Plans to Curb Protests Under Fire in Kyrgyzstan

A controversial proposal to impose a ban on demonstrations in Kyrgyzstan has drawn a furious reaction from politicians and activists alike. For many, the civil liberties issue goes to the heart of what the new Kyrgyz administration is supposed to be about.

On October 10, Kambaraly Kongantiev, the chairman of the parliamentary committee which deals with legislation and human rights, asked his colleagues to consider introducing a one-year moratorium on “protests, marches or events that pursue as their goal the overthrow of state power and the dissolution of parliament”.

The proposed ban would cover any public activity involving “calls for subversive action designed to destabilise the situation and hinder the work of government and law-enforcement bodies”.

In an interview with IWPR, Kongantiev explained that he had submitted the proposal to give Kyrgyzstan’s new government and president some space to get down to work, and to alleviate the present volatile situation in which sporadic demonstrations continue to take place in support of a wide range of demands.

“There have been more land seizures, protests and pickets are being organised, and calls for a new revolution have been heard,” he said. “My plan sets out to stabilise the social and political situation. It’s a demand that has come from the people themselves, my voters, who are tired of the protest fever.”

In the proposal, Kongantiev says the moratorium would not represent a denial of civil liberties and democracy, but is instead “perhaps the only condition under which the state and each individual citizen can resume normal activity”.

Opponents of the scheme say it harks back to the days of President Askar Akaev, who was ousted following widespread demonstrations in March.

Similar restrictions were imposed at local government level in 2002, requiring protesters to seek permission ten days before a planned demonstration. When these rules were invoked to break up an unsanctioned meeting in the southern town of Aksy in March 2002, police fired into a crowd of demonstrators, leaving six dead. The incident sparked massive protests over several months, and which in many ways were the inspiration for the 2005 wave of demonstrations.

Though deputies have not yet debated Kongantiev’s appeal, it has garnered some early support.

“We need to revive the economy and pass a new constitution, but we have endless protests and seizures of land, state institutions and natural resources,” said Kubanychbek Isabekov, a parliamentary deputy. “All this disorder does not benefit Kyrgyzstan. It is time to put a stop to the chaos.”

The majority of parliamentary deputies and civil society activists have reacted negatively to Kongantiev’s proposal, with many arguing that it does violate constitutional rights to freedom of assembly and expression.

According to deputy Bolot Maripov, “Passing this initiative will be the first step towards totalitarianism.”

Khait Aikynov, chairman of the Coalition of NGOs for Democracy and Civil Society, commented, “It is puzzling that this initiative has been put forward by the chairman of a committee which is supposed to be standing up for citizens’ constitutional rights and freedoms.”

The proposal may be received more favourably by the government, which in recent weeks has shown signs of growing irritation with the frequent protests still sweeping Kyrgyzstan.

On October 12, the cabinet submitted a proposal of its own to parliament that would impose longer prison sentences of up to eight years for people who seize buildings or television and radio stations. The legislative committee which Kongantiev heads ruled that the proposed changes were not in contravention of the constitution, so the bill will now go before parliament.

The government justified its tougher measures by arguing that the unchecked protests endanger the lives of Kyrgyz citizens.

Critics, however, remain unconvinced. “It is impossible to achieve political stability through prohibition,” said political analyst Nur Omarov. “On the contrary, the danger of authoritarianism appears.”

Some policemen say banning protests would make their lives a lot easier.

“As soon as 30 or so people gather on a square, we call in the traffic police, officers on the beat, district policemen - a total of up to 60 people plus equipment and cars,” said one officer who asked not to be named. “Ordinary citizens suffer because they’re waiting for the police to protect them from thieves and thugs.”

Deputy Interior Minister Temirkan Subanov agreed that many police would support a ban, “Law-enforcement staff have already spent virtually the entire year on the scene at protests, and it’s time for them to do their main job. And it’s time for the people to take a rest and calm down.”

Leila Saralaeva is an IWPR contributor in Bishkek.