Socio-political events that occur in Kyrgyzstan for Tajik political scientists are the subject of analysis and research. The problem of Kyrgyzstan is a new hub in the political development of the region, experts in neighboring Tajikistan say. One of the main reasons for the current controversy in the republic is that they initially called the model of building a post-Soviet state incorrectly chosen by the ruling elites of Kyrgyzstan.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, independent states in Central Asia could evolve according to the following basic models. First, it was possible to try to continue the implementation of the Soviet communist model. Another model is Islamic revival. Another model is built on the principle of Western liberal democracy, and, finally, a model that would be based on the principles of national revival. At first glance, a model of national-Islamic revival would be successful in Kyrgyzstan, but it has not been realized. During the years of Soviet rule, a new generation grew up in the republic, for which this model did not look natural. The construction of a liberal-democratic model initially had no chance of success in the conditions of Central Asia. Besides, there were neither objective nor subjective assumptions. The conditions that could contribute to the success of the development of this model are in the most embryonic state. The most successful model was the construction of the post-Soviet state on the principles of national revival. Where these principles were adopted — in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan — statehood proved to be strong, so says independent expert Rashid G. Abdullo.
In Tajikistan, the model of national revival also showed its effectiveness. The transition took place with the establishment of the current government in 1992. And today, the Tajik state is being built within the framework of this concept, and shows its stability. In Kyrgyzstan, it was announced about building a society on liberal-democratic relations, there was a gradual concentration of power in the hands of Askar Akayev. However, state foundations have not become firmly stable. Therefore, at the slightest change in the political situation, this state collapsed like a house of cards. Now there is a return to the framework of national revival, and at this stage this model will be combined with a strong presidential power.
This happened during the reign of Vladimir Putin in Russia, where presidential power gained more power than during the time of Boris Yeltsin. This was the case in Georgia, where the “pink revolution” led to the implementation of a model for building a new Georgian state on the principles of strengthening the state, with a very strong presidential power led by Mikhail Saakashvili — a rather authoritarian leader. In Ukraine, there is a struggle around the crystallized model, which is loose in structure of the Ukrainian state into something more solid and powerful. Whether it is the prime minister or the president, but it must be a strong politician who will ensure the sustainability of state power. In Russia, this happened along the line of building the executive-power vertical along with President Putin. In Central Asia, this happened much earlier. Now the same processes are taking place in Kyrgyzstan.
“The struggle is on and will go for building a strong state. The vector of political struggle will be built in the direction of strengthening the presidential power. We see that Kurmanbek Bakiyev is much stronger than a year ago. He controls the process not so much of the country, as the restoration of the process of control in the republic. That is, today President Bakiyev is busy with what Emomali Rakhmon was doing in 1993-1994, when he got, in fact, Tajikistan collapsed and it was necessary to bring the country and people together. After all, the part that was not controlled by the opposition, it, in general, was not controlled by the government either. During these two years, leading the state, Emomali Rakhmon united the country. Were overcome semi-separatist sentiments in the Sughd region, in some western regions of Tajikistan. Approximately the same situation today takes place in Kyrgyzstan. And the president Kurmanbek Bakiyev is faced with the need to solve the same range of tasks. We see that Bakiyev has opportunities, relying on which he can rigidly pursue his line, as evidenced by the dispersal of the rally in April on the square in Bishkek. The power for the first time showed that it is power, and quite effective. In the absence of such firmness, no one guarantees that this country cannot but fall into an even worse situation, ”says Rashid G. Abdullo.
Tajik expert Abdulvahid Shamolov categorically disagrees with the statement that events in Kyrgyzstan are developing according to the Tajik scenario. He believes that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the second “Great Game” began in Central Asia, which existed in the 19th century and began between Britain and Russia. These two empires, still then wanted to conquer this territory in order to implement their policies, as well as the realization of their geopolitical interests.
Abduvakhid Shamolov speaks about the existence of numerous internal contradictions that exist in modern Kyrgyzstan. All these problems are interrelated and interdependent.
“One of the main problems not only of Kyrgyzstan, but of the whole of Central Asia, is corruption. After all, look at the rallies that were in Kyrgyzstan, people noted the corruption of the family of former President Akayev. Then, experts and lawyers in the republic itself confirmed this fact. Another problem is the unresolved social and economic problems. Under Akayev, there was an open door policy, even the idea of creating a free economic zone in Bishkek. However, many projects in the country were not destined to be realized. There are problems of localism, problems with the clan system. Now every clan wants to be claimed. You can talk about transnational problems that find their players at the regional level. Here and the problem of the Fergana Valley. Part of Kyrgyzstan also borders on this territory. Collectively, all these problems led to a conflict of interest in Kyrgyzstan. ”
Despite the big tangle of problems in the country, analysts agree that during the years of Akayev’s rule there was still democracy in this republic. And it seems that for a reason in recent years, Kyrgyzstan has received such a good brand as the “island of democracy”. The main thing was the transformation of state institutions for democratization and liberalization. “However, after the socio-political crisis in March 2005, it became clear that this process has its own weaknesses. When state foundations are weak, when the state itself is weak, when society is not sufficiently consolidated, then there are cataclysms that we observed, ”said Abdugani Mamadazimov, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the National Association of Political Scientists of Tajikistan:“ The temporary stability of the new regime was ensured by the Bakiev-Kulov tandem. However, it was clear that this union was doomed to disintegration. General Felix Kulov became responsible for the economic bloc, and Bakiyev, who is more an economist and business executive, began to oversee the security forces. Bakiev made it clear from the very beginning that he would not allow further inclinations to provoke unrest in the country. After Kulov’s departure, everyone thought that there would be a rematch, but Bakiyev showed that he would not tolerate any opposition political forces with the onset of spring. ”