Kyrgyz Rally Ends in Disarray
Compromise still possible on constitution, but deep divisions separate the president and the opposition.
Kyrgyz Rally Ends in Disarray
Compromise still possible on constitution, but deep divisions separate the president and the opposition.
Hopes that the latest stand-off between the Kyrgyz government and its opponents would be resolved with a compromise deal suffered a blow this week when police dispersed an opposition rally as some of the protesters tried to storm the government building.
During the rally on Bishkek’s central Ala-Too square, which began on April 11, the opposition – the United Front for a Worthy Future for Kyrgyzstan and the Movement for Reforms – had appeared in confident mood, insisting that President Kurmanbek Bakiev must step down and allow an early presidential election. Opposition supporters announced plans to gather the 300,000 signatures needed to hold a nationwide referendum on impeaching Bakiev.
That confidence has gone, at least for now. The protesters have disappeared from the square, their impromptu encampment of nomadic yurt tents dismantled, the United Front’s offices have been raided and its leaders called in for questioning by the National Security Committee
Police moved in on April 19, the ninth day of protests, after some of those in the crowd tried to force their way into the White House, the main government building.
Riot police used tear gas to disperse the crowd, and 11 people including five policemen were taken to hospital after being injured in scuffles as the crowd was dispersed. Around 100 people were arrested.
It is unclear where the confrontation between Bakiev and his opponents goes from here. The latter have failed to unseat the president, and will find it harder to regroup for a further round of street demonstrations. Pro-Bakiev members of parliament are pressing for prosecutions and payment for damages.
One local analyst, Marat Kazakbaev, suggests that the opposition miscalculated by making absolutist demands – for example telling Bakiev to resign – at a time when the president had been seen to adopt conciliatory policies.
“The protest failed because people saw that the authorities were paying heed to the opposition's demands and were making concessions,” he said.
Before the rally got under way, Bakiev had selected a leading opposition figure, Almazbek Atambaev, to head up a coalition cabinet, a venture which foundered after other oppositionists refused to take ministerial posts. Bakiev had also made other efforts to meet opposition demands, for example by moving ahead with constitutional reform.
“When the authorities make concessions, it is not the right time to be laying down radical demands,” commented Kazakbaev.
The opposition remained deeply mistrustful of the president’s concessions, seeing them as empty promises that came too late in the day and were unlikely to be fulfilled.
This current crisis has its roots in the last round of protests in November, when a weeklong rally by Movement for Reforms supporters forced Bakiev to accept a new draft of the constitution that significantly curbed his powers. In December, the president was able to force parliament to agree to a revised version that restored much of his authority, a move which his opponents saw as reneging on the earlier deal.
There is in theory still scope for some kind of consensus on the constitutional question. Parliament has been asked to review a proposed draft of the constitution, and swore in two new Constitutional Court judges – crucial to the process – on April 20. However, what is unclear is which document will go before legislators – the opposition version produced by the United Front, the official one drafted by a working group led by Prime Minister Atambaev, or conceivably a compromise draft combining the two.
Despite the rout of the protesters, Tamerlan Ibraimov, director of the Centre for Political and Legal Studies, insists the rally will prove to have been of benefit in the longer term. “It has contributed to the swift launch of constitutional reform, which will result in a stronger prime minister and a president with less power,” he said.
Melis Eshimkanov, a member of parliament and a member of the United Front, also said the opposition had proved its mettle. Speaking before the rally was broken up by police, he said “The United Front has only existed for less than two months, but in this short time it has been able to change the situation in the country. The president gave former oppositionist Almazbek Atambaev the position of prime minister, he was prepared to hand the entire cabinet to the opposition, he presented a new version of the constitution to parliament, and he is now bargaining with everyone simply to keep his position.”
One complicating factor is that as well as policy issues, there are strong personalities involved in this latest round of confrontation. The November dispute was between Bakiev and the Movement for Reforms. But this time the opposition’s agenda has been driven by Felix Kulov, who was Bakiev’s prime minister until January this year, but who formed the United Front in February and assumed a leading role in the opposition.
In the unstable period that followed the March 2005 revolution, the two men formed a political alliance known as the “tandem” that secured nationwide support for Bakiev to win election as president. The vote might otherwise have been split between Kulov’s supporters in the north of Kyrgyzstan and Bakiev’s support-base in the south.
Kulov resigned in December 2006, but stayed on in a caretaker capacity. But after parliament twice refused to endorse Bakiev’s attempt to get him re-confirmed in the post, the president nominated another candidate, Kulov was out, and the “tandem” arrangement was over.
