From the Embassy press release:

The United States Government strongly condemns the April 12 attack on human rights activist and NGO leader Edil Baisalov. Our sympathy goes out to Mr. Baisalov and his family. On April 13, U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch visited Mr. Baisalov in the hospital to express her support.

This cowardly act was not only an assault on an individual, but also an assault on civil society and on the principle of freedom of speech. We view this attack as a serious escalation of the troubling political violence that has occurred in Kyrgyzstan over the past year. Kyrgyzstan is unique among its neighbors for its vibrant civil society, and it is to the government’s credit that civil society has been allowed to flourish. This attack is a stark reminder that civil society must be protected.

Mr. Baisalov is outspoken in his criticism of organized crime in Kyrgyzstan. We urge the Kyrgyz Government to take a stand on combating organized crime and upholding the rule of law. We further urge the Kyrgyz government to vigorously investigate this crime and provide security to Mr. Baisalov and others who may be at risk.

Whether Russia, China or any other state will put out a similar statement is an open question. (My money is on ‘no’.)

Criminal proceedings have begun, but given the rampant corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency (despite what Bakiev says), I would guess that the assailant will not be found. Hopefully, this will shock the state into taking a hard look at the shenanigans that take place on a daily basis, but I’m becoming more pessimistic every day.

As I first learned of on Registan, Edil Baisalov of the Coalition for Democracy and Civil Society (and guest of Williams College) was violently attacked in an assassination attempt outside the Coalition’s offices near Ala-Too Square in Bishkek. The complete breakdown of public services (police, emergency transportation) made the situation worse - the assassin is on the loose and the lack of an ambulance likely endangered Baisalov’s life. Thank God he’s OK.

Baisalov has bravely lobbied for greater measures to combat organized crime. Kulov visited him in the hospital, and hopefully more will come out of that meeting than a PR opportunity for an administration whose inaction Baisalov has taken the lead in criticizing. Baisalov says that he won’t be intimidated. In a climate of fear that has enveloped Kyrgyzstan. He’s truly an inspiration for democracy activists worldwide, and the Kyrgyz government can no longer afford to ignore him (if they ever could).

The widening campaign against organized crime in Kyrgyzstan pits a hardy band of NGOs against some of the most deeply entrenched interests controlling politics - groups that are likely holdovers of apparatchiks that have been allowed to flourish in an environment in which everything (and everyone) has their price. Perhaps Russia, seeing a connection with its anti-narcotrafficking efforts, could increase its assistance? However, there seems not to be much that the U.S. can do - State should release a statement praising Baisalov and calling for greater security measures, but it would be difficult to complement the message with an expression of soft power - extra development assistance (or perhaps penalties for failed domestic security promises) would likely not be enough to turn the tide against the criminal syndicates. In any event, Kyrgyzstan is definitely backsliding, an indication, in my opinion, of the disconnect between people and the government - the latter can afford not to take the former seriously (as has been the case so far with the protests) and individuals do not perceive their stake in the government and try to avoid interacting with it at all costs. However, in order to expel the criminal plutocrats from power, people will need to be more engaged in political affairs so they can respond when politicians try to dupe them. As Edil Baisalov shows, the Kyrgyz people are not pushovers, and through grassroots political organization they can work towards a more transparent and representative government.

Apparently, Kyrgyzstan is offering yurts at $10k a pop to Hurricane Katrina victims:

“After Katrina, people really need some temporary houses,” explained the Kyrgyz Embassy’s Saltanat Tashmatova, at the front door of the yurt. A brochure says the 14-foot-high structure, made from sheep’s wool and “cool in summer,” sells for $10,000 — but the floor model can be had for $7,000. Any sales yet? “We just started,” Tashmatova said with a shrug.

After the Manas debacle (is this true?), is this Bakiev’s latest get-rich-quick scheme?

“ИДИОТЫ!!!“(Idiots!)

…especially if they have never heard of it? We’re going after them…wherever they may be! (Thanks!)

I’ve now arrived in Tajikistan, so expect the focus of this blog to change a bit.

