Jogorku Kenesh Deputy Zaynidin Kurmanov, a member of the party "Ak-Jol," takes the view that informal politics had been established before independence and now has good prospects for further development.

Discussing the negative sides of informal politics, the parliamentarian said that the major disadvantage was the absence of transparency. "It is an obvious shortcoming that many key decisions are made, for example, in the informal atmosphere, among a few people who are not authorized officially. In other words, despite the existence of formal institutions of power like the presidency, the Jogorku Kenesh, the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court, the Attorney General, etc., decisions are still made somewhere in the backyard," he said. Moreover, these decisions usually concern the most important questions. In addition, another shortcoming is the hiring policy, which is based on kinship and personal devotion.

"Therefore, it is not surprising that many of our foreign partners cannot understand the decision-making system in Kyrgyzstan. It is a kind of secret for them, although recently they are gradually getting familiar with it and have started to adapt," Kurmanov said.

At the same time, according Kurmanov, informal politics have a number of obvious advantages.

"Regardless of the diversity of views about informal politics, some of its rules are reliable and effective. Let me give an example. Nowadays, we are talking about the blooming of tribalism as of an informal practice. It is not written that this or that position has to be taken by an individual from a specific region. However, while making important political decisions, such rules are followed. I will say it this way: if the prime minister is a southerner, the speaker must be a northerner. When it comes to ministers, they must be proportionally represented in the government from each region; it is equally true for their deputies, members of the CEC, the Accounts Chamber, etc. Sometimes we are not even aware of some of the informal rules." Why do they exist? They exist to keep a balance. In this regard, the question arises - what would have happened if we were guided by formal politics in solving such issues? In this case, the distribution of positions would have been based on professionalism, and it could have resulted in the regional imbalance, providing a ground for discontent," Kurmanov said.

"In this view, those in West do not understand us at all. There, they passed this stage centuries ago. The current situation in our country looks like something well-forgotten by them," Kurmanov said.

Despite a number of obvious positive aspects of informal politics, Zaynidin Kurmanov said that Kyrgyzstan needs to take steps to limit its influence.

"Our Parliament must eventually become a Parliament, but not an imitation; government must become a government ... The same is true for all other formal institutions which so far just imitate," the deputy said.

"Now, Kyrgyzstan is run by ‘invisible puppeteers,'" said Alikbek Jekshenkulov, former Foreign Minister and the coordinator of the organizational committee "Movement For Justice," while talking about the consequences of the development of informal politics.

Jekshenkulov said sadly that politicians in Kyrgyzstan often confuse public and informal politics.

"In my opinion, informal politics should take place only within a party. The rest must take place within the context of an official dialogue. I mean the relationship between the powerful, the parties, and the political leaders," Jekshenkulov said.

"The concept of ‘informal politics' is vague, but it clearly has more influence on the internal situation in Kyrgyzstan than on public policy. For example, during the most recent protests, the media constantly wrote that the government carried on a dialogue and met with representatives of the opposition, i.e., there was political bargaining. However, the authorities were officially silent. Moreover, when the Parliament [Jogorku Kenesh] adopts laws, and when later one starts tracing their origins, it turns out that informal politics is usually involved. When a politician or businessman is interested in adopting a certain law, he will lobby, and the law will be adopted. In this way, I would like to say that informal politics has the direct influence on legal issues," Jekshenkulov said.

Informal politics, according to the statesman, is present in all countries, but there is no country where it has so much influence as in Kyrgyzstan.

"Now, Kyrgyzstan is run by ‘invisible puppeteers.' There are many solid statements but they are not realized in practice. It is the ‘politics in the Kyrgyz way...,' Jekshenkulov said.

"The question of the acceptability of such a form of politics in Kyrgyzstan depends on principles adhered to by those in positions of power and the opposition, party. If we could have a more effective public policy, the role of informal politics would be reduced. In my view, public policy must necessarily prevail, and in this case, the intentions, words and actions of politicians will be convergent but not divergent," Jekshenkulov said.

The state must avoid informal politics, said Ishenbay Abdurazakov, former State-Secretary of Kyrgyz Republic.

"From one side, there are a number of people who are in certain positions. Their tasks are to define the political course and to realize it in practice. They receive salaries for that. However, within this context, there is informal politics. I mean certain mechanisms of decision-making that are initiated and advanced in favor of one's vested interests by some poorly-trained people," Abdurazakov said.

"Many people tend to think there are a great number of such people. The indirect proof for such a vision is that many projects and decisions turn out to be ineffective or result in scandals when time passes. Based on this, one can conclude that informal politics does not meet the national interests," he said.

"Nevertheless, there were some cases when the informal interference proved to be useful to the country. Nevertheless, it must be avoided, because the conduct of informal politics always implies certain risks," he said.

Independent political expert Nur Omarov's opinion was that, "Informal politics is one of the real and effective instruments of the internal and external politics of any state. However, the control of its influence is a necessary and possible task." Unfortunately, there are no politicians in Kyrgyzstan who could manage this task.

"Many of our politicians, in one way or another, are connected with clan structures and different interests. It influences their positions," Omarov said.

"Today, informal politics is the fundamental factor," Omarov said. He noted that informal clan-tribal relations at the moment prevail over the democratic institutions supported by the Constitution.

"In Kyrgyzstan, politics, unfortunately, serves the interests of a small group of people. There are many examples to prove this, however, I do not want to go into details and personalize the issue," Omarov said.

Topchubek Turgunaliev, the leader of the party "Erkindik," completely rejected the idea of conducting politics informally. He emphasized that recently the role of political movements has been strengthened and they apply informal methods of political struggle without hesitation.