As the Movement for Reforms began to be led by the United Front’s more radical agenda in terms of policy, Kulov’s emergence as the leading light in the opposition also personalised the political confrontation, potentially making a compromise more difficult.
Political analyst Turat Akimov likens the conflict between Kulov and Bakiev to “a head-on collision between two kamikazes”.
“Neither of them wants to make any concessions or compromises, or hold talks. Now the only question is who will break whom,” he said.
Parliamentarian Rashid Tagaev also said “personal grievances and ambitions” had fuelled confrontation.
“A fight for power is under way, or more precisely for one position – that of president,” he told IWPR.
The need to co-opt different regional constituencies was the raison d’etre of the “tandem”, and the ensuing political split between Bakiev and Kulov has also become a regional issue. Regionalism is a powerful force in Kyrgyz politics which many regard as a major risk to stability.
In remarks to journalists on April 15, Kulov referred to the regional divide, saying, “A president who causes confrontation among the people, dividing those in the north from those in the south, does not have the right to be head of state.”
The rally in Bishkek appears to have been attended mainly by people from northern Kyrgyzstan, where Kulov is stronger. Attempts to stage similar events in southern cities were called off for fear they would be disrupted by pro-Bakiev groups.
“The vast majority of opposition deputies and of the participants in the rally come from the northern elite. So there is an element of regionalism here,” said parliamentarian Iskhak Masaliev.
The north-south divide is such a potent issue that although politicians may try to harness it for their own ends, doing so is a high-risk venture.
“The opposition and President Bakiev’s supporters inevitably think along regional lines; it is a political tool to mobilise mass support,” said political analyst Mars Sariev. “People are becoming politicised and divided according to their regional origin, and this is even happening to people who had never thought about this before. This is a mistake by our politicians, and stems from their immaturity.”
Roza Otunbaeva, a former ally of Bakiev but now an opponent, believes the current politicisation of the north-south divide can be traced to the uneasy nature of the Bakiev-Kulov “tandem”.
“It reduced them to the level of regional leaders,” she said. “Kulov became the leader of the north, while Bakiev became the southern leader. And so the south has to defend Bakiev, and a section of the northern electorate went out onto the square in support of Kulov.
“This does no credit to either of them. They are the ones who are dividing the people.”
Akylbek Isanov provided reporting from Bishkek for this article. IWPR’s News Briefing Central Asia agency also provided some of the interviews.
During the rally on Bishkek’s central Ala-Too square, which began on April 11, the opposition – the United Front for a Worthy Future for Kyrgyzstan and the Movement for Reforms – had appeared in confident mood, insisting that President Kurmanbek Bakiev must step down and allow an early presidential election. Opposition supporters announced plans to gather the 300,000 signatures needed to hold a nationwide referendum on impeaching Bakiev.
That confidence has gone, at least for now. The protesters have disappeared from the square, their impromptu encampment of nomadic yurt tents dismantled, the United Front’s offices have been raided and its leaders called in for questioning by the National Security Committee
Police moved in on April 19, the ninth day of protests, after some of those in the crowd tried to force their way into the White House, the main government building.
Riot police used tear gas to disperse the crowd, and 11 people including five policemen were taken to hospital after being injured in scuffles as the crowd was dispersed. Around 100 people were arrested.
It is unclear where the confrontation between Bakiev and his opponents goes from here. The latter have failed to unseat the president, and will find it harder to regroup for a further round of street demonstrations. Pro-Bakiev members of parliament are pressing for prosecutions and payment for damages.
One local analyst, Marat Kazakbaev, suggests that the opposition miscalculated by making absolutist demands – for example telling Bakiev to resign – at a time when the president had been seen to adopt conciliatory policies.
“The protest failed because people saw that the authorities were paying heed to the opposition's demands and were making concessions,” he said.
Before the rally got under way, Bakiev had selected a leading opposition figure, Almazbek Atambaev, to head up a coalition cabinet, a venture which foundered after other oppositionists refused to take ministerial posts. Bakiev had also made other efforts to meet opposition demands, for example by moving ahead with constitutional reform.
“When the authorities make concessions, it is not the right time to be laying down radical demands,” commented Kazakbaev.
The opposition remained deeply mistrustful of the president’s concessions, seeing them as empty promises that came too late in the day and were unlikely to be fulfilled.
