Causes and Consequences, or Looking Beyond Tomorrow in Kyrgyzstan
By Claire Wilkinson
Exasperation is a feeling that accompanies me on a daily basis here in Kyrgyzstan, whether informally chatting to people, conducting interviews or simply reading whatever newspapers I’ve managed to find. No doubt many people reading that first sentence will be thinking “here we go, another rich foreigner complaining at the relative lack of her creature comforts”, but that is to miss my point. I’m referring to the paradoxical mix of justifications, excuses and false logic so often used to explain the current state of Kyrgyzstan that somehow shifts both the blame and the responsibility from the speaker. Everyone has a theory of who is to blame - most commonly former President Akaev, as though those that are in power now never had any dealings with him. And what is to be done - Reopen factories! Immediate constitutional reform! Get more foreign investment! Protest!
Yet somewhere in all these charged discussions, connections are lost between benefits and cost, cause and effect, conditionality and accountability, the here-and-now and the long-term future of Kyrgyzstan. Whilst the craving for quick and painless answers is entirely understandable, it is not the way of an increasingly interconnected world. As the proverb says, you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs. If you want foreign investment, one must accept that much of any profit will go abroad, for example.
It is time for Kyrgyzstan’s leaders and people to accept this reality, rather than continually seeking refuge in blame-shifting, references to local tradition, culture and mentality, and the catch-all phrase “when we’re a developed country, then…”.
The recent debate surrounding the proposal that Kyrgyzstan join the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) programme to gain debt relief is a case in point. Whilst a few commentators felt that the conditions of the programme make it unattractive, suggesting that the government should pursue other negotiations to get at least some of Kyrgyzstan’s debts written off, these have been in the minority. Far more column inches have been dedicated to emotional arguments about how joining the HIPC will ruin Kyrgyzstan’s international reputation, make it unattractive to investors, and reduce it to the level of an African country.
The comparison may not be a pleasant one, but, if one looks at events and trends over the last year, in all honesty it does not seem inappropriate: an uprising leading to the ousting of an increasingly unpopular and weak leader followed by land seizures, assassinations, local and national protests, fears of civil war and the increasing criminalisation of the government, rising rates of violent crime. I could go on.
Kyrgyzstan’s international reputation has already been considerably damaged and much investment has been lost. The level of concern among international commentators was evident at the end of October when Akmatbaev first brought his supporters to protest outside the Jogorku Kenesh, with a U.S. Embassy official describing the situation as ’scandalous’. Then, in December, the term ‘faltering state’ appeared in an ICG report on the situation in the republic. The mood in Kyrgyzstan remained one of stubborn - or desperate - optimism, even as the newly reformed opposition started new rumblings of discontent. Until the attack on Edil Baisalov a few weeks ago, only the HIPC programme had broken through this blindly defensive hope and pride to suggest the true state of things here and how desperately change is needed to prevent Kyrgyzstan sliding from ‘faltering’ to ‘failing’.
The opposition’s response has been to demand, among other things, immediate constitutional reform, economic development, stronger efforts to fight organised crime and corruption. Nobody would disagree that all these things are vital. But what is also needed from everyone in Kyrgyzstan is a willingness to look critically at themselves and their actions, and consider the consequences in the medium and long-term perspective.
This is especially true of protests, which have over the last year become an increasingly popular way for groups to express their discontent and demands in a supposedly ‘democratic’ way. Yet protests do not make a democracy any more than elections do. Indeed, it could be argued that the continuing protests are now preventing the very things the protestors demand, namely ‘real reforms’. How can the government develop well thought through policies for reform when it is constantly being called upon to address the demands of a particular group immediately, even if it is to the detriment of society at large? If the opposition is determined to accuse the government of inaction, then it must recognise the point at which it becomes part of the problem by keeping the government in crisis mode, preventing normal working processes from happening.
The peaceful protest held in Bishkek on April 8 against organised crime sent an important message to the government about the need for change. And, if statements and reports are to be believed, words are beginning to transform into actions with corruption being more strongly targeted and efforts to catch criminal groups intensified. Yet the opposition has seemed bent on holding further rallies in Bishkek, which has put it in danger of crossing the fine line from democracy to protestocracy. Threats to create a ‘Kyrgyz Maidan’ and stay until their demands are met are not to be welcomed, even before the possibility that certain groups could try and take advantage of the situation is considered. All that can be achieved this way is a continuation of the government’s crisis management approach to politics, which precludes any real, sustained reform.
