Voices from Kyrgyzstan
This is a roundup of blogging activity in Kyrgyzstan during the last two weeks.
It was not particularly surprising that bloggers, writing from and about Kyrgyzstan , were paying lots of attention to the fuss around the vacant seat of the prime minister of Kyrgyzstan . Different interpretations were given to the resignation of Felix Kulov and to the nomination of Azim Isabekov- Minister of Agriculture at the moment.
Joshua Foust at Registan.net seemed to be the most positive writer in terms of his evaluation of the current situation. In his post he mentions the relative lack of a record of Isabekov, but still senses some logic behind the decision. Joshua writes :
“Kurmanbek Bakiev seems to want to tie together the north and the south through his latest Prime Minister nomination.”
According to Mirsulzhan Namazaliev, though, the situation is not nearly as bright. He questions Bakiev’s decision and suggests that the weakness of the president will not go unnoticed by the opposition, cheering Kulov’s resignation at the moment. Talking about the brand new candidate to take over the seat of the second person in the state Mirsulzhan claims:
“I’ve never heard before of Azim Isabekov and this seems to be the biggest mistake of Bakiev so far. Now Kulov is going to become the opponent of the current president. ”
Discussing the nomination of Isabekov, I argue that he is hardly qualified to take over Kulov’s position.I’m quoting a number of opinions of those, who used to be fierce about criticizing Kulov as a prime-minister. I’m posing a number of rather rhetorical questions and don’t really expect them to be answered. But in any case here they are: “
When Isabekov got nominated everyone suddenly realized how great Felix Kulov as a prime minister was comparing the new candidate, who currently serves as the minister of agriculture in the Kyrgyz government. Should I start telling you about the state of Kyrgyz agriculture at the moment? Probably not. Should I draw analogies between the managerial experience (or its absence) in the area of managing crops and cattle and the managerial experience in managing country’s economy and politics?”
Shaun Roberts, describing the recent confrontation of the parliament and the prime-minister in Kyrgyzstan , argues that Kulov’s dismissal was more than predictable. Roberts emphasizes:
“Few were surprised when the parliament refused the nomination of Kulov. Many were surprised, however, when President Bakiyev decided to send Kulov’s name to parliament a second time.”
Reflecting on the possible scenarios Shaun Roberts compares the situation with the chess game, which is nearing its checkmate.
And last but not the least- Edil Baysalov with his prospective on the recent political bargaining and its results. Baysalov’s feelings seems to be ambiguous: he is tracing all the political mistakes that Kulov made and, based on this “analysis” claims that the political potential of Kulov is exhausted. At the same time, you can sense certain sympathy in Baysalov’s words. The last thing that I would expect from him in this context. He writes:
“The opposition is happy at the moment. The slogan “Down with Kulov” became a reality. Now Bakiev without Kulov is isolated and weakened. Opposition is now counting on several new mistakes of the leader of the country. Than it will be safe to scream “Down with Bakiev”.
on February 7th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
So what now for Kulov? Will he go into “opposition?” It always seemed to me that in Central Asia, being in the opposition is viewed as very bad, almost treasonous; besides, it is much more beneficial to try to find a way to get into the government and share in the spoils.
Perhaps somebody like Kulov can change this. Not that he has a long background in democracy, but he does enjoy some popular support.