushing it towards the organization of extreme political actions, and in the case of a coup d’etat - formation of short-lived tyrannical regimes. In the height of its struggle to protect its interests, a part of  the opposition may involve dangerous inter-group and inter-regional conflicts, which in the absence of solutions might result in removing democracy from the agenda of the country for a while. It has to be mentioned that because of poorly thought-out and occasional actions, a part of the Kyrgyz opposition have discredited in the public eye such values as freedom and democracy, which are at present associated with chaos and conflict. To have accelerating democratic development in Kyrgyzstan, it is necessary to have an ideological and political modernization of the opposition, to turn it into the gravitational centre for progressive alternative projects and programs.  

Voters.

Based on empirical observations during parliamentary elections, Kyrgyz voters may be divided into three groups.

1. Ignorant: The first and the most numerous group. Any election is ignored by 50% of voters. There is always a certain percentage of people who are not interested in such public events as elections.

Recently, those disappointed in politicians joined this first group. The presence of such voters is ground for all kinds of machinations. The percentage of such people is too high; hence, it is necessary to have policies of engagement by creating a system of motivations and conducting effective explanatory activities. The increase of ignorant voters is proof of the worsening situation in the country.  

2. Active. This layer of people are actively interested in politics, and participate in the activities of political parties, organizations and in general have a strong interest in observing political events in the country. They constitute, according to my observations, not more than 30% of all voters. As usual, these people make conscious choices in support of democracy. Even though they are not strongly committed democrats, they think that power formation by means of free and fair elections is the best way. Among the reasons for such behavior, one may name a traditional Kyrgyz commitment to fairness and truth as well as work experience in such advanced institutes as NGOs, the mass media, private companies and organizations. Many of them have confirmed through their own experiences the importance of individual freedoms, a critical approach to reality, and hence, assign a significant role to well thought-out and reasonable actions of politicians. A part of this electorate comprises protest-oriented people who are not satisfied with the current situation for a variety of reasons, and who struggle constantly for their interests. 

3. Traders of votes. This is a small layer of voters who cynically trade their votes. The erosion of public conscience in this regard started when the ex-president openly invited voters to accept gifts from politicians. Then the hypocrisy and dishonesty of politicians completed this process, and as a result there are people who see elections as an opportunity to get material benefits for themselves.  As shown by practice, it is useless to talk to them about ideological and political topics. At that, one may say that in some cases there is a solid connection between leaders of such groups of voters with the members of precinct commissions, and representatives of local state administrations. They actively help corrupt politicians to turn elections into a ‘dirty’ deal.  

Economic aspects of democracy.

Kyrgyzstan is a poor country with low income per capita; most of population lives beneath the poverty line. In a country where the majority of the population is poor, democracy has little chance of surviving. This is an axiom of democratic development history around the world.  The most substantial basis of democracy is a middle class. The middle class in Kyrgyzstan is not more than 7-10% of the population and its core are representatives of small and middle-size businesses as well as people of free professions, who depend on the authorities in one way or another. Rich people are not interested in democratic promotion, since most of them, in case of transparency and fairness of political procedures, would lose their preferential position; therefore they support a closed, authoritarian and corrupt political regime.  

Cultural and psychological picture.

Regional and tribal divisions and the political struggle on the basis of such a division makes the process of free expression more complex often by forcing people against their will to comply with established group and regional interests. Many politicians have encouraged people’s division into regions and tribes while choosing political positions. Political philosophy, ideology, principles and positions are substituted by features of geographical and blood-kinship identity, and as a result democratic processes are being delayed. People cannot propose and bring about such a group of national politicians who could qualify for national level political leadership. During parliamentary elections based on political parties, regionalism continued to play a significant role in the process of voting.  

Democracy is sustained by civil society.

Among those bases of democracy that are present in the country, only two have proved their solidness and sustainability. First of all is that mentality of mountaineers who respect free spirit and free expression. It was not just a joke when W. Churchill wrote “freedom lives in mountains…” Also, it is the strongest civil society in the region. Nowadays, one third of the capable population works in NGOs, and they give to state activities certain sustainability. NGOs have created the most solid and reliable social ties in the society while supporting it to survive under difficult conditions. The excellent qualities of NGO members are their awareness, and their ability to sustain their principles and to make a conscious choice.  It is within NGOs that the most perspicacious ideas and projects are designed. It is NGOs that fight for human rights and democracy in the country.  

Ideological and value approach.

