Difficult Times Ahead For Kyrgyzstan

Though extraneous external factors exacerbated the Kyrgyz crisis, its roots basically lie in the domestic domain, says the analyst and opines that Otunbayeva's tenuous hold over power structure puts question mark over her ability to handle the crisis.

By Prof Nirmala Joshi*

Earlier  in  March  2005 a  fraudulent vote to the  parliamentary  election  triggered   a massive  demonstration against  the Presidency  which   very  soon escalated  into  a popular  upsurge .  People were exasperated   with low quality of life, rampant   corruption and failed expectations.  Their ire was directed against the President Askar Akayev and his family for nepotism and corruption.  Opposition  to Akayev  came  mainly from the  South, for  in Kyrgyzstan’s  politics  the  north-south  divide  plays  a crucial  role. The  tenacity of the  opposition    and the loss of lives  forced  Akayev  to leave the country;  initially  to neighbouring  Kazakhstan and then  to  Moscow  where he now lives  the life  of  an exile.

Within  a  gap of  five years  the same pattern  was repeated;  loss of  innocent lives, looting , demonstrations  and rioting.  There was one significant difference though; the opposition to President Kurmanbek   Bakiyev came from the north as he hails from Jalal-Abad, (also written as Dzhalalabad), a southern province. The issues   that rocked the country this  time   are   practically  the  same---economic  hardship  with   prices  galloping  at  a  fast  clip, and corruption.   The anger of the people was directed against Bakiyev and his family for corruption and fraud.  

Fearing for his own as well as his family’s life, Bakiyev has also fled the country. He  moved into  Kazakhstan  and is now  in  Belarus  with  three  other  members  of his   family. Maksim  Bakiyev, the  son of the ousted President, reportedly  diverted enormous  amount of funds   given by Russia for  the construction  of Kambar-Ata  hydro  power plant  to  a Foundation  headed  by him.   Many  observers   believe  that  Bakiyev’s   departure   has  quelled  fears of  an  imminent  civil  war  breaking  out  in Kyrgyzstan   though  unrest   continues. That is largely because of the absence of strong indigenous groups advocating   armed struggle.    

QUESTION MARK OVER LEGITIMACY

An  equally  pertinent  point is  that  Bakiyev  did not go  to  Moscow,  instead  is in Minsk. It is well known that there were strains in Kyrgyzstan’s relations with Russia.   Do the Kyrgyz developments suggest that the system needs further strengthening?    Though  Kyrgyzstan  is still in the process of completing  its  systemic  transformation,  its  people  have demonstrated a high  degree of democratic  tendencies.  Moreover the ongoing crisis suggests that   Kyrgyzstan is also vulnerable   to external pressures.

Kyrgyzstan as a nation-state has still to evolve.   Earlier  it  was the  melting  pot of numerous  tribes  who  came from the  east, the west,  and the north  and settled here.   The various tribes who had settled in the region   led to the emergence of a multi- ethnic    society.   The tribes retained their distinct characteristics. No single tribe played a dominant   role those days.  There was no question some being more equal than others.    Hence they also remained disunited.  The Mongols were able to defeat them for this very reason.

Another  feature  of Kyrgyz people is  that they  have  been  nomads   especially  those  living  in  the  north.  This has inculcated   in the people values    of openness and independence. In  this  context  it  is worth  noting  that  the  Kyrgyz  flag depicts  Sun  against   a red  background.  The Sun has forty rays signifying the equality of the forty tribes that are part of Kyrgyzstan.  This historical background   has shaped the development of Kyrgyz politics.  Consequently,  there is neither  a strong elite  nor  a political  group or party  that   could  exercise  a  powerful   influence over  the Presidency.   Interestingly ,the recent crisis erupted despite the absence of a strong or a charismatic leader or a political group.  

In the absence of adequate checks and balances, a tendency towards authoritarianism, corruption and nepotism develops. President Akayev appointed his family members and close friends to position of power, and his successor did the same.  Both the Presidents paid little attention to peoples’ grievances and to alleviate them. That is why the Kyrgyz political system suffers from sustainable popular support.  Due to the erosion of the government’s popular base its grip on power is weak.  The government should have embarked on people oriented projects.

