Kyrgyz Voters Want Strong Rule
Parliamentary system just one year old, but voters have tired of it already.
Kyrgyz Voters Want Strong Rule
Parliamentary system just one year old, but voters have tired of it already.
Ahead of Kyrgyzstan’s presidential election at the end of this month, the majority of both candidates and voters appear to favour abandoning the parliamentary system, and returning to the days when one person ran the country.
The October 30 ballot will be the first opportunity voters have had to choose a national leader since a popular uprising forced former president Kurmanbek Bakiev out of power in April 2010.
A constitutional referendum held in June that year radically reduced the powers of future presidents and transferred most decision-making to the legislature, making Kyrgyzstan the first and only parliamentary democracy in Central Asia.
The findings of a straw poll conducted by IWPR, along with interviews with most of the confirmed candidates, indicate a strong preference for a presidential system, albeit for a variety of reasons.
Although the IWPR poll of 50 people is by no means exhaustive, it provides a snapshot of the general mood among voters, which is in stark contrast to the enthusiasm they showed when the constitution was changed last year.
With a strong turnout of 69 per cent, nine out of ten votes in the referendum were for constitutional change and parliamentary rule. This reflected a widely-held view that Bakiev and his predecessor Askar Akaev, who became head of state after Kyrgyzstan gained independence in 1991, had accumulated far too much power, leading to nepotism and cronyism.
As of October 7, Kyrgyzstan’s election body had a list of 23 approved candidates. The front-runners are mainly high-profile politicians like interim prime minister, Almazbek Atambaev, who heads the Social Democratic Party, Ata Jurt party leader Kamchybek Tashiev, and Butun Kyrgyzstan leader Adakhan Madumarov.
The interim president, Roza Otunbaeva, who is not standing, will become the first Central Asian leader to have stepped back from power, rather than dying or being ejected from the job.
Atambaev, who has stepped down from government to run for election, was among just three of the 17 candidates interviewed by IWPR who wanted to keep the parliamentary system as it is. Another was Omurbek Abdrakhmanov from the Ata-Meken party, who warned against a return to the past, and said an instinctive longing for a strong leader was a feature of backward societies.
The other 14 wanted to change the constitution again to create a strong presidency.
“I cannot say it is useful, appropriate or ideal for our society, so the time may come to change this constitution,” Tashiev said.
Shamshybek Medetbekov spoke for many of the candidates when he said, “We have seen parliamentary rule. Now it must be entirely presidential.”
Another candidate, Roman Omorov, spelled out his belief that the president should hold all the reins, including the powers now held by the prime minister.
Not all of the 14 favoured such a complete volte face, with some advocating a rebalancing of power rather than a restoration of one-person rule.
Omurbek Suvanaliev, a former interior ministry official who is running for president, called for “a strong president and a strong parliament”.
Sheradil Baktygulov, a Bishkek-based expert on public administration, said that while the public and many candidates favoured stronger presidential rule, their motives were different. For many of the candidates, he said, it had less to do with the national interest than with a desire to further their own interests if they won, and promote those who helped them to achieve it.
Another reason why candidates are backing the idea may be simply that they sense the mood swing in an electorate disillusioned with the way parliament has functioned since it was elected last year.
Prospective voters interviewed by IWPR spoke of massive disappointment with the way democracy has played out over the last year.
Twenty-eight of the 50 interviewees wanted a stronger presidency, 14 were in favour of keeping the present system, and the rest either wanted a mixed system or none of the above.
Among the reasons they gave for unhappiness with the current parliament were the budget discussions that dragged on for four months, the failure to propose ways of making life in Kyrgyzstan better, members who did not bother turning up for debates, frequent exchanges in the chamber involving bitter personal attacks, and the perception that members are there only to line their own pockets.
Interviewees said they wanted to see elected politicians taking decisions that created jobs, brought in foreign investment, and supported small businesses by lowering taxes and easing regulation.
Others took issue with the behaviour of elected politicians which they witnessed in live broadcasts and other coverage of parliament.
“Only yesterday, I watched a programme where a deputy was arguing with an official from the presidential administration,” Bishkek businesswoman Daryika Mambetova said. “It’s certainly in the nature of parliament for everything to be made public. But still, what an embarrassment it is when two officials sort out their disagreements by behaving as if they were having a row in the street.”
Many people in Kyrgyzstan believe that politicians use elected positions as a springboard for personal – and commercial – advancement, and that they are uninterested in the fate of those who elected them. Viewed within this context, a presidential style of government seems the least bad option, since it restricts the number of elite interest groups who are getting rich.
“It is better for one person to be building up wealth rather than the whole of parliament,” a student from Talas who did not give her name said.
For Dilmurod Asanhojaev, from southern Kyrgyzstan where more than 400 people died in ethnic violence in early June 2010, the parliamentary experiment is one of lost opportunities.
“In general, I would of course want to see parliamentary rule, so that power isn’t in the hands of just one person. Yet we’ve had it for a year… we have a parliamentary state, but it’s had little impact,” Asankhojaev said.
“Before there was one stupid man, now there are 120 of them.”
Baktygulov said he understood the nostalgia for strong leadership, but warned that it also implied authoritarian rule. In the case of Kyrgyzstan, that meant all the power in the hands of one elite family.
“People want stability and to live in a world they can understand, so they favour the kind of relationship with authorities that they’ve been used to. That explains their support for strong rule,” he said. “But if they do this [change back] they will face more disappointment, as stability doesn’t equate with economic prosperity.”
IWPR’s straw poll revealed generational differences that coloured people’s views. Those who favoured the old ways – stability and a strong hand at the top – tended to be people who remembered the Soviet Union. Many younger people, on the other hand, thought parliamentary democracy needed to be given more of a chance.
“There are no [conclusive] results yet, but people are already complaining about it,” Bishkek student Aigul Karmashova said. “If they replace it with presidential rule, once again there will be people who are unhappy about it and will start shouting, ‘Give us back a parliamentary system.’ It would be better to wait and see how we can develop parliamentary rule.”
Timur Toktonaliev is IWPR editor in Kyrgyzstan.