Kyrgyzstan needs now, more than ever, to look beyond the here and now and consider the longer-term consequences. Are people are content to accept that more protests will continue to create an impression of instability both at home and abroad to the detriment of economic development? Are people ready to see a link between becoming a developed country and their personal actions? To accept that foreign investment will not be to the exclusive benefit of Kyrgyzstan, but will directly and indirectly benefit Kyrgyzstanis? The current evidence is not encouraging. It seems a few more unpleasant home truths will be required to make people think in a sustained way about the future of their country, rather than resorting to reckless actions and arguments that only serve to undermine the possibility of building a better future for Kyrgyzstan.
on May 6th, 2006 at 5:57 am
Great points, Claire.
News reports portray Kyrgyzstan as a state on the verge of collapse. However, historical precedent provides some cause for optimism. Take the US from 1776-1789; bad system, rebellions, severe economic depression. The picture was every bit as bleak as in Kyrgyzsan today, and no one expected the United States to emerge as a superpower.
I realize there are many more examples of countries tumbling in to anarchy following independence, so I’m not going to make that point too strongly, I’m just saying at least people seem to have taken democratic ideals to heart and are allowed to express them, which is more than Kyrgyzstan’s neighbors can bost.
Matt Jay has some interesting ideas on how the system can be improved over on the Kyrygyzstan blog.
on May 7th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Good article indeed.
IMO, it’s too early to judge where this country will go. I think that the cycle of change is not done yet and that the country, just like the region, will have to go through a phase of instability. That is unavoidable I think and might even open new opportunities. Now, there are too much conflicting interests in a region with too much social mobility frustrated by failed systems.
Yet, one fundamental thing: imo, it’s totally pointless to compare Kyrgyzstan with the US or the West, come up with other ‘Switzerland of Central Asia’ bollocks or to even expect that it will go its way along western values and concepts. Kyrgyzstan (and the other ‘stans for that matter) is not the West or Europe and will never be. In fact, that mistake — constantly made by the Kyrgyz establishment, the russianized-westernized Bishkek elite and, for long, the IFIs and ‘golden cage expats’ — has only created wrong development priorities, false hopes, the importation of outlandish development concepts and, a such, hastened the country’s ruin. It will backlash.
Apart from that, a big part of the country’s trouble is rooted in the mentality and general attitude of the Kyrgyz themselves - or, at least, of substantial coats of Kyrgyz society. OK one may think that this is just another arrogant outsider who ventilates opinions about other people yet I spent several years in the country and some of my points are also made/supported by several Kyrgyz acquaintances themselves.
1) Many Kyrgyz are obsessed with becoming rich overnight and without any effort (OK that would be nice for anybody J yet there is this thing called reality); several factors causes that: see point 2) and 3); lazyness; the consumerist mirages portrayed by the media, … ; in turn, that created a naive faith in all sorts of abracadabra schemes and scams that are supposed to bring on the big bonanza; that’s also why this country has been completely squandered and sadly brothelized over the past ten years.
2) While the Kyrgyz dominate the republic’s political-administrative apparatus, a substantial part of Kyrgyzstan’s daily economy is kept turning by more dynamic minorities (Dungan, Uighurs, Uzbeks), not by some sleazy Western investors that are often in cahoots with regime officials and, thus, part of the problem (I can understand popular antipathy for the latter group; many expats deserve nothing better than to be booted out asap).
3) Another characteristic is a clear culture of expectations from handouts from outsiders, and taking advantage of one or another patron or ‘big brother’, no matter whether that patron is ‘the Russians’, ‘the West’, China or one or another foreign company; on the official level, that mentality is best embodied in that so-called ‘multi-vectoral policy (read: ‘eating in everyone’s meadow’); it is also the consequence of Soviet colonialism where peripheral Soviet republics were basically subsisting on subsidies and imported cadres from Moscow, and has been extended and consolidated with the arrival of international financial institutions and aid programmes encouraged by the country’s relative openness in the nineties (even if many Kyrgyz will hate me for saying this, that culture of handouts and dependency is an attitude that is also widespread in certain parts of Africa).
