Now He's Won, Kyrgyz Leader Must Start Delivering

Saturday, 5 November, 2011

The link has been copied

Timur Toktonaliev

Central Asia Editor

Almazbek Atambaev’s victory in Kyrgyzstan’s presidential election did not come as a particular shock, but the fact that he beat his two nearest rivals so resoundingly confounded predictions that the vote would go to a second round. IWPR editor Timur Toktonaliev discusses the many challenges facing the new president and how he is likely to cope.

This election marks the final stage in a major overhaul of Kyrgyzstan’s political system, which began with a constitutional referendum in June 2010. Should we see the vote itself as a success?

At this point, we can say the ballot went well and was legitimate. For the first time in the history of independent Kyrgyzstan – and Central Asia – it wasn’t just a question of the incumbent president getting re-elected. The interim president, Roza Otunbaeva, did not even make moves towards remaining in power. That is hugely significant, given the way the first two presidents, Askar Akaev and Kurmanbek Bakiev, were forced out of office, and the methods that leaders in neighbouring countries employ to hold onto power.

Some of the losing candidates and their supporters have called this the dirtiest election in Kyrgyzstan’s history, alleging gross violations and calling for the results to be annulled. A few supporters of the losing candidates have held demonstrations in the south of the country, echoing their claims and demands.

In my view, these claims have yet to be substantiated. Independent election observers say that there were irregularities at some polling stations, including ballot-stuffing and multiple voting, but that these were not widespread and did not substantially affect the outcome of the vote. The Central Electoral Commission which ran the election also admits that errors occurred, and it is promising to look into every case. But it too says the claims made by losing candidates don’t add up to grounds for cancelling the results.

Atambaev has said talks are under way with Adakhan Madumarov and Kamchybek Tashiev, who came second and third, respectively. He has described both men as “real politicians”. A great deal hangs on these negotiations, which will determine whether the election can truly be described as having a peaceful conclusion. I think Atambaev realises that it is up to him to ensure peace and order.

Do you see the political situation undergoing fundamental changes as a result of this election?

That depends on who becomes prime minister. That post now carries a lot more clout than it did under previous presidents. Future presidents are going to have to listen to their prime ministers.

If Tashiev gets the job, Atambaev will probably have to adopt significantly different policies. But if – as is being suggested – it’s Omurbek Babanov [currently acting prime minister], then major policy changes are unlikely.

Atambaev’s election cannot really be seen as marking a new epoch in the country’s history. He previously served as prime minister. If he can exert influence over the new prime minister, then there won’t be any particular changes, and if he cannot, he will clearly have to revise his policies and make some substantive changes.  

Under the new constitution, the incoming president will have far fewer powers than Akaev or Bakiev. How will that work in practice – will parliament become a genuinely powerful institution?

If you go by the letter of the law, then yes. The president will have to confine himself to what the constitution allows him to do, although it’s worth noting that it still gives him a lot of authority.

But given the realities in this country, I don’t think we’re going to see one single dominant institution of state power setting the tone of politics. If they are to address the acute problems facing the country, the president, government and parliament must work together. That isn’t going to be easy, but it is unavoidable, as no serious matter can be resolved unless all these institutions are fully engaged.

The constitution does not state in clear and specific terms who is responsible for what. The different institutions may come to a working arrangement on how power is to be distributed. If that doesn’t happen, conflicts will arise. The current governing coalition will fall apart, followed by attempts to build a new one. If that doesn’t work, parliament will be dissolved and we will be back to elections and confrontation. I don’t think many people want that.

Ordinary people used to talk about social and economic problems, but now they speak more and more about the need for peace, calm, stability, and no more demonstrations or protests. As the election approached, they were praying that nothing would happen afterwards, and that everything should be done in a civilised manner. I hope the politicians understand that, too.

Atambaev faces huge challenges – economic problems, dealing with the aftermath of the ethnic violence in June 2010. What do you think he should set as his priorities?

There are many acute problems, but I think the key things are unemployment and ensuring there are jobs that pay a living wage. The people who go on demonstrations have often been hired from the labour exchange, or attend out of desperation. In Bishkek and other parts of the country, people with steady jobs on a more or less decent wage do not take part in demonstrations, apart from a few middle-class citizens who attend for ideological reasons. But many are so disillusioned with politics that they have become passive participants.

That’s also true of people in the southern regions hit by violence in June 2010. If people there were in work, they wouldn’t have time to get involved in that kind of thing, and it would be harder for politicians to sow instability.

The preliminary election results show that Atambaev is reasonably popular in the south. Many people voted for him even though as prime minister, he was accused of inaction during the violence. I think even more people will back him if he pursues policies promoting peace and tolerance.

At the same time, the situation in southern Kyrgyzstan remains fragile, and turnout was low there. Atambaev is going to have to do a lot of work to win back the confidence of people there.

I do not believe it’s true that Kyrgyz and Uzbeks are still hostile to one another. Both Kyrgyz and Uzbeks realise they paid a very high price just to learn that peace is the most important thing. The wounds remain, the memories are still there, of course. But time is the best healer. People in the south need to be actively engaged in something else to stop them dwelling on these things.

When Atambaev was prime minister, his government didn’t really do an outstanding job. Why should we believe that as president, he will do any better?

As prime minister, Atambaev increased public-sector wages and pensions. The media helped him ensure his populist pledges everyone in the country. But that did nothing to eliminate the widespread corruption, security problems, yawning budget deficit, price rises on basic items, and many other problems that afflict the average person.

The public has placed its trust in Atambaev – but only on loan. There were pragmatic reasons for voting for him, the argument being that he had promised a great deal before the election, but had only carried out a small portion of it, so let him now finish the work.

The next parliamentary election is in four years’ time. Atambaev’s Social Democratic party is a major force in the legislature. Its success in the next election will depend directly on how he has performed as president. Parties are closely associated with their leaders in Kyrgyzstan. When people are considering whether to vote for the Social Democrats, they will ask themselves what Atambaev has achieved.

He will have to step down from the presidency in six years’ time because the constitution bars him from standing for a second term. He’s a fairly young politician. When he leaves office he’ll be 61, and I think he will plan to remain active in politics. 

In a post-election statement, Atambaev promised to close down the American air base at Manas, outside Bishkek. What’s behind that – is he trying to please Moscow?

He says that after 2014, the base should become a freight transit hub for civil aviation. I’m not sure what he means by that, as Bakiev was using similar terminology two years ago, but the air base didn’t really change in reality.

If one looks at Atambaev, his meetings with Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin, the plan for Kyrgyzstan to join the Russian-led Customs Union, and the various pro-Moscow statements he has made, it’s clear he is going to show the Russians more goodwill than Bakiev did.

It may be that it was Russia that brought up the Manas issue with Atambaev again, or perhaps he came up with the proposal to remove the military base by himself. It’s quite possible that Moscow has promised him assistance if he gets rid of the military side of the transit hub and leaves only a harmless civil aviation facility.

On the other hand, United States president Barack Obama says the last American troops will leave Afghanistan in 2014, which means that the air base will become a lot less important. The US probably won’t put up much of a struggle to keep it, as they did in 2009.

If you would like to comment or ask a question about this story, please contact our Central Asia editorial team at feedback.ca@iwpr.net.