BISHKEK: On July 10, 2005, the citizens of Kyrgyzstan, a small country of five million largely covered by the Tien Shan mountain range[1], voted for the president of the republic. For Kyrgyz and international political observers, that summer was the season of Kyrgyzstan’s ascendance as a consolidated democracy because the election would put into office the first new president in all of Central Asia[2] since the fall of the Soviet Union. The outcome was unsurprising: Kurmanbek Bakiyev[3], the acting president since his predecessor, Askar Akayev, was forced from office in March, was elected with a solid majority of the strong turnout of voters[4]. He took office amid great attention by the global media, which saw the election as a “mandate”[5] by the people, and acclaim by the American government.[6] The peaceful, largely clean election for a new candidate fulfilled many of the prerequisites for democracy established by contemporary theorists of political transitions.
However, my experiences in Kyrgyzstan during the period of the election convinced me otherwise. I traveled to the Chong-Kemin Valley with a group from the Kyrgyz NGO Interbilim to check poll watchers in the local villages[7]. Speaking with my fellow travelers, I found that “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.”[8] Many old men sat outside voting centers, clearly inebriated, having just cast their ballot. I later learned that during the Soviet era, everyone would come to vote because the state would sponsor a party afterwards[9]. Thus, many people were reenacting an old Soviet practice, just as some still turned out monthly to clean up city streets.[10] Although the election was clean, I questioned whether people were truly able to express their political interests, thereby fulfilling what I had always thought was the importance of voting.
My interviews on the following day confirmed this problem. I went with the Interbilim workers to speak with several of their grantees outside of Tokmok, a medium city an hour east of Bishkek. Mairan Junusheva and Aikan Argynbaeva of the Public Foundation “Nud Zobolo” of Ivanovka Station. They told me that “many electors predicted that Bakiyev would win, so people just voted for Bakiyev.” Moreover, in contrast to the optimism expressed by American program officers whom I interviewed, the women asserted that the election “just changed hats from blue to white” – in other words, there was no substantive change from Akayev to Bakiyev. Neither of the women, who as leaders of the local NGO, were among the better-educated and more well-off in their small village, could tell me about the platforms of the opposition candidates, nor did they know much about Bakiyev’s proposals (they noted that “we really believe that he would be able to do something” and that “he doesn’t promise a lot to people,”[11] meaning that he might be able to accomplish his pledges).
Later that afternoon, I attended the official press conference sponsored by the OSCE. Ambassador Lubomir Kopaj noted that although there were “almost no discernable obstacles to campaigning except the availability of financial resources of the candidates,” that” Bakiyev received considerably more coverage than other candidates” in the media.[12] However, in this[13] and other institutional aspects of elections, significant improvements had been made.[14] The preliminary statement by the International Republican Institute echoed the guarded (but nonetheless strong) optimism: “unprecedented voter education efforts and widespread distribution of candidate information resulted in vast increases in the amount of information available to voters on candidates, issues and electoral procedures.”[15]
I find the profound contrast between my personal experiences speaking one-on-one to ordinary Kyrgyz and the speeches delivered at the OSCE press conference symbolic of the shortcomings of current democracy promotion strategies. Where the NGO workers spoke of local sentiment, describing how “people are afraid that something will happen on election day,” the speakers and their subsequent press release detailed the technical successes and failures of the administration of campaigns and the election. While elections must be managed competently and with integrity, it is also necessary to have voters engaged in the political process so that their vote reflects their interests, identities and desires. In this respect, the massive campaign[16], launched by USAID, its contractors and their grantees, to convince the citizens of Kyrgyzstan that their vote mattered[17] failed. However, the origins of this disappointment lie not only in the decisions made by American NGOs but in the larger political philosophy that inspired them. The focus on building a strong set of domestic institutions as the keystone to a democratic transition has blinded political science to the social norms that encourage popular participation.
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Mongolia, located at the heart of the Asian continent, provide excellent case studies for the shortcomings of contemporary theories of democratic transition. Much can be learned from the examples of ordinary people trying to work their way out of difficult situations. The lessons learned from Central Asia can inform a new paradigm of transition for the twenty-first century that will uphold the rights of commonplace individuals while giving them the tools to create a democratic polity that can provide them with the material benefits and personal security that they seek.
[1] (2005). Kyrgyzstan. World Factbook. Washington, DC, Central Intelligence Agency. 2006.
[2] The definitions of Central Asia vary widely. I will follow the most common, which includes Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, and excludes Mongolia, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, as well as various sub-national divisions such as China’s Xinjiang Autonomous Region and various republics of the Russian Federation’s Southern, Volga, Urals and Siberian Federal Districts. However, I will subsequently argue that Mongolia can be compared with the countries of Central Asia.
[3] I will attempt to employ the most commonly utilized spelling of names, which are transliterated from the original Cyrillic. However, other homonyms are possible (e.g. Bakiev vs. Bakiyev, Kirghiz vs. Kyrgyz, etc.), and I have included common alternatives (Tamerlane for Timur) in parentheses.
[4] Chivers, C. J. (2005). Leader Wins 88% of Vote in Kyrgyzstan. The New York Times. New York: 3.
[5] Chivers, C. J. (2005). Leader Wins 88% of Vote in Kyrgyzstan. The New York Times. New York: 3.
[6] Casey, T. (2005). Daily Briefing for July 11 - Transcript. Daily Press Briefing. Washington, DC, Department of State. 2006.
[7] Special thanks to Bermet Muratalieva for allowing me to accompany her group.
[8] Cordova, A. (2005). Alan's Electoral Observation Report. Democracy in Central Asia. A. Cordova. Williamstown, MA, Blogsome. 2006.
[9] Junusheva, Mairam & Argymbaeva. Personal interview (trans. Bermet Muratalieva). 11 July 2005.
[10] Like voting, the cleanup was an activity in which mandatory participation was enforced by the government, and it became integrated into the rhythm of regular life. According to Amy Schultz, many Kyrgyz still turn out for the occasion to this day, even though it is no longer required. [INTERVIEW – AMY SCHULTZ]
[11] Junusheva, Mairam & Argymbaeva. Personal interview (trans. Cholpon Mamatova). 11 July 2005.
[12] Kopaj, Lubovir. OSCE Press Conference, Hyatt Regency, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. 11 July 2005.
[13] A previous OSCE report noted that “serious violations have been committed” during the period surrounding the parliamentary elections of February 27 and March 13, 2005. Mambetaliev, K. J., A. (2005). Elections - 2005 Monitoring of Media During Elections in the Kyrgyz Republic (Parliamentary Elections). Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, OSCE: 74.
[14] Asserted as such. Kiljunen, Kimmo. OSCE Press Conference, Hyatt Regency, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. 11 July 2005.
[15] Gates, L. (2005). IRI's Preliminary Statement on the July 10, 2005, Presidential Election in the Kyrgyz Republic. Washington, DC, International Republican Institute. 2005.
[16] See the official web site www.2005.kg.
[17] (2005). "Kyrgyzstan - the Election - Your Choice". Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, Coalition for Democracy and Civil Society: Advertisement poster.
The Central Asia Democracy Project is written by Alan Cordova.