4) Last but no least, there’s that lack of any identity and reference framework, a factor that should not be under-estimated. Who are the Kyrgyz in fact? Their nomadic culture, of what’s left of it, has largely become disfunctional and ‘folklorized’; they are russianized but no Russians; they are not really Muslims either; and while many try to imitate ‘the West’ but all it gives is a pathetic parody best seen in Bishkek. Is it a coincidence that minorities with a clearer, more outlined identity seem to fare better in Kyrgyzstani society than most Kyrgyz? When I was in Tokmak in 2004, a police major — ethnic Kyrgyz himself — told me: “We have much less trouble with the young Dungan here than with ‘nashi’; the Dungan, they are more Muslim. So their families stick together more, they work harder, drink less and take less drugs. And that’s why they live better than us.â€?
BTW, several of the above points are applicable for the Kazakhs too, with this difference, that for the time being Kazakhstan can hold itself to the oil bubble — which will burst sooner or later, but for the time being many Kazakhs clutch to the expectations that it brings.
on May 8th, 2006 at 9:44 am
Thank you for such detailed feedback - Ataman Rankin, you’ve made some very interesting and important points.
One query, James: do you really believe the Kyrgyz (Kyrgyzstani?) people have taken democratic values to heart? I’m increasingly unconvinced, not least as the protests carry on - from my point of view it seems far more like individual groups deciding to have a go at getting their way, rather than a feature of a “democratic” system. “Democracy” is a slippery term at the best of times and is being used and abused as much as ever here in Kyrgyzstan. We may all be using the same words, but do we mean the same thing?
on May 8th, 2006 at 11:34 am
Cheers Claire.
No intention to lecture and humiliate who- or whatever, yet if the country and the Kyrgyz don’t want to end us totally screwed and marginalized it is high time to wake up (if necessary with a kick in the ass), stop to always expect ‘help’ from others and/or stop to try to take advantage of everyone and everything; and make a *realistic* (that means: no white elephant development or ‘Switz of CA’ fantasies) assessment of where the country should go and belong to.
I will come, probably in a new phase of turmoil and instability.
on May 9th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
“do you really believe the Kyrgyz (Kyrgyzstani?) people have taken democratic values to heart?”
Een if you asked James not me, my 2 c: I don’t think so. Certain interested groups do pay lip service to it for the sake of the $$$ and jobs attached.
But for many a sovok (in Kyrgyzstan and elsewhere) ‘democracy’ has become synonym for ‘bardak’ — a mess, read: impoverishment; corrupt elites pilfering the economy; social and moral degradation. And this — “not least as the protests carry on - from my point of view it seems far more like individual groups deciding to have a go at getting their way” — is true imo and has strenghtened that perception.
What we see now is merely the rot that was accumulated during the rule of the Akayevs that comes brrooobs to float up. But as I said, from the mess and the instability might come something new.
And that ’something’ will not come from the classical pro-democracy groups (discredited+too foreign grant-dependent+little real social base) nor from local NGOs (80% are merely grant grabbers) nor from the classical urban intelligentsia (co-opted by the regime or IO+disconnected from society at large).
It will likely come from what Olivier Roy calls ‘civil society as it is’ and from what Scott Radnitz calls ‘grass roots elites’: small and medium entrepreneurs; larger/more savvy farmers with authority in the village; people with an authority in the daily/informal economy; certain sub-groups among rural migrants; even certain people in the rayon and municipal administrations.
*That* are the socially mobile groups that are crucial for the future. What they want might not be (and is most likely not) in line with ‘Western democracy’.
on May 10th, 2006 at 2:25 am
Claire,
You make an astute point: it is important to define what we mean exactly when using broad terms like “democracy.” I think I saw the Economist refer to it as the right to “fire your own government,” and the Kyrgyz certainly have taken that idea to heart!
I think what I meant was that it certainly seems that the Kyrgyz people have decided that it is everyone’s right to participate in politics. Bakiyev is constantly challenged. People protest in the streets. Demands to crack down on organized crime are made. Especially when their next door neighbors get shot when they try the same, this seems to me to be a very significant step.
You and Ataman rightly point out that this is not the same sort of participation we see in the West, the protests are crippling the government, and in many cases are merely paying lipservice to the idea of democracy to advance their own agendas.
I am not contradicting any of that. I was merely trying to put what is going on in Kyrgyzstan into some kind of perspective by using US history as an example (but by no means implying that the two countries are directly comparable).
My comment wasn’t a rebuttal to what you said, just a perspective. Thanks for all the outstanding posts!
PS - IMHO, this statement comes pretty close to describing the current system in the US with all the various interest groups vying for influence (note: certainly not saying the situation is therefore comparable to Kyrgyzstan): “individual groups deciding to have a go at getting their way.”