The sinking “Island of democracy”?

A torrid heat hangs over Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan. The impressive peaks of the Tien Shan rise only some 30 miles in the south – and on a clear day their sight gives a visible foretaste of the cleft landscape that shapes this mountainous landlocked Central Asian country. Its remoteness had left Kyrgyzstan off most foreign policy radar screens for years. It was only after September 11 that the wider region experienced a boost in international recognition due to America’s War on Terror in nearby Afghanistan. This new spotlight of international coverage arose because Kyrgyzstan granted permission to the Coalition forces to station troops on the ex-Soviet airfield Manas, just some 15 miles outside of Bishkek. The airport also acts as the main national civil airport. When approaching the terminal building after landing, the sight of dozens of US Air Force transport jets surprises: One of the main ingredients of the much-referred-to geopolitical cocktail in the region could not be visible more clearly. The military deployment – paralleled in neighbouring Uzbekistan - marked a major watershed in Central Asia’s foreign policy. Traditionally hegemonic power Russia was kept out of these military calculations deliberately, causing concerns in Moscow over an increasing American engagement in one of Russia’s historical areas of influence, only ten years after these countries’ gained independence.

When first Western delegations arrived in Bishkek and the remote countryside back in the early nineties, there was a mutual feeling of surprise about the level of development prevalent in the ex-Soviet Central Asian Republic. With literacy rates close to a hundred percent and a high proportion of the population holding university degrees, the reality in Central Asia was rather reminiscent of conditions in Central Europe than in nearby countries of the Middle East.

The new leadership of Kyrgyzstan, led by the former president of the Kyrgyz Academy of Science, Askar Akaev, showed a pragmatic understanding of the nation’s immediate outlook after independence: Unlike Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan is not gifted with abundant hydrocarbon resources or cotton wealth, and hence, the opportunity of a sudden economic boom and foreign investment deemed unlikely. The reinvigoration of the collapsed Soviet command economy with its state-owned conglomerates was therefore inexorably linked to Western goodwill. Thus, a democratic development acting as a model for the rather authoritarian countries next door prove to be Kyrgyzstan’s major ‘cash guarantee’. The ‘vibrant civil society that emerged earned the country the tag of Central Asia’s “island of democracy”’ – and a steady flow of soft loans from international organisations. However, the implementation of neoliberal policies did not bring about desired economic growth rates, and living standards were impossible to sustain. As a good ‘pupil’ among post-Soviet Union transition countries, Kyrgyzstan set out in 1991 with no debt at all, and – a decade later – found itself with its GDP halved and levels of poverty soaring. Today, about the half of the population lives on less than £100 a year.

When the foreign visitor strolls through the streets of Bishkek, though, this economic hardship is sometimes difficult to detect. The streets are jam-packed with Western cars, preferably of German origin. Russian Germans, once deported to Kyrgyzstan by Stalin were allowed to return to their historic home Germany after the collapse of the SU. Some of the returnees have set up lucrative trade businesses that specialise in the purchase of used cars on the German market. Once bought, they are then driven to Kyrgyzstan by land. Simon, a NGO-worker from New Zealand, tells me that since his arrival in Kyrgyzstan in 1994 until now, the traffic on Bishkek’s streets has visibly twenty-fold. So, the catastrophic economic downturn was surely not a universal fate of the Kyrgyz people. Apparently, affluent city-dwellers show the other side of the coin. With an economy being fully dependent on international aid, many of the new - comparatively - fancy cars cruise the streets only thanks to Western aid. Step by step, president Akaev, his family and his closer followers have positioned themselves not merely in politics, but also in promising key business sectors. Akaev’s family clan is known to control the market for cigarettes, a large number of the capital’s nightclubs, etc. (though apparently the son has recently gambled away the ‘Soho’). The American presence nearby is a licence to print money, too – as the supply with petrol is reportedly run by Akaev’s brother-in-law and his son. What is worse, there is no transparent account of where the alleged rent of $250m per year for the Manas airfield go to. It is exactly this uncertainty which seems to prove that the government does not want the public to know anything about hard data. Allegedly, the US government pays a starting and landing fee of $7,000 per flight. As in many other developing countries, it seems that politics is the key to a successful business career in Kyrgyzstan.

Although Kyrgyzstan was able to present itself as the most moderate and liberal among the five Central Asian republics collectively known as the ‘Stans, the Kyrgyz model was already by 2000 lauded undeservedly. The reason why the country had a better reputation lies in its neighbours: Adjacent Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, plus the Caspian-Sea littoral state Turkmenistan were and are still being ruled by former Communist elitists; war-torn Tajikistan in the south still struggles to recover from a raging civil war in the nineties. Thus, Kyrgyzstan was by far the most promising candidate of a successful transition from socialism towards a democratic civil society. However, President Akaev, former chair of the Kyrgyz Academy of Sciences, had already perceptibly tightened his grip on political processes in the run-up for the last presidential elections in 2000. Alternative candidates faced problems in registering, and a lack of confidence in the independence of the courts and the election administration disillusioned many voters. The official turnout in the presidential elections was surprisingly high, though. Many independent observers suspected that in fact many people voted more than once, and thereby earning a nice little extra income. Students were reported to be threatened by their universities to hand in pre-filled ballots, and return those ones handed out in the ballot offices as a proof of their accomplished jobs. A rumour went round in Bishkek that one student repeated this procedure – more than a hundred times.

After 2000, mass detention and torture of alleged Islamist terrorists in Uzbekistan became the major human rights concern throughout the region – taking away attention from degrading conditions in Kyrgyzstan. A popular Kyrgyz opposition deputy, Azimbek Beknarzarov, was taken into custody for his open criticism towards the government in January 2002, causing protests in the politician’s home territory in the country’s south. Confrontations with protesters in March led to five people getting shot by the police. For the first time since Kyrgyz independence, political protests claimed the live of citizens. The conflict was finally resolved. Akaev dismissed the entire government; but it was only when thousands of protesters threatened to march on Bishkek that the charge against Beknarzarov was lifted

However, the underlying problems of these unprecedented protests and subsequent eruption of violence were not tackled. With economic development still being sluggish in arriving, the atmosphere is heating up. The growing gap between poor and rich is certainly increasing the existing anger among the population. Therefore, the upcoming elections in 2005 are anticipated with growing concerns. Kyrgyzstan seems to be standing at a crossroads. A period of uncertainty is to come as the country approaches the end of President Akaev’s term in office. He has repeatedly declared that he won’t seek re-election.

The situation now is indeed very complex. To fully understand what is going on in Kyrgyz politics, one certainly needs some clear sight and – time!

Coming up next: The Kyrgyz 2005 elections. Learning from past lessons. Is transparency possible?