Kyrgyzstan, a small and mountainous country in Central Asia, has a population about 5.4 million. Overthrowing the former leader in early April was not an unexpected development for the country since it had experienced similar changes for the third time in the last twenty years due to the many challenges Kyrgyzstan has faced. Therefore, why Kyrgyzstan witnessed three ‘revolutions’ during its early period of independence is quite clear: the country has lived through north-south division, extreme poverty, widespread corruption, ethnic diversity, political turmoil and the foreign policy challenges.

The north-south division for instance is one of the determinant factors in the political and economic life of the country. In fact this separation had its roots in the second half of the 18^th century when the people in the north had accepted Russian protectorate and the south entered the control of the Kokand State and was composed of the majority of its army. [1] These differences have reflected in the political affiliation of the people, economic differences and social structure. Additionally so far as other factors are concerned, Kyrgyzstan did not and is still not representing a bright picture since it has remained one of the poorest and corrupted countries among the newly independent states. As for the foreign policy matters, Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia in general has occupied a significant place in security and economic developments in the post-Soviet era, especially after 9/11 terrorist attacks to the U.S. The Kyrgyz government has had to develop foreign policies not only bolstering security and economic benefits of the country but also discovering and following a fine balance between the regional and internal interests of powerful states, Russia, the U.S., and China.          

It can be therefore, said that any of the ‘revolutions’ or turbulent political changes were caused not just by the combination of all those elements together. If no improvements are achieved on the serious problems Kyrgyzstan has had, experienced country may well witness similar ‘revolutions’ or turbulent political changes.

The First Kyrgyz ‘Revolution’ and Akayev in Power

In the last days of the Soviet Union, with the decision of the “Democratic Movement of Kyrgyzstan, an eight day strike was declared. This was the first time for such a strike to occur. The participants in the strike demanded: 1) the head of Communist Party leader Masaliyev to quit the head of the Jogorku Kenesh [2] , 2) to switch to a presidential system, 3) to allow a multi-party system, 4) to ban the Communist Party acting as the official administrative authority, 5) to investigate the Osh events (the Osh events were the clashes that arose from Russia’s provocation of Kyrgyz and Uzbek people as a result of the concerns about disintegration. Due to the strike, Masaliyev submitted to these requests and quit his position as the head of the Jogorku Kenesh.[3] As a result of the presidential elections, the head of the Kyrgyzstan Academy of Sciences, Dr. Askar Akayev, was elected as the first President of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan. Although the elections held in Kyrgyzstan in 1991 seemed fair, Askar Akaev subsequently accepted that certain amount of irregularity had occurred. The effectiveness of the strike and parliamentary elections were evaluated as a ‘revolution’ for some parties. Thus, it is considered that three ‘revolutions’ have taken place in Kyrgyzstan’s history, including the ‘revolutio’n on 6-7 April. Due to the relatively democratic parliamentary