Baktybek Abdrisaev and Alexey Semyonov: Nurturing Central Asia's Democratic Blossom
[Mr. Abdrisaev, distinguished visiting professor of history and political science at Utah Valley University, was Kyrgyzstan's ambassador to the United States and Canada from 1997 to 2005. Mr. Semyonov is vice president of the Andrei Sakharov Foundation.]
Is Central Asian democracy an oxymoron? After the collapse of the Soviet Union, sweeping changes have come to the region. It has emerged as an important center for energy production, and two of the states, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, quickly converted their economies to a market model. But Central Asia remains solidly authoritarian. Only one country, Kyrgyzstan, has challenged that pattern in the past. Now it is doing so again after last month's popular uprising to oust another authoritarian government. How it fares could have implications for the rest of the region.
To see why, it helps to understand the context. In 1992, the local Communist Party bosses took the reins of most countries in the region. Twenty years later, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan remain under the thumb of the same rulers or persons very close to them. All torture political opponents, abuse activists and independent journalists, and violate the human rights of their citizens. They are also all in some measure kleptocracies, using natural resources and other assets to fuel their ruling families.
Only Kyrgyzstan has tried to take a different path. Its Communist Party elites were fragmented as the Soviet Union fell. So without any clear autocrat in waiting, in the early 1990s it experimented with multiparty democracy for a time. But it wasn't entirely successful. The first Kyrgyz president, Askar Akayev, tolerated opposition parties early on, but took increasingly aggressive steps against them as his term came to a conclusion. His successor, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, didn't have patience for opposition at all. Last year, at the beginning of his second term, the country suffered numerous killings of opponents, politicians and journalists, as documented by both local and international human rights groups and advocates....
If its leaders fit the regional mold, at least Kyrgyzstan itself was different. Popular uprisings brought down the would-be dictators in March of 2005 and again last month. The purpose of these uprisings was the same: a demand for real democracy and an end to corruption....
The interim Kyrgyz government now will have some breathing room to push reforms while also trying to clean up the detritus of years of autocratic misgovernment. And they will do that, because this time the majority of the Kyrgyz people both support them and demand a better future. The Kyrgyz must be free to make their own decisions about the shape of their democracy, free from the meddling of neighbors out to preserve the status quo.
Read entire article at WSJ
Is Central Asian democracy an oxymoron? After the collapse of the Soviet Union, sweeping changes have come to the region. It has emerged as an important center for energy production, and two of the states, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, quickly converted their economies to a market model. But Central Asia remains solidly authoritarian. Only one country, Kyrgyzstan, has challenged that pattern in the past. Now it is doing so again after last month's popular uprising to oust another authoritarian government. How it fares could have implications for the rest of the region.
To see why, it helps to understand the context. In 1992, the local Communist Party bosses took the reins of most countries in the region. Twenty years later, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan remain under the thumb of the same rulers or persons very close to them. All torture political opponents, abuse activists and independent journalists, and violate the human rights of their citizens. They are also all in some measure kleptocracies, using natural resources and other assets to fuel their ruling families.
Only Kyrgyzstan has tried to take a different path. Its Communist Party elites were fragmented as the Soviet Union fell. So without any clear autocrat in waiting, in the early 1990s it experimented with multiparty democracy for a time. But it wasn't entirely successful. The first Kyrgyz president, Askar Akayev, tolerated opposition parties early on, but took increasingly aggressive steps against them as his term came to a conclusion. His successor, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, didn't have patience for opposition at all. Last year, at the beginning of his second term, the country suffered numerous killings of opponents, politicians and journalists, as documented by both local and international human rights groups and advocates....
If its leaders fit the regional mold, at least Kyrgyzstan itself was different. Popular uprisings brought down the would-be dictators in March of 2005 and again last month. The purpose of these uprisings was the same: a demand for real democracy and an end to corruption....
The interim Kyrgyz government now will have some breathing room to push reforms while also trying to clean up the detritus of years of autocratic misgovernment. And they will do that, because this time the majority of the Kyrgyz people both support them and demand a better future. The Kyrgyz must be free to make their own decisions about the shape of their democracy, free from the meddling of neighbors out to preserve the status quo.