Constitutional Deal Does Not Mean End to Systemic Crisis

Open confrontation between opposition and government in Kyrgyzstan ended last week with a new constitution being pushed through in some haste. NBCentralAsia’s political experts add a note of caution, warning that serious differences of opinion will continue to arise, especially since the new constitution retains many facets of the system of government it replaces, and does not draw adequate dividing lines between the various branches of power.



As a result of opposition street protests which exerted a great deal of pressure on President Kurmanbek Bakiev, a compromise constitution agreed by the authorities and the opposition came into effect on November 9.



Under the new constitution, parliament will have 90 members in place of the current 75. Half of them will be elected by proportional representation from party lists and the rest from single-mandate constituencies. Any political party that wins more than 50 per cent of the vote can automatically form a government, but if no party gets such a majority, the president will name a cabinet as he does now.



The politicians who drafted the document, and the journalists reporting on it, said it would create a mixed presidential-parliamentary system by somewhat curbing the president’s powers and giving parliament more authority to form a government.



Now that the constitution has come into being as a product of peaceful dialogue, many commentators – both supporters and critics of the authorities – are hoping for a period of relative stability.



NBCentralAsia quizzed legal experts on their view of the constitution’s contents and the extent to which they believe it will guarantee political stability in the future.



Although the document contains some of the components of a parliamentary system, Gulnara Iskakova, a senior lecturer at the American University of Central Asia, believes the basic structure of state governance remains the same as it was – a blend of presidential and parliamentary systems. In her view, that carries with it the inherent risk of recurring political crises, a risk that has led many other countries to opt for other kinds of system.



“Everything now depends on how the new constitution is put into practice, and on whether the different branches of power will be able to avoid colliding with one another as they exercise the powers granted to them,” said Iskakova.



History professor Zainidin Kurmanov shares Iskakova’s view that the mixed system will not eradicate the conflict-ridden character of the Kyrgyz political system. “In the very near future, we can expect political crises and misunderstandings among the branches of power. I believe this may happen within weeks. For instance, the president might veto a bill, and members of parliament will start blaming him,” he said.



According to Kurmanov, the functions assigned to the president and to each branch of power are not sufficiently well delineated in the new constitution, so that they may continue to encroach on each other’s business and powers.



However, Nurlan Sadykov, director of the Institute for Constitutional Policy, argues that such conflicts can arise under any system of government, and that “the main thing is how long it takes to resolve them".



In Sadykov’s view, one positive aspect of the new constitution is that it ensures the government is accountable to parliament, which acquires more instruments for controlling economic policy. In addition, it will help avoid duplication of the powers of the government and the president.



(News Briefing Central Asia draws comment and analysis from a broad range of political observers across the region.)