#133: The Economist on Kyrgyzstan

The Economist published an article on Kyrgyzstan. As always, the article is well written, but it is obvious that the author, who seems to be based abroad, wrote the article without understanding some intricacies of political playground. It a sophisticated one with shifting alliances. Appointment of opposition figure Melis Eshimkanov to head the State TV or of notorious Osmonakun Ibraimov (Akaev's State Secretary and ex-Ambassador to India) to Kyrgyz Embassy in London (although the appointment was recalled a day later) are examples of this.

The author wrote: " The outgoing parliament was always going to clash with Mr Bakiyev, for it was a product of the Akayev political hegemony that Mr Bakiyev overthrew." Yes, the outgoing parliament was a product of Akaev and was made up of former Alga Kyrgyzstan Party. However, right after the March 2005 events, the very same MPs who supported Akaev started fervently supporting Bakiev. In fact, he enjoyed full support of the parliament, except a few noisy and irritating MPs. One might ask, so why did he get rid of the parliament?

By writing "The fact that such a tarnished parliament was allowed to continue operating was, in itself, surprising in a country supposedly embarking on a new beginning" the author is being overly optimistic. Nonetheless, the article is finished with the right question. "The Kyrgyz Republic was lauded in the 1990s for having the greatest level of political pluralism and civic freedoms in the CIS. If Mr Bakiyev is minded to restore stability by monopolising power in the more customary CIS manner—by strengthening presidential authority and turning parliament into a rubber stamp—it is worth asking whether he has at his control the resources necessary to buy off opposition as Nursultan Nazarbayev does in Kazakhstan, or the policemen to silence opponents as Islam Karimov does in Uzbekistan."