As an example, Turgunaliev mentioned the emergence of the Revolution Committee (Revcom) that was established under the leadership of former Deputy Azimbek Beknazarov. Turgunaliev said that he worries about the methods that will be applied to achieve the goals stated by the Revcom.

Turgunaliev said he is completely against the "semi-legal" actions that could be taken by the new opposition movement.

"The semi-legal actions proposed by the Revcom are completely prohibited by our laws. In addition, the state must struggle against various illegal and underground organizations. In a democratic state, everything must be open. In this way, we struggled against Akaev in the past," Turgunaliev said.

It is quite often the case that the followers of informal relations include other opposition forces of the country, Turgunaliev said. The party leader emphasized that the current Kyrgyz opposition represents political parties and groups that are "hostile towards the present authorities and strive for power themselves."

Tamerlan Ibraimov, another political expert, thinks that authorities must create the conditions for legal methods of struggle in order to ensure that the opposition will not turn to "illegal and underground activities."

"I believe that the authorities must carry on a dialogue with the opposition and should not use forceful methods against them. If the authorities start prosecutions against their opponents, take them to court, and pressure their businesses economically, it will result in an increase of reactions from the opposition side," Ibraimov said.

While replying to questions, Ibraimov pointed out that there are three centers of opposition to power in Kyrgyzstan, and one of them is informal associations of people who are not content with the current leaders and significantly contribute to the conduct of informal politics.

"Within the unorganized, informal opposition, it is difficult to identify clearly-stated goals. They are just unhappy with the current events or state policies, or the actions of certain officials. At the same time, such opposition members that are not well-organized represent an opportunity for formal organizations," Ibraimov said.

The well-known analytical expert Valentin Bogatyrev expressed his opinion on the extent of the influence of informal politics in Kyrgyzstan.

"In a society where political institutions are well-developed, the major decisions are made in the ‘formal' sphere. However, a certain part is still informal. In Kyrgyzstan, where political institutions are almost not present, the most decisions are made informally -- about 90% of all decisions," Bogatyrev said.

Replying to questions, Bogatyrev noted that there was no need to be afraid of informal politics. He said that such political relations are normal and are used quite widely.

"Informal politics exists in all countries, and everywhere it plays an important role. Another question is how ‘formal' and informal politics correlate with each other, what is their mutual role in decision-making and governance," Bogatyrev said.

"If, 150 years ago, there were political institutions projected to certain models and decisions were made in the informal zone, is it necessary to shift to 'formal' institutions? Maybe it is better to leave it as it is and to say that if informal institutions function effectively, perhaps they have a right to exist? Therefore, my position is that the system of social law cannot be changed artificially. If, nowadays, informal relations dominate, then let them continue to exist. Efforts to change the situation artificially will not bring positive results. We risk breaking the system of informal governance without first building the ‘formal' system. In this case, the whole system would be out of operation," Bogatyrev said.

"My view is that it was a big mistake when 17 years ago there was the effort to change the system. There were no efforts to return to the real governance system that had existed in the society. The current and newly introduced methods will not solve this problem. For example, the Parliament, which is formed based on the territorial principle - in fact, deputies do not represent certain groups of people, do not reflect certain interests. Deputies elected from a part of a Kyrgyz tribe or a certain group would have definitely represented a specific part of society," Bogatyrev said.

During the interview, Bogatyrev talked about the positive aspects of informal politics.

"The first positive side is that Kyrgyzstan exists; this is the most obvious achievement of informal politics. This is because, within the ‘formal' politics, there would have been another result. There could have been an effort to completely level state institutions, divide the country into parts, and so on. At least, the ‘formal' political forces were striving for that. Everyone realized it. I see it, any politically important decision that is taken in the informal way, restrains the state from undertaking steps that are not well thought out. Let's consider a concrete example: the situation with Kumtor. It was decided informally. At the same time, those efforts to solve the ‘question' in the ‘formal' space resulted in conflicts and serious damage. As soon as Arslanbek Maliev raised officially the question of nationalizing Kumtor, the price of our stock shares immediately dropped. It was quite harmful. And only negotiations, where informal mechanisms were applied, helped to rebalance the situation," Bogatyrev said.

"Besides, all the political developments of 2007 were decided informally. In those days, I even coined a term and called our reality the ‘consensus democracy.' It is when people in a society communicate with each other; establish informal relations with each other. One has to understand that informal politics does not mean politics without rules. Both traditional and informal rules, in any case, imply the existence of certain rules and procedures. Here, some rules are functioning and when they are violated, there is a certain responsibility," Bogatyrev said.

"Some steps that are being taken by the authorities at present, as I see it, are targeted at introducing certain rules. For example, the party system is a result of the introduction of such rules. We can severely criticize the party ‘Ak-Jol.' We can criticize the current Parliament, but in my view, the Jogorku Kenesh exists in a country that is regulated by concrete rules. One may accept or reject these rules, or one may consider them democratic or undemocratic, but they exist. Here, one can remember the previous Parliament, which had the ability to act without any rules. Today is like this, tomorrow is like that, and in other words, it depends on who screams louder."

At the end of interview, Bogatyrev expressed his view on the probably reaction of the international community, if Kyrgyzstan continues to develop informal type of politics.

"Those societies that live in accordance with the rule of law will definitely have a negative reaction. They will say that they are disappointed with what they observe. However, other societies may perceive it in a completely different way. At the end of the day, the right of people to exist within the framework and rules that constitute their reality must be recognized. Why can't a country live within rules it has defined for itself? Let's consider the example of Iran. From the Western viewpoint, it is an undemocratic country with many serious violations and so on. But, for the other part of the world, it is a normal state, successfully functioning and deciding major tasks," Bogatyrev concluded.

04.03.2008