Kyrgyz elections: no guarantees, just willingness to work for democracy
CIPE Development Blog
By Jeff Lilley

I was going home “again,” returning to Kyrgyzstan for the International Republican Institute (IRI) to do campaign trainings in August. I had run IRI’s political party development program in Kyrgyzstan from 2004-2007, a time of heady developments in the mountainous Central Asian country. There was a dramatic change of government in 2005, constitutional reform and frequent political rallies. Such chaotic yet inspiring developments wilted under an increasingly repressive regime that had promised more democracy and a fight against corruption. President Kurmanbek Bakiev, the man who came to the fore of protests in the March 2005 Tulip Revolution that unseated the country’s first president, proved worse.

In April 2010, frustrated by corruption and nepotism in Bakiev’s government, the Kyrgyz people tossed out their second president in five years. More than 80 Kyrgyz citizens were killed when security forces opened fire on protestors marching on the country’s White House.

Depending on who you talk to, the Kyrgyz are a freedom-loving people, propelled by nomadic roots to reject authoritarianism. Or they are in a spiral of descent, manipulated by politicians intent on getting a share of the spoils. The latter interpretation gained the upper hand when bloody riots rocked southern Kyrgyzstan in June. Ethnic violence between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks officially left up to 3,000 dead. Another 400,000 were driven from their homes, with many fleeing across the border to Uzbekistan.

So why should the world be concerned about democracy in this former Soviet republic on the edge of the Eurasian landmass? Because the stakes are now higher than ever for state failure in Muslim-majority Kyrgyzstan, whose southern border is a mere 250 kilometers from Afghanistan. Once known as the “Switzerland of Central Asia” with bright prospects as a democracy, Kyrgyzstan is now heavily in debt to the international community, weakly governed and dirt-poor with rural residents flocking to the cities or to migrant labor jobs in Russia and Kazakhstan. Much of the income in the south is reportedly connected to the drug trade from Afghanistan.

With more democratic governance, the country has a chance to provide for its citizens. Surrounded by the growing economies of China and Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan is already an important trade route for goods going from China to Russia and beyond. The example of Mongolia, which has carved out a democratic existence while sandwiched between Russia and China, comes to mind.

The imminent October 10 parliamentary elections are the second significant political marker for Kyrgyzstan’s interim government, which took power in the vacuum created in April. First was passage of a new constitution in late June, which moved the country to a parliamentary-type system. The new system vests power in a prime minister rather than an all-powerful president, which is the norm in Central Asia.

Parties, as opposed to individual candidates, are the main players in the elections. With no dominant party there is a chance for a more free and fair election to be held, unlike the flawed 2007 election when a main voter getter, the opposition Ata-Meken Party, was shut out of parliament.

Ata-Meken’s leader, veteran politician Omurbek Tekebaev, was the main architect of the country’s quirky new constitution. In hopes of bringing political disputes off the streets and into parliament, Tekebaev crafted a system in which no party can gain more than 65 seats in the 120 – seat parliament – even if a party wins 90 percent of the vote. Once in, the opposition is guaranteed the leadership of two powerful parliamentary committees and a vice-speaker position. This ensures that opposition parties can have a hand in governing.

With the country’s dramatic constitutional change as the backdrop, IRI set out to help the parties prepare for the October election. In regional campaign trainings around the country, IRI emphasized strategy, local issue identification and voter contact. IRI adapted a successful training module used by IRI in Iraq (the Four T’s: target, touch, track and turnout) to the Kyrgyz reality, and handled the always tricky language issue by being prepared to do the training in either Russian or Kyrgyz or a mix.

IRI found the parties energized but unprepared. Interest was high for what most expected would be a more legitimate election. Participants had the ethnic violence on their minds, and issue identification around the country centered on stability and peace. During campaigning, which started September 10, some parties are using more sophisticated techniques to target undecided voters; others are reaching out to the disenfranchised Uzbek communities in the south, but they have to be careful not to be labeled traitors by new parties brandishing a nationalistic message of “Kyrgyzstan for the Kyrgyz.” All in all, it’s a more sophisticated campaign.

The October 10 elections are the next hurdle for Kyrgyzstan in constructing a workable system for its beleaguered citizens. As one IRI training participant said of the country’s unorthodox parliamentary system, “There are no guarantees (that it will work), but we have a chance.”

Jeff Lilley is Director of the International Republican Institute‘s Office of Monitoring and Evaluation.