In partnership with the Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR) office in Bishkek, the Carnegie Endowment held the second in a series of roundtable video conference discussions on contemporary politics in Kyrgyzstan. These discussions will be held regularly until after the parliamentary elections, scheduled for October 10, 2010, are complete and a new government is securely in place.
This second roundtable between leading political leaders and analysts in Bishkek and U.S. experts in Washington focused on the new Kyrgyz constitution and the upcoming parliamentary elections. Since the Kyrgyz Republic was founded nineteen years ago, its constitution has been rewritten eight times. The most recent change took place on June 27th after a national referendum. The new constitution has evoked varied reactions—ranging from praise to skepticism to condemnation–in Kyrgyzstan.
Split Views on the New Constitution
The new constitution introduces dramatic changes to Kyrgyzstan’s political system, shifting power from the office of the president to the Parliament. Roundtable participants tended to fall into two camps regarding the new constitution: those who believed the reforms were significant and positive and those who called for more substantive changes to how Kyrgyzstan is governed.
- Sign of Maturity: Supporters of the new constitution argued that it will usher in a new era for the Kyrgyz people. While acknowledging that the decision and the process leading to the constitutional change unraveled rather abruptly, they believed the process demonstrated Kyrgyz political maturity and readiness to embrace change.
- Political Necessity: Supporters emphasized that it was the only immediate solution for saving the state from political chaos and must be perceived as a starting point, enabling political actors to exchange their opinions within a civilized framework, rather than “a state of political monopoly.”
- The Need for Substantive Change: Critics of the constitution maintained that reforms to the governing apparatus of the state and improvements in the caliber of political officials, rather than decorative innovations in the constitution, are the only effective way to realize true change.
- Social Instability: According to one Kyrgyz participant, “Kyrgyzstan suffers from a fetish, from a conviction that constitutional changes will be inevitably followed by positive social changes.” Some panelists expressed concern that a national schism could form, should five or more parties be elected with an equal number of votes in the parliamentary elections.
Further doubts were raised about the “longevity” of the constitution, since new calls for additional changes to the text have already been made.
Potential Problems:
- Legitimacy of Laws: Any decrees issued and implemented by the interim government, which came to power following the anti-government upheaval of April 7th, could be perceived as de jure illegitimate. However, Kyrgyz experts explained, these laws have de facto legitimacy since they are supported and accepted by the population. Overall, the constitution, hastily drafted in response to the country’s political instability, is not a detailed blueprint; after the parliamentary elections, the new government will likely address its unclear language and ambiguities.
- Parliamentary Electoral Procedures: The election in October 2010 will take place according to the 2007 elections code. A stipulation in the code—which restricts the right to vote by residence permit—may create legal problems for migrant members of Kyrgyz civil society.
- Opposition Parties: One of the main potential pitfalls in the upcoming elections is the emergence of several opposition factions. Competing parties are required to pass a dual threshold, winning at least 5 percent of the vote nationwide and 0.5 percent in each of the seven regions, in order to gain representation in the parliament. Because only a few parties will meet that threshold, new opposition groups comprised of parties that failed to pass those requirements are likely to form.
- Future Relationship with the South: Kyrgyz participants doubted the likelihood of additional violence in the south of the country, calling for more effective strategic and economic policies to remedy the area’s perilous political situation. According to the Kyrgyz participants, while there are no outstanding problems that would prevent Uzbek minorities from participating in the upcoming elections, no measures have been undertaken to protect their participatory rights. There is a distinct possibility that various extremist groups will violate these rights.
