I’ve been a bit under the weather and have nothing new to contribute, so I’ll let some news stories and postings do the talking:

What could be Central Asia’s first fair election takes place tomorrow. The July 4 presidential debate was broadcast over television (which doesn’t reach the estranged rural population). This article presents both sides of the question over whether Kyrgyzstan is becoming more democratic: although good elections could encourage the growth of opposition movements, leading candidate Kurmanbek Bakiev (and all other candidates, for that matter) has not articulated anything approaching a platform. Worryingly, the Acting Finance Minister called on people to vote to save the state money by voting - though it would only save money if the leading candidate (his current boss) won over 50% of the election. Contrary to the belief widely held in the West that the election itself will be a critical turning point for the country, I think that it will be the manner in which the elected government consolidates power and control over the administration - either in a retrograde, corrupt method or a transparent and accountable one - that will truly shape the Kyrgyz political scene in the future - like Bush’s reelection, whether the president will acquire a mandate or not depends on post-election activity. Similarly, I’m not so sure that “a successful election in Kyrgyzstan will contribute greatly to political stability throughout the region” - it seems that the March Revolution scared other countries, particularly Uzbekistan. However, security is a genuine concern: considering the past history of street violence in protests, RFERL asks, will elections be nonviolent? Ya veramos…