Is Kyrgyzstan a Failed State?
Is Kyrgyzstan a Failed State?
Russian researchers have ranked Kyrgyzstan next to last in an assessment of 192 countries in terms of their viability as states. This effectively suggests that the Kyrgyz state is not capable of surviving independently. Although some in Bishkek agree that there are some grounds for awarding their country this low rating, others say the assessment is unfair.
In December, a group of researchers at the Moscow State Institute for International Relations published a study called the “Contemporary Political Atlas” ranking 192 members of the United Nations according to indicators of national and world development. One of these listings, the statehood index, placed Kyrgyzstan at number 191, after Afghanistan and before Chad. Countries at the bottom of the list are regarded as being unable to sustain an independent existence or to develop on their own.
Kanybek Imanaliev, a member of the Kyrgyz parliament, believes the Russian researchers’ assessment contains a degree of truth.
“There are currently factors that pose great danger both to the security of Kyrgyzstan and to its future as an independent state,” he said, listing these factors as the north-south regional divide, tribal and clan divisions among the ethnic Kyrgyz, and the strengthening of Islamic extremist groups. In view of such problems, he said, there is arguably a risk that Kyrgyzstan could break apart, if not disappear altogether as a state.
Political analysts interviewed by NBCentralAsia, however, disagree that Kyrgyzstan deserves such a poor ranking.
“All the arguments that have been made lack substance,” said Valentin Bogatyrev, vice-president of the Vostok think-tank. “There are many countries that have much sparser populations, smaller territories and worse political systems than Kyrgyzstan, yet they continue to exist successfully as states. Plus, Kyrgyzstan has a great deal of human capital, marked by high standards of education. Consequently, when certain Russian political scientists say Kyrgyzstan’s future as a state is under threat, they are exaggerating.”
Kyrgyz political scientist Nur Omarov expressed similar scepticism about the rating as an accurate reflection of the real state of affairs in Kyrgyzstan, saying, “Russian political analysts sometimes show a desire to present pipedreams as reality”.
But Omarov added the warning that if Kyrgyzstan is to avoid putting its own statehood at risk, it must not repeat the mistake it made in March 2005, which was to accomplish regime change by unconstitutional means.
(News Briefing Central Asia draws comment and analysis from a broad range of political observers across the region.)
In December, a group of researchers at the Moscow State Institute for International Relations published a study called the “Contemporary Political Atlas” ranking 192 members of the United Nations according to indicators of national and world development. One of these listings, the statehood index, placed Kyrgyzstan at number 191, after Afghanistan and before Chad. Countries at the bottom of the list are regarded as being unable to sustain an independent existence or to develop on their own.
Kanybek Imanaliev, a member of the Kyrgyz parliament, believes the Russian researchers’ assessment contains a degree of truth.
“There are currently factors that pose great danger both to the security of Kyrgyzstan and to its future as an independent state,” he said, listing these factors as the north-south regional divide, tribal and clan divisions among the ethnic Kyrgyz, and the strengthening of Islamic extremist groups. In view of such problems, he said, there is arguably a risk that Kyrgyzstan could break apart, if not disappear altogether as a state.
Political analysts interviewed by NBCentralAsia, however, disagree that Kyrgyzstan deserves such a poor ranking.
“All the arguments that have been made lack substance,” said Valentin Bogatyrev, vice-president of the Vostok think-tank. “There are many countries that have much sparser populations, smaller territories and worse political systems than Kyrgyzstan, yet they continue to exist successfully as states. Plus, Kyrgyzstan has a great deal of human capital, marked by high standards of education. Consequently, when certain Russian political scientists say Kyrgyzstan’s future as a state is under threat, they are exaggerating.”
Kyrgyz political scientist Nur Omarov expressed similar scepticism about the rating as an accurate reflection of the real state of affairs in Kyrgyzstan, saying, “Russian political analysts sometimes show a desire to present pipedreams as reality”.
But Omarov added the warning that if Kyrgyzstan is to avoid putting its own statehood at risk, it must not repeat the mistake it made in March 2005, which was to accomplish regime change by unconstitutional means.
(News Briefing Central Asia draws comment and analysis from a broad range of political observers across the region.)