ANTI-RUSSIAN MOOD

Another noticeable trend in the present crisis was the anti-Russian mood of the people. Russian influence in Kyrgyzstan has always been strong particularly in the North; there are sizeable ethnic Russians living in the country; there are also Russian   supporters at all levels in the government.  Soviet  personnel  policy  in  each  Central  Asian  country  was driven  by  regional favourtism.  In Kyrgyzstan it was the   northern provinces of Chui, Talas and Naryn. Such policies exacerbated regional and tribal rivalries. There is not much change in these policies even now. That is why Chui, Talas and Naryn were the targets of the protesters.

At  the wider  level Kyrgyzstan,  like other Central  Asian  States, has  been caught in the vortex  of ‘great  power competition’ between the U S  and  Russia   primarily  for   influence  and control  of  natural  resources  of the region,  political  and  strategic  advantage.  China has developed deep interests in Kyrgyzstan, in constructing the transport   corridors. The U S - Russia competition manifested itself in the military   sphere. In  2001   Kyrgyzstan  granted on lease to  the  US  military  base  facilities  at Manas  near  Bishkek.  The   Manas link was vital for the U S for its conduct of ‘war on terror’   in Afghanistan.

The  continuation  of US  military  presence in Manas  even after  the  Taliban   had been defeated  began  to cause unease in Russia especially  in military  circles . The  hardliners   in Russia  were keen that   the US  vacate  the base, more  so as  it  was in contravention   to  Kyrgyzstan’s  membership  of the  Collective  Security  Treaty  Organistaion (CSTO),  a Russia led military and security   grouping. A  senior  Russian  official  said: “In  Kyrgyzstan  there  should  be only  one  base --- Russian”.

The CSTO has base facilities in Kant some thirty miles from Manas.  In 2009, when Manas lease to the US expired, the Bakiyev government came under pressure not to renew it, though the rent is an important source of revenue.  Initially, Bakiyev asked the US to vacate the base. Kyrgyz Parliament also voted in favour of vacation.  For the US, the Manas base is still crucial. It is the vital transport link of military supplies to Afghanistan. So, in a sense, mutual necessity led to renegotiation of the lease.  According to the new agreement, the rent has been enhanced and it is now called “transit facility”. Reports  suggest   that  the U S  may  open  a Centre  for military   training  near   Osh  where  the  CSTO  has its  second  military  base.  

After  the announcement that the Kyrgyz is seeking   vacation  of  the  Manas base, the Russian  government offered  financial incentives  to the  tune  US $ 2  billion--- some of which  has  reached  Kyrgyzstan. Moscow is unhappy the way the money is being siphoned off.

By early April, chill had set in Kyrgyz-Russian ties. Popular mood was also against Russia because of suspension of fuel supplies.  Perhaps Russia was aware that such a   step would cause massive discontent. Mayveka, a village near Bishkek, largely inhabited by Russians and Turks became a target. The protesters seized lands and resorted to looting and arson.

According to a Kyrgyz expert, Mars Sariev, the crisis was fomented by Russian media. Moscow  wants  to  strengthen  its  positions,  military presence  in  Kyrgyzstan playing the card  of  anti-Russian moods, he says. ‘Russia  sees  that  the interim  government  does not hold  a  strong  pro-Russian  position  and  understands  that   Kyrgyzstan  won’t  go  under  Russia’s  umbrella since  this  would  be contrary to the interests  of  the  country.  Russia wants to strengthen its geopolitical   position here’, Sariev told Akipress, the Kyrgyz news agency.

President Dmitri Medvedev is likely to consider sending Russian troops in defense of ethnic Russians. A Meeting of the CSTO has been convened to discuss   Kyrgyz   issue.

Though  there  may  have been  extraneous   external  factors  that  exacerbated  the Kyrgyz   crisis,  its roots  basically   lie in the domestic  domain. Otunbayeva  has  a tenuous hold  over  power  structure, which  raises the  question  whether  she can effectively  tackle  the root  cause  of  the  crisis. More importantly, will she be able to raise requisite amount of money for peoples welfare schemes.  Difficult times lay ahead for Kyrgyzstan.