Coalition Talks Predicted After Kyrgyz Election

Saule Mukhametrakhimova

Central Asia Editor

Friday, 8 October, 2010

The link has been copied

Kyrgyzstan heads towards a crucial parliamentary election, politicians and analysts are optimistic that the vote will be trouble-free and relatively free and fair. The outcome, they say, will be an unprecedented diversity of parties winning seats in the legislature, and no one group achieving dominance over the rest.

However, as participants in a debate hosted by IWPR and the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace heard, such a result in the October 10 ballot would also carry the risk that the parties found it impossible to forge a governing coalition.

The September 28 videoconference brought members of Kyrgyzstan’s leading political parties together with Central Asian and western experts.

A record 29 parties are running for the 120 seats in the legislature, more than double the number that took part in the last election held in 2007, when Ak Jol, a party only just set up by the then president Kurmanbek Bakiev, won an overwhelming majority.

Bakiev’s enforced departure from presidential office in April brought a period of political turbulence, which culminated in widespread ethnic violence in southern Kyrgyzstan in June, which officials say left over 400 dead, while homes, shops and official buildings were devastated by looting and arson attacks.

In this environment, a peaceful election will in itself be an achievement. Many of the speakers at the videoconference were also optimistic that the conduct of the vote would be free of much of the manipulation that has marred previous elections

“The Ata-Jurt party expects a transparent, fair election, and we believe all parties will accept the outcome,” said Imankadyr Rysaliev of Ata-Jurt’s ruling council, noting that for the first time in Kyrgyzstan’s 19 years as an independent state, the election management body is independent of both government and the presidential administration.

There was broad consensus among speakers that even if parties associated with the current interim government tried to exploit the advantage this gave them, none was in a position to access “administrative resources” – which in Kyrgyzstan means getting state-run media, police, local government, and election officers to assist with campaigning, as Ak-Jol and its predecessors were accused of doing.

The post-Bakiev government consists of leading figures from the Social Democratic Party, Ak Shumkar and Ata-Meken, all of which are strong contenders in the upcoming ballot.

There are other players, too, like Ata-Jurt, with a strong presence in southern Kyrgyzstan, and Zamandash, which represents the interests of hundreds of thousands of labour migrants abroad.

Valentin Bogatyrov, head of the Bishkek-based think-tank Perspektiva, predicts that up to seven or eight parties will win seats in parliament.

Another political analyst, Anar Musabaeva, puts the number of winners at around six, and warns that once there, they will find it hard to sort out a ruling coalition among themselves.

The bigger, longer-established parties are probably expecting to dominate coalition talks, but Musabaeva says the smaller parties could also play a crucial role by aligning themselves with others to build an absolute majority. “This opposition, consisting of a patchwork of small parties, could turn out to be stronger than we assume,” she said.

Under a revised constitution approved in late June, the majority grouping in parliament nominates a prime minister, who then submits a list of ministers for legislators to approve. If there is no majority, or if legislators fail to approve the cabinet list within 15 days, the president steps in and may ask other parties to form a government.

According to Bogatyrev, that scenario is now looking very likely.

“Right now, it’s obvious that it’s going to be the president, not a party, who nominates the prime minister,” he said.

Taabaldiev agreed that the president might have to ask smaller parties to form a government. The reason, he said, was that some of the bigger parties might opt out of joining a ruling coalition for strategic reasons. Their leaders might be hoping to run for president next year, and would not want their reputations tarnished through association with the economic difficulties and power shortages that are almost inevitable every winter and spring. Interim president Roza Otunbaeva is due to step down in 2011.

Rysaliev, of the Ata-Jurt party, believes a half-way solution is more likely, resulting in a coalition made up of major parties with enough smaller ones to make up the numbers, but not enough to have a decisive say in policymaking.

Speakers at the videoconference also addressed the key question of voting patterns in communities traumatised and divided along ethnic lines by the June violence in southern Kyrgyzstan.

While some the parties’ campaign rhetoric is clearly aimed at an ethnic Kyrgyz constituency, politicians who spoke at the event insisted they were trying to win Uzbek votes as well, with peace and reconciliation high on their agendas.

“The number one issue in the programme of every party is not the economy, but peace and stability,” Social Democrat Shamil Atakhanov said.

Taabaldiev said the Uzbek electorate could broadly be divided into two groups – those who are fairly apolitical and could back any of the larger parties, and others who will deliberately spurn the main parties. The latter, he said, would prefer to vote for political groups that would pledge to look after their rights and interest. Since “very few such parties” existed right now, Taabaldiev predicted that a majority of Uzbek voters would stay away from the polls.

Musabaeva said that despite all the talk of national unity, deep divisions would continue to colour political life beyond the election.

“I think that regardless of who gets into parliament, and what the composition of the new government is, the problems of the south and the nation will remain key questions,” he said.

Saule Mukhametrakhimova is IWPR Central Asia editor.

This article was produced jointly under two IWPR projects: Building Central Asian Human Rights Protection & Education Through the Media, funded by the European Commission; and the Human Rights Reporting, Confidence Building and Conflict Information Programme, funded by the Foreign Ministry of Norway.

The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of IWPR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of either the European Union or the Foreign Ministry of Norway.