|
|
Akaev: I Don't Understand Their Stubbornness
Former president of Kyrgyzstan Askar Akaev, overthrown in March of last year and now living in Russia, expressed his opinions about the present Kyrgyz authorities' chances of avoiding revolution and civil war to Kommersant correspondent Vladimir Solovyev.
What do you thing about the current events in your homeland?
I am alarmed. Last week, the political situation was complex already. Now it's even more difficult. The first skirmishes have already taken place. Nobody is willing to compromise. I think that the authorities should show wisdom and seek a compromise with the opposition on constitutional reform. It could be found, all the more since it was promised by [current President of Kyrgyzstan Kurmanbek] Bakiev and [Prime Minister Felix] Kulov during last March's coup. The standoff that we see now is a path toward confrontation. It threatens unpredictable consequences. A clash of force could lead to bloodshed, which could turn into civil war.
Are you serious about that threat?
If there are no negotiations and no compromise is found. The opposition is behaving constructively. All of its actions are peaceful in character. But, after March 24 of last year [the date of the Tulip Revolution] society has been greatly criminalized. Criminal financed that coup, they argued with the authorities and they capable of provoking violence and pillaging. That is why blood may flow. I wouldn't want revolutions for Kyrgyzstan. Only tragedy comes from them. That is why I urge the sides to solve their problems democratically.
How did it happen that, just over a year and a half after the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, another evolutionary situation has arisen?
Politicians, especially during a coup d'etat, love to make promises. After the events of March of last year, the new authorities promised the people broad reforms – to introduce a parliamentary form of rule, to form a government of national accord and to make the national television public. All of that gave the public heightened expectations. A little time passed and the reform still hadn't come. Moreover, the socio-economic situation deteriorated, production fell. That, in principle, happens everywhere where a “color revolution” takes place, not only in Kyrgyzstan. The revolutionaries simply don't create the conditions for growth and broad layers of the public are dissatisfied with that. They thought they would live better immediately.
As the former president of Kyrgyzstan, say whether or not a parliamentary form of rule is acceptable for the country.
I think that, for Kyrgyzstan, as for any other country of the CIS that has undergone a transformation period, a presidential-parliamentary form of government is needed until strong parties appear. But the revolutionaries of March 2005 said themselves that they would convert to a parliamentary model, and now that they are in power, there is no other way. Society is certain that changes will take place only after constitutional reform. I think that the authorities could agree to a parliamentary-presidential form of rule, but they don't want to make any concessions. I don't understand that stubbornness. They came to power promising a parliamentary republic.
Those who are now demanding that Kurmanbek Bakiev resign compare him to you. They say he came as a revolutionary and then hung on to power like Akaev. Twice a year I reported to the parliament.
Constructive interaction in all branches of government is good for the development of a country. Trying to make the parliament obedient is not. So I am not like them. In the time they have been in power, the have shown an inability to rule by democratic methods.
Your words give the impression that you support the opposition. Whose side are you on?
I have left politics. I live in Russia and am engaged in science at the Prigozhin Institute for Mathematical Research of Complex Systems. There is no politics in that research. But, as a citizen of Kyrgyzstan, I cannot be an impartial observer. I take a neutral position but call on all involved to settle the conflict democratically while there is still a chance to do so. The authorities are in power to keep peace. Therefore, I think they should take the first step.
About the same time as the unrest in Bishkek started, some Russian and Kyrgyz media ran a story on an FBI report in which it is allegedly stated that you took about $1 billion with you when you left Kyrgyzstan.
Those reports actually surfaced several days before the meetings in Bishkek. It has to be said that the current Kyrgyz authorities always look for someone to blame for their misfortunes as soon as they get in a difficult situation. The information printed about my financial status is not new. They wrote about that a year ago. I remember that the Kyrgyz government even hired a detective who promised to find and return that billion dollars to the treasury for $500,000. The general prosecutor at the time, Kambaraly Kongantiev, admitted that the detective didn't find even a cent of Akaev money. So all that wealth is nothing more than a fantasy of my detractors currently in power. They always mention it when they are having a hard time.
I cannot agree that I was like those authorities. I, as president, always tried to reach agreement with everyone. In my time, the parliament was a place for criticism of the president and I thought that that was normal.
by
Vladimir Solovyev
All the Article in Russian as of Nov. 08, 2006
|
|
|