That said, speaking with other people in Bishkek (I’m keeping interviewees anonymous on this blog, but suffice it to say, if Kyrgyzstan had pundits, they would be them), I mentioned my previously outlined observations about the Kyrgyz presidential elections, and they noted that choice was never an expectation for the election - it was basically a referendum on Bakiev’s administration. While referendums have a shady history in Kyrgyzstan (and Central Asia for that matter) - they have been employed to push through all types of nasty ‘reforms’ that consolidate power or expand term limits. However, it seemed that this one might turn out well because it delivered the stability that Kyrgyz citizens valued above all else. It seems that while the March Revolution attracted a great deal of attention from American media and donor organizations, it scared a lot of people here in Kyrgyzstan. People just want to live their own lives without a lot of upheaval. ‘Stability’ has been used by many people for many purposes, but it seems that the main outcome of the elections is that people are currently happy with the system and they have hope for the future, neither of which existed half a year ago.

However, I still believe that raising a little hell once in a while - as long as it is well-focused, reasonably contained and nonviolent, which NGO-organized groups during the March Revolution certainly were - is not a bad thing (it certainly has a good track record in the United States). I think that one of the major obstacles in Kyrgyzstan to creating social elements of a stable democracy (strong ideologically-based parties, objective media, local activism, etc.) is the lack of a notion of citizenship and a social contract - both the ‘by the people, for the people’ notion of statehood and political representation and the sense of using political engagement to express one’s beliefs and better one’s life. How to do this? I have yet to find an answer. Maybe it will be in Tajikistan or, more likely, Mongolia…

Updating from my previous post in which I observed that

people voted for Bakiev just for the sake of voting for him, rather than any specific policies or ideological alignment

I found that this problem was quite widespread. Basically, although the election was relatively clean from a technical standpoint, it was not a great election from the point of view of the political philosophy underpinning the purpose of elections. I tend to view elections from the point of view of the voter, in which the act of voting is like buying something - it is a strategic decision designed to bring benefit to one’s life. The question a voter should ask is ‘which candidate will bring me the most benefit?’ (how ‘benefit’ is defined is entirely subjective and is the reason modern democracies are so pluralistic)

On July 11, I spoke with several people living in the rural area the Chui Valley, east of Bishkek. They said that many voters predicted that Bakiev would win, so they just voted for Bakiev. They said that the debates were weak and that unprofessional (unfortunately, I missed them so I can’t really comment). Although they said that the media did a good job of communicating information, when I asked them to name specific policies, programs or promises of candidates other than Bakiev, they could not. This problem of a lack of voter knowledge of platforms seems to be a persistent trend in looking at the problems of voting. On July 10, I noticed that the poster with statements by all of the candidates that seemed to be part of a package that included posters on how the ink system worked was haphazardly posted in some of the polling stations - in some, it was outside for everyone to read (which nobody I saw did) before voting, but in many others, it was behind the poll workers and thus inaccessible to voters or in another random place that people would not be able to notice before casting their vote.

They said that on several occasions, Bakiev’s operatives called them from government offices to tell them that they must vote for him. Although they saw the election as moving in the right direction, they said that others saw it as simply a ‘change of hats’ - nothing substantive. They said that local election officials were under pressure to make sure that as many people voted as possible because the election would be invalid if turnout was under 50%. People were afraid that something would happen on election day - another person I spoke with said that there were rumors afloat that if under 50% voted, the opposition candidates would unleash a protest in Bishkek similar to March 24 or June 17. Fortunately, election day was peaceful (if a little too peaceful - they said that this time of the year is the prime time for working in the fields and that it was difficult to get people to come into centers to vote). It seems like voting has become acceptible among the general populace - although they know that they are no longer forced to vote as they were during Soviet times, they know that it is a good thing to do.

The OSCE press conference was a good complement to the day’s visit - it highlighted all of the things that went well with the election: the equipping of the polling stations, training of workers, collection and counting of ballots and reporting of results. It seems that even though the election was relatively clean (see report for some of the concerns), it may not have been representative and, contrary to what some have told me that the act of voting in an internationally legitimate election will be a transformational event for many Kyrgyz, it seems that the country still has a long way to go before it becomes a functioning democracy. Now that the international community has brought clean elections to Kyrgyzstan, can they help create a functional party system that will make voting an act of genuine political expression?

