“The negative political experience that can now be observed in Kyrgyzstan should serve as a bitter lesson for the post-Soviet political class. In my opinion, the situation in Kyrgyzstan will serve as a negative development model for the whole of Central Asia. Currently, Kyrgyzstan has all the conditions for the development of a serious full-scale political crisis. In my firm conviction, in the event that the current authorities do not accept any adequate measures, this crisis can in a year or two lead to the disintegration of the country. This is a really serious, but often overlooked problem, ”Nur Omarov, a political scientist and vice president of the Foundation for International Research Programs, gives such a pessimistic comment about the future of Kyrgyzstan.
In general, after the events of March 24, 2005, when the so-called “Tulip Revolution” took place, they increasingly began to talk about Kyrgyzstan as a failed state. More precisely, everyone remembered the theory of a “failed state”, popular among Western and Russian experts. The political crisis in the country after the “tulip revolution” revealed serious problems in the Kyrgyz statehood. Behind the beautiful facade of independence and loud pretentious statements about the 2,200-year-old Kyrgyz statehood was an ugly reality. Kyrgyzstan as a state does not even have its own borders, the existing borders are more often administrative in nature and, if desired, the neighbors easily push them away, and in fact territorial integrity and borders are one of the foundations of any state.
One of the most quoted Kyrgyz experts today, the author of the acclaimed book “The Coup d'Etat. March 24, 2005 in Kyrgyzstan ”Alexander Knyazev believes that“ the fact that Kyrgyzstan is a failed state has already been recognized by many political scientists, but today this state has gone so far that it is possible to question the existence of Kyrgyzstan as a state in the future ”.
The events of March 24 became a kind of test for the survival of the country and another reason for all sorts of speculative political statements by various experts and politicians. Back in 2005, the International Crisis Group made cautious comments on the future of Kyrgyzstan in its annual report: “If the state does not take place in Kyrgyzstan, it will reinforce the approval of neighboring authoritarian regimes that dictatorial rule is safer than democracy. The revolution that dismissed Akayeva was the first in Central Asia, and the country itself is now a test of democracy in the region. ”
Fifteen years of independence turned out to be an empty idea. Even if there are serious voices in the national parliament about joining this or that country. So, the well-known deputy Dooronbek Sadyrbayev, who was in opposition to the previous government for a long time, recently offered Kyrgyzstan to join Russia, just in case, quoting the statement of Russian President Vladimir Putin: “Kyrgyzstan is not a foreign country for Russia”. Another deputy, Murat Juraev, also actively supports the idea of joining the country to Russia. There are still voices about joining Kazakhstan. But such a few. Kyrgyzstan is a little offended by Kazakhstan. As a senior and successful relative, reveling in their temporary well-being. It seems that people's deputies feel that the idea of national sovereignty after the collapse of the Soviet Union almost went bankrupt. If they are ready to part so easily that for the last fifteen years they have been hailed as God's mercy to Kyrgyzstan.
At the same time, against the background of absolutely pessimistic statements, there are single voices in defense of Kyrgyzstan as a state. Thus, the Russian political analyst Stepan Makedonov believes that “Kyrgyzstan has managed to refute the thesis that the Kyrgyz state is a failed formation that will collapse very quickly. The collapse did not work. " Such statements appeared after the adoption of a new version of the country's Constitution, literally on the central square of the country on November 2, 2006, during a rally of the new opposition, entirely held by former supporters of the current head of state.
The new version of the country's constitution turned out to be completely different from what the opposition and the ruling authorities eagerly talked about on television. Already there is talk that it must be changed. “The new Constitution not only did not become a new step in the development of the Kyrgyz democracy, but also found such serious flaws that it’s time to change it today,” said Valentin Bogatyrev, director of the Development Program Support Fund. The constitution of the country as well as the state border is a certain basis of any state. But when there is a bad habit of changing it every five years, the very need for it, the importance of its presence in the life of the country, disappears.
“A serious, not yet fully realized danger of what happened is that a precedent of street law-making has been created. From now on, anyone who succeeds in gathering several thousand people is entitled to demand changes to the Constitution, laws, and any group of deputies to declare themselves a Constituent Assembly and create a parallel state system. The principle of the rule of law, the unitarity of law - the foundation of the foundations of a rule-of-law state - is put on the edge of existence. We still have to face the consequences of this. Most likely - already in March 2007, ”emphasizes Valentin Bogatyrev.
The first month of spring is again chosen in Kyrgyzstan as a certain starting point from which a new stage of development of the country should begin. What he will be, no one wants to guess. Because there is already a new political scandal and another point in the basket of those who argue that Kyrgyzstan has failed to cope with the cargo of independence. The president decided to announce early parliamentary elections next spring. Parliament in retaliation, or rather its radical part, adopted a resolution on early presidential elections. And even the date symbolic identified. March 24, 2007, exactly two years after the Tulip Revolution. The press service of the Kyrgyz parliament rejects this news. But, does anyone care? The main thing, "cock released."
Moreover, even among the representatives of the opposition and the ruling authorities there is no consensus on this. Thus, MP Kabai Karabekov, in an interview with Deutsche Welle, said that the current constitutional uncertainty was in the hands of some leaders of the country, and in order to move things forward faster, "we must hold new elections to the parliament in accordance with the new Constitution."
Political analyst Nur Omarov predicts two ways of developing the political situation in the country. “The first of these is that parliament will“ succumb ”to the pressure of the executive branch of government and decide on self-dissolution and early parliamentary elections in the winter and spring of 2007. This option, for a number of reasons, looks the least likely. In addition to the obvious unwillingness of the majority of deputies to leave the “heated” place, this is also hindered by the need to refine a number of Laws required for holding new elections in accordance with the 2006 Constitution. The second scenario, partly voiced by a group of opposition-minded deputies, is that, along with early parliamentary elections, it is necessary to hold early presidential elections. Their specific date has already been proposed - March 24, 2007. Thus, it seems possible to judge the veiled impeachment expressed by the parliamentarians to the president, which in the real dimension is hampered by a technically extremely difficult procedure, ”predicts Nur Omarov, vice president of the Foundation for International Research Programs.
The opposition, leaving in November from the central square of the country, promised the ruling authorities that in the spring, when it gets warmer, they will return there. The independence inherited by Kyrgyzstan after the collapse of the Soviet Union is very difficult, revealing not only political, but also economic and social problems inherited from the USSR.
Now, as for the economic "inheritance" of the USSR. Even membership in the WTO, which turned into a “one-way road” for the country, did not save Kyrgyzstan from post-Soviet economic problems. After joining this organization, Kyrgyzstan began to gradually lose the main achievements in the economy, although the authorities relied heavily on it. This led to an increase in the raw material orientation of the country's economy. As a result, Kyrgyzstan, despite its nearly eight-year stay in the WTO, has one of the worst economic indicators in the CIS. And then, WTO membership had a negative effect on economic relations with neighboring countries. And these problems are still not resolved. But today the main legacy from the former country is at stake - the sovereignty, integrity of the state and the political future of Kyrgyzstan.