EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - Kyrgyzstan: President Strives to Finish Off Political Opponents

EURASIA INSIGHT

KYRGYZSTAN: PRESIDENT STRIVES TO FINISH OFF POLITICAL OPPONENTS
Daniel Sershen 10/23/07

Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev has dissolved parliament and called for fresh elections on December 16. In so doing, Bakiyev aims to bring closure to a long-running political struggle in Kyrgyzstan.

Bakiyev’s announcement on October 22 came a day after the adoption of a new constitution via a contentious referendum. In dissolving parliament, Bakiyev took advantage of a constitutional gap, as the new constitution did not take immediate effect after securing popular approval. That allowed Bakiyev to dismiss the current parliament, by using a provision in the old, yet still-in-effect Basic Law concerning "insurmountable differences." The new constitution does not contain the "insurmountable differences" clause.

On the whole, experts believe that new constitution, along with a different legislative composition, will end up boosting Bakiyev’s political stature. In an address broadcast on state television, Bakiyev criticized members of parliament for sowing discord, and for pursuing personal interests over the collective good. "The affair eventually went as far as an attempt at a parliamentary coup," Bakiyev said. "Parliament began to duplicate the executive branch, trying to influence not only appointments as envisioned by the constitution, but also operative decisions of the government, ministries, and departments."

Looking ahead, Bakiyev expressed confidence that the country’s new lawmakers would avoid such alleged pitfalls. "The country will receive a parliament made up of worthy people, chosen for their ideas and not their money," he said, alluding to a frequent refrain that many legislators had essentially bought their legislative seats.

The next elections will be held according to a party-list system, under which voters will select their preferred party rather than individual candidates.

Not coincidentally, a new, pro-presidential party, Ak Zhol, held its founding congress on October 15. The delegates named Bakiyev party chairman, although he laid aside the post the next day due to constitutional restrictions on the president’s political activity. Ak Zhol is expected to provide staunch support for Bakiyev’s administration, much like similar parties in Russia, Kazakhstan, and other neighboring states.

The shift to a party-list system was one of the key demands of the political opposition during Kyrgyzstan’s two years of debate over constitutional reform. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. However, many in the opposition objected to the enhanced powers of the president over the appointment, oversight, and dismissal of governmental officials, and called on their supporters to vote against the referendum.

Official results paint a picture of high turnout � 82 percent, easily passing the 50 percent threshold needed to validate the vote. In all, 76 percent of those participating in the referendum supported the new constitution. International observers from the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization called the ballot fair, but local groups lambasted the voting.

The non-partisan monitoring organization Taza Shailoo fielded 750 observers across the country. "One can’t say that this was a free and fair vote," said Kanat Kasmaliev, the group’s director, due to ballot stuffing and other "flagrant, obvious, and systematic legal violations."

In addition to recording numerous instances of procedural violations, the group conducted a parallel turnout count. It estimated that the number of voters was actually 40 to 45 percent of the electorate, which would have invalidated the referendum.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) issued a statement of concern at the "high number of irregularities" reported by domestic groups, a conclusion echoed by the US Embassy. But the OSCE and other groups that typically monitor elections did not observe the October 21 referendum, in part due to the haste with which it was called. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

In characterizing the electoral advantages of post-Soviet incumbents, many monitors refer to "administrative resources," shorthand for the state’s direct and indirect influence over voters. Government leverage � including free television airtime, the ability to pressure state employees to vote in a certain manner, and the exploitation of out-of-date electoral lists to create legions of loyal phantom voters � leaves broad room for manipulation.

Kasmaliev singled out local election commissions as complicit in facilitating fraud. The head of one such commission, Gulnara Narynbaeva of Bishkek’s polling station number 1195, did not seem to make the distinction between ensuring the smooth running of the referendum, and achieving a favorable result for the authorities.

"Of course I support the new constitution," she told EurasiaNet. "How could I work in the election commission if I didn’t?"

Domestic observers also noted an extremely low level of awareness among voters themselves, a view bolstered by interviews around the capital. One woman who voted for the new legislation said she knew nothing of the content of the documents, nor did she necessarily support the president or his policies. "But in my opinion it was important to vote in favor," she said.

Others seemed fed up with the constant battle over constitutional reform, which has all but paralyzed Kyrgyz politics since the 2005 Tulip Revolution brought Bakiyev to power. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. "I want there to be a stable state," said voter Olga Kondrashova, who supported the new constitution. "Any other way there will just be an endless fight for power."

Shairbek Juraev of the International and Comparative Politics Department at the American University of Central Asia said the fight would continue, if on a different battlefield. Despite various complaints, he said, "it is clear that political groups accepted [the] president’s terms, and are preparing for elections."

With the rapid growth of Ak Zhol, which has absorbed at least 12 members of parliament and many other pro-government politicians, opposition parties are also seeking to unite. In order to gain representation in the new parliament, political parties will have to receive the support of at least 5 percent of registered voters. Merger talks among Ata-Meken, the party of former speaker Omurbek Tekebayev, and its opposition allies Ak-Shumkar and Asaba have so far been unsuccessful. Former Prime Minister Feliks Kulov’s opposition Ar-Namys party seems to be keeping its distance. The Social Democrats of current Prime Minister Almazbek Atambayev also seem to be avoiding overt ties to any other party, opposition or pro-government.

Juraev predicted a pro-government majority in the coming parliament. "The main question is whether [the] pro-presidential party manages to get more than 50 percent, or will it have to rely on some �loyals’ like Atambayev’s party, he said.

Kasmaliev said the results of the referendum did not bode well for the December vote. "You can say that a precedent is being established," he said, in which election officials will interpret a lack of punishment for violations as sanction to repeat them. "Most likely a similar situation awaits us during the parliamentary elections," he said.

Editor�s Note: Daniel Sershen is a freelance journalist based in Bishkek.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.