I went around Chui Province today with some of the staff of Interbilim, a local civil society NGO, checking out the observations of electoral stations by trained volunteers. It was interesting to compare the Kyrgyz electoral process with that of the United States:

Kyrgyzstan: Paper ballots placed in a locked glass box at the center of the room. No shenanigans.
USA: See Black Box Voting

Kyrgyzstan: Inking of electors’ thumbs, like in Iraq and Afghanistan.
USA: No inking.

Kyrgyzstan: Nonpartisan observers throughout country plus partisan observers at occasional stations.
USA: Bellyaching over a small OSCE mission.

Having gotten a few gripes with the American electoral process off my chest, it was interesting to see the various quirks of another country’s electoral process. First, you could hear the polling stations from far off - music blared from boom boxes (apparently, this is a typically Kyrgyz gesture). Although I winced at “Livin’ la Vida Loca” playing at one place, the music made the often quiet polling stations a little more lively. Second, the quietness of the polling stations was worrying - even though we had visited halfway through the day, less than 20% of people had voted (we’ll see if more people come in the evening, as some I spoke with predicted). Third, it seemed that voters were not well educated on the candidates and their platforms, despite large posters in many areas in towns with all of their statements. People voted for Bakiev just for the sake of voting for him, rather than any specific policies or ideological alignment. I’m going to look into this further in the days ahead. Fourth was the interesting occurance of ‘drunk voting’ in a village (I’ll say no more on the record). Combined with the absence of local (by this I mean town-scale, not Kyrgyz) organizations such as buses to voting stations or targeted GOTV campaigns, it seems that the massive PR campaign to get people to vote at least partly succeeded - everyone who would vote probably did vote. However, the critical other piece of the voting equation - that people vote based on their political preferences - may not yet be prevalent in Kyrgyzstan. The processes at each place seemed clean enough - everyone was very professional and well-trained. Hopefully, it will turn out as some think, whereby the experience of a good election will be the taste of real democracy that will begin the process of political transformation.

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…

There was a big concert tonight in the main square in Bishkek. It was part of a Kyrgyz Rock the Vote campaign (I guess ‘Vote or Die’ probably would not have gone over well here) to get young people involved. A myriad or groups were supporting it, including local ones such asACSSC, KelKel and the Coalition for Democracy and Civil Society, and international ones such as the American embassy, NDI, OSCE and IFES. It was certainly a big event - possibly the largest peaceful assembly that Bishkek - or Kyrgyzstan for that matter - has ever had. The $64,000 (literally, I would guess) question is: will it have an impact? Did it effectively communicate the message that voting is important? Pundits (if there are such people in Kyrgyzstan) warn of a low turnout that could cast suspicion on the election and could bring up issues of presidential mandate (though in a country that has just overthrown an increasingly authoritarian president, such discussions might not be a bad thing). The concerts helped turn around declining youth voting numbers in the 2004 US election, but arguably other factors made youth more engaged. Will they work here? Unfortunately, there seems to be little in Kyrgyzstan that attracts youth to politics; democracy is viewed in contrast to Soviet times where, although they had very few liberties, people had jobs and could make a living. I’m not sure if big events will change things without being supplemented by other countrywide youth engagement programs (in all fairness, there are other programs being run, but the concert was clearly the cornerstone of the entire operation). We’ll see, however: Sunday’s vote will reveal all…

It seems like the Soviet legacy in some form plays a role in shaping Kyrgyzstan’s political consciousness. There is a great deal of debate over the modern effects of Civil Law and Common Law philosophies on the systems they created. However, it seems that the two are relatively similar compared with the notions of legality in post-Soviet countries; rather than simply having a different interpretation of the role of laws, it seems that the notion of law itself is up for debate. While bribes certainly exist in Western society, they are, by and large, not a way of life as they seem to be here. The lack of a notion of government accountability to the citizen (’by the people, for the people’) and of personal capital ownership have made the establishment of democracy much more difficult and may explain why Akayev was allowed to tighten his grip on the country for so long.