Should Kyrgyzstan’s Propensity to Protest Worry Its Neighbors?
Leaders in Nur-Sultan, Tashkent, Dushanbe, and Ashgabat hope their own citizens don’t pay much attention to Kyrgyzstan beyond believing it a total mess.
Every time Kyrgyzstan has a revolution, its neighbors watch nervously. In a region known for long-serving autocrats, the brashness of Kyrgyzstan’s democracy – loud and contentious, also deeply corrupted – is both a boon and a risk. Bishkek’s democratic troubles are a cautionary tale, but the lesson varies depending on who is doing the interpreting.
On one hand, Kyrgyzstan’s two revolutions – in 2005 and 2010 – are proof of a concept dictators like Tajikistan’s Emomali Rahmon would prefer their own citizens not learn: That street protests can be an effective tool for changing out leadership if the ballot box fails. On the other hand, the perceived and actual chaos in Kyrgyzstan is an autocrat’s perfect example of why anything more than performative democracy is a dangerous idea.
While what’s happened so far in Kyrgyzstan this year can’t quite be called a revolution yet, it fits in the same narrative arc: A botched election, protests, and change as a result.
Rarely do Kyrgyzstan’s neighbors comment on its politics in an official capacity. The region holds to the mantra that domestic affairs are a state’s own business. But in October, as Kyrgyzstan’s messy parliamentary election spilled over into a pseudo-revolution in the streets, the four other states of Central Asia put out a remarkable joint statement.
The joint Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan statement on October 9 is a testament to the region’s unease and also the distance it has made in terms of cooperation on matters of mutual interest:
The events taking place in brotherly Kyrgyzstan cause our serious concern.
As close neighbors, bound by centuries-old bonds of friendship, good neighborliness, common cultural and spiritual values, we call on the people of Kyrgyzstan in these difficult days to show their inherent wisdom in order to maintain peace and restore stability in the country…
Our countries have one past and are building a common future. The peoples of Central Asia are historically united by the desire for lasting peace, harmony and creation for the benefit of future generations…
Moving along the path of further strengthening Central Asian solidarity, we will always support the people of Kyrgyzstan in their quest for unity, peaceful, independent development and prosperity.
It’s not a strong statement in substance, but its appearance at all is what is remarkable. Chinese and Russian authorities put out meek statements urging calm and a return to stability, too. (Some officials were more specific and candid; more on that later).
In comparison, regional security and intergovernmental bodies in which the states of Central Asia largely share membership – such as the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the Commonweatlh of Independent States (CIS), and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) – have remained entirely silent in regard to the unrest in Kyrgyzstan. This fits with past precedent.
In 2010, as the aftermath of Kyrgyzstan’s April revolution turned violent in the country’s south – with ethnic Kyrgyz targeting ethnic Uzbeks – the interim government appealed to Russia for a peacekeeping force. The CSTO held an emergency meeting in which it remained indecisive on whether to intervene or not. Ultimately Russia and the CSTO did nothing.
It’s clear that the regional blocs are inept and inert, unable to fit Kyrgyzstan’s chaotic politics into their chosen narratives of unity and stability across the region.
The CIS website, for example, carried a news story on October 13 in which CIS election monitors heaped praises on Tajikistan for its October 11 presidential election. In the catalogue of news stories in October, one of the last to reference Kyrgyzstan’s election was an election day report that cited the head of the CIS observation mission as noting how there were no violations observed at Kyrgyz polls.
“[T]omorrow we will announce our main conclusions on the observation of the elections,” Viktor Guminsky, head of the CIS election monitoring mission said. On October 5, election monitors from the CIS, CSTO, and SCO praised Kyrgyzstan’s election as free and fair. The website hasn’t mentioned Kyrgyzstan’s election since, despite the fact its results have been annulled on account of widespread vote-buying and fraud.
As Bruce Pannier covered earlier in this issue, everything went sideways on October 5 in Bishkek precisely because the election was the opposite of a clean contest. The course of events clearly refutes the CIS election monitoring mission’s apparent conclusions.
That said, many in the region may not know much about the happenings in Kyrgyzstan. A weak press ecosystem across Central Asia, and the prominence of state-run and Russian media options, means that coverage of Kyrgyzstan’s political turmoil lacks the nuance it needs. Russian media have notoriously overhyped the chaos in Kyrgyzstan, aided by Russian officialdom. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on October 8 that “The situation looks like a mess and chaos.”
Later in October, Russian President Vladimir Putin finally commented on the Kyrgyzstan fiasco: “I think current developments are a disaster for Kyrgyzstan and its people,” Putin said. “Every time they have an election, they practically have a coup. This isn't even funny.”
By painting Kyrgyzstan as mired in “chaos” Russian leaders are certainly trying to deter their own citizens from protesting.
Meanwhile in Tajikistan, which was headed into its own election on October 11 – a week after Kyrgyzstan – state TV was reportedly occupied with airing images and stories about the country’s civil war, which from 1992 to 1997 resulted in an estimated 20,000 to 100,000 deaths. That’s the chaos Tajikistan’s President Emomali Rahmon – who by law bears the title “Founder of Peace and National Unity, Leader of the Nation” – wanted people focused on. Preservation of “stability” in the country is his core pitch to the people. Rahmon took 90.92 percent of the vote, according to the state.
While Kyrgyzstan’s politics continue to evolve, its Central Asian neighbors watch somewhat nervously. Leaders in Nur-Sultan, Tashkent, Dushanbe, and Ashgabat hope their own citizens don’t pay much attention to Kyrgyzstan beyond believing it a total mess.