At present the course towards limiting democratic processes is ongoing. There are no independent TV channels, national TV covers only those views that are close to the ruling elite.  The new Constitution, adopted by means of conducting a doubtful referendum, excluded the existence of a check and balance system and opened the way to creating an authoritarian regime. The leadership of the parliament and entire government is formed from representatives of the pro-residential political party. Thus, there is a consolidation of the monopoly on political power in the country, and democratic promotion is excluded from the national agenda. A question arises: why Kyrgyzstan, being the most advanced country in view of democratic promotion, has chosen authoritarian development? Is it possible that those democratic processes that took place in the country were incidental and non-decisive?  In fact, the democratic development that had been supported by that ‘free spirit of mountaineers’ for more than 10 years was not forged either by creating respective political institutes,(strengthening in people’s mindset the importance of democratic values) or by forming a layer of middle class as the basis of democracy. The ideology that is being imposed in the country has emerged in the shadow of Stalin’s philosophy and has nothing to do with democracy. The carriers of the current official ideology are people with the old way of thinking who lead people back into the past.  This is an internal answer to views on democracy in the country. Let’s consider now the external aspects of the problem.  

External factors.

In the 90s especially in the first half, post-Soviet countries tried to survive under extremely difficult conditions and move firmly along the path of independence. None of the countries, including Russia, could define the conditions regarding a model of development. Countries were searching and they paid more attention to remote countries to look for relevant samples. The Russia of Yeltsin was in the process of romantic cooperation with the West and widely used democratic rhetoric. The key countries of the region – Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, led by experienced party members, did not rush to introduce democracy, yet not limiting others, while contemplating the possible results. In this context, Kyrgyzstan’s search for its way and  its declaration of democratic values, with the support of western countries, especially of the USA, were easy to understand and even quite natural.  

But closer to 2000, democratic processes in Kyrgyzstan triggered more anxiety among  its neighbors. Their vision was that it is dangerous to introduce democracy to a country where the historical, cultural, economic and social preconditions were absent. Through the views of various Kazakh and Uzbek experts, it was made obvious that rapid movement towards democracy, playing with political opposition may result in oсhlocracy and chaos in the country, which can be used to the advantage of various extremist groups.  

The events of 2005 seem to confirm their worries. But this is a first impression. In fact, those developments in Kyrgyzstan had their own logic and contained a number of useful lessons for its neighbors.   By 2005 the external backdrop had seriously changed. The Russia of Putin moved along the way of authoritarianism and targeted a return and strengthening of its influence upon post-Soviet territories. The policy of romantic relations with the West changed to restraining the West’s influence and outright confrontation.

The regime of Putin in comparison with the previous regime showed its effectiveness and attractiveness. The efforts to revive the great Russia forced post-Soviet countries’ leaders to think on the priorities of their foreign policies. Russia gradually has come round to the model of “sovereign or regulated democracy”; it means that the state must play a leading role in the reforms of the transition period, and each country must develop democracy without any interference from outside.  In Kazakhstan, as a result of the crucial suppression of the opposition and consolidation of a monopoly on power, the authoritarian regime of president Nazarbaev was established. He continues to stay on the Kazakh path to democracy, the point of which is to create a new economy, to form a solid middle class, improve the welfare of people and gradually move into democracy without the political upheavals and threatening crises.

Both countries have a substantial financial capacity to perform large-scale economic and social projects. It is a matter of fact that both countries are successfully modernizing, and the welfare of most of the population is increasing annually. Moreover, both countries have certain financial capacities to influence such small countries as Kyrgyzstan.  Another important factor is the SCO; its activities have more and more impact upon the internal politics of its member countries. While being a club of authoritarian states, the SCO strives for securing itself from any stronger influence of the West, and never tires of repeating that the USA uses democracy as an instrument of interference.  

But recently a very symbolic event took place, which could change many things in the destiny of democracy and freedom in the region. Kazakhstan was elected as OSCE chair in 2010, which confirmed the correctness of the chosen course targeted at a gradual and affirmative advancement of democracy. It is a very serious decision for Kazakhstan, which has no way but to get rid of authoritarianism and introduce democratic institutes in the country.

The West thereby showed that Kazakhstan has a unique chance to become a leader of democratic reforms in the CIS.  The real movement of Kazakhstan towards democracy may radically change the consciousness of the political elite in Central Asian countries, who may in turn want their countries to continue along this path too. In this way Kazakhstan as well as other countries may need to turn to Kyrgyzstan’s experience.  Therefore, the current efforts of the ruling political circles in Kyrgyzstan to move back and change the course of democratic promotion do not agree with the emerging political situation in the region. 

The influence of the West and our relationship 

The attitude of the West, especially of the USA towards democratic reforms in the region is characterized by moderation and pragmatism. The prolonged war in Iraq and unsuccessful efforts to sustain democracy in this country undermined their belief in the doubtless possibility of democratization of societies that remained for a long time under the rule of dictators. Many in the West understand that such countries must go through a long and complex process of democratization, before talking about real democracy.

The reaction of the West on the events in March 2005 in Kyrgyzstan shows that the priority is stability and predictability in the region.  The long-term interests of Kyrgyzstan, in my view, include constructive cooperation with the West, with the USA; this is particularly true regarding democracy promotion in the country and in the region. We can learn a lot from the experience of European countries that operate on the basis of political parties.