This current crisis has its roots in the last round of protests in November, when a weeklong rally by Movement for Reforms supporters forced Bakiev to accept a new draft of the constitution that significantly curbed his powers. In December, the president was able to force parliament to agree to a revised version that restored much of his authority, a move which his opponents saw as reneging on the earlier deal.
There is in theory still scope for some kind of consensus on the constitutional question. Parliament has been asked to review a proposed draft of the constitution, and swore in two new Constitutional Court judges – crucial to the process – on April 20. However, what is unclear is which document will go before legislators – the opposition version produced by the United Front, the official one drafted by a working group led by Prime Minister Atambaev, or conceivably a compromise draft combining the two.
Despite the rout of the protesters, Tamerlan Ibraimov, director of the Centre for Political and Legal Studies, insists the rally will prove to have been of benefit in the longer term. “It has contributed to the swift launch of constitutional reform, which will result in a stronger prime minister and a president with less power,” he said.
Melis Eshimkanov, a member of parliament and a member of the United Front, also said the opposition had proved its mettle. Speaking before the rally was broken up by police, he said “The United Front has only existed for less than two months, but in this short time it has been able to change the situation in the country. The president gave former oppositionist Almazbek Atambaev the position of prime minister, he was prepared to hand the entire cabinet to the opposition, he presented a new version of the constitution to parliament, and he is now bargaining with everyone simply to keep his position.”
One complicating factor is that as well as policy issues, there are strong personalities involved in this latest round of confrontation. The November dispute was between Bakiev and the Movement for Reforms. But this time the opposition’s agenda has been driven by Felix Kulov, who was Bakiev’s prime minister until January this year, but who formed the United Front in February and assumed a leading role in the opposition.
In the unstable period that followed the March 2005 revolution, the two men formed a political alliance known as the “tandem” that secured nationwide support for Bakiev to win election as president. The vote might otherwise have been split between Kulov’s supporters in the north of Kyrgyzstan and Bakiev’s support-base in the south.
Kulov resigned in December 2006, but stayed on in a caretaker capacity. But after parliament twice refused to endorse Bakiev’s attempt to get him re-confirmed in the post, the president nominated another candidate, Kulov was out, and the “tandem” arrangement was over.
As the Movement for Reforms began to be led by the United Front’s more radical agenda in terms of policy, Kulov’s emergence as the leading light in the opposition also personalised the political confrontation, potentially making a compromise more difficult.
Political analyst Turat Akimov likens the conflict between Kulov and Bakiev to “a head-on collision between two kamikazes”.
“Neither of them wants to make any concessions or compromises, or hold talks. Now the only question is who will break whom,” he said.
Parliamentarian Rashid Tagaev also said “personal grievances and ambitions” had fuelled confrontation.
“A fight for power is under way, or more precisely for one position – that of president,” he told IWPR.
The need to co-opt different regional constituencies was the raison d’etre of the “tandem”, and the ensuing political split between Bakiev and Kulov has also become a regional issue. Regionalism is a powerful force in Kyrgyz politics which many regard as a major risk to stability.
In remarks to journalists on April 15, Kulov referred to the regional divide, saying, “A president who causes confrontation among the people, dividing those in the north from those in the south, does not have the right to be head of state.”
The rally in Bishkek appears to have been attended mainly by people from northern Kyrgyzstan, where Kulov is stronger. Attempts to stage similar events in southern cities were called off for fear they would be disrupted by pro-Bakiev groups.
“The vast majority of opposition deputies and of the participants in the rally come from the northern elite. So there is an element of regionalism here,” said parliamentarian Iskhak Masaliev.
The north-south divide is such a potent issue that although politicians may try to harness it for their own ends, doing so is a high-risk venture.
“The opposition and President Bakiev’s supporters inevitably think along regional lines; it is a political tool to mobilise mass support,” said political analyst Mars Sariev. “People are becoming politicised and divided according to their regional origin, and this is even happening to people who had never thought about this before. This is a mistake by our politicians, and stems from their immaturity.”
Roza Otunbaeva, a former ally of Bakiev but now an opponent, believes the current politicisation of the north-south divide can be traced to the uneasy nature of the Bakiev-Kulov “tandem”.
“It reduced them to the level of regional leaders,” she said. “Kulov became the leader of the north, while Bakiev became the southern leader. And so the south has to defend Bakiev, and a section of the northern electorate went out onto the square in support of Kulov.
“This does no credit to either of them. They are the ones who are dividing the people.”
Akylbek Isanov provided reporting from Bishkek for this article. IWPR’s News Briefing Central Asia agency also provided some of the interviews.
