Then president of Kyrgyzstan Askar Akayev (left) takes part in the presentation of his book "Thinking the Future" in Moscow in September 2004.
Photo: Valery Melnikov
| Other Photos |
 |
|
 |
King Under Fire
// A Crisis of Power as the Screws Tighten in Kyrgyzstan
The Kyrgyz authorities called the events in Bishkek "a parliamentary crisis." Meanwhile, the talk is of a crisis of power itself. And it is taking place because the new leaders of Kyrgyzstan did not draw any conclusions based on the mistakes of their predecessors.
There is an old Eastern myth about a dragon who ruled a country for many years. Every year his reign got crueler and crueler. From time to time some brave soul would challenge the dragon and perish in battle with him. But one day a victor arrived who faced down the dragon's threat. The thankful populace immediately proclaimed him their leader. The hero had a look around the dragon's realm: he entered one room and took a fistful of gold; he glanced into another and was struck by the sparkle of brilliant gems. He didn't notice how he had begun to grow claws and thick fur. And then the defeated dragon lifted its head, laughed crookedly, and said, "now it is you who will be the dragon."
Former Kyrgyz President Askar Akayev came to power in 1990 as a promising, hopeful democrat, a comrade of Sakharov's, a fearless critic of the distant and out of touch Soviet government. He promised to fight corruption and to justly and honorably govern the country. During the first years of his rule, Kyrgyzstan was considered a showcase of democracy in the region. Unlike its neighbors, the republic is not rich in natural resources, but it vaulted to the front of the pack solely on the strength of the course of reforms implemented by Akayev's team. But then the situation changed.
Kyrgyzstan stopped being a showcase. The nature of the power wielded by President Akayev began to change. Earlier his team had included numerous bright individuals and independent politicians. It was difficult to control such a team – President Akayev couldn't expect unconditional agreement with everything he said. But that aside, the team afforded Askar Akayev a broad base of social support upon which he could always depend in case of a crisis. But the president gradually distanced himself from many of his most intelligent comrades and pulled his friends and those of his wife closer. Eventually, he succeeded in building a harsh vertical of power. It became easier to lead the country, and the power of the president seemed to be strengthened. But that strength was an illusion, a fact that became apparent during its first serious test – the unrest in spring 2002. And three years later, it all ended with Askar Akayev's flight from the country.
The government that replaced him in Kyrgyzstan wasn't stingy with the ink in describing the former regime's misdeeds. But in actuality, little changed. The redistribution of goods and the flows of money that used to be controlled by the members of the former first family continued in barely altered ways. When Kyrgyzstan's new authorities encountered a serious crisis today, they couldn't find the appropriate answer to their opponents' actions.
Only a democratic government, one that could depend on wide public support, could have found a relatively painlessly way out of the crisis. For only that kind of a government has the possibility of sharing responsibility with the opposition in order to gain time. Only that kind of government can sacrifice some figurehead or another in order to win over the whole party. In Kyrgyzstan, the least tremor is enough to damn the king.
Gennady Sysoyev
All the Article in Russian as of Nov. 08, 2006
|
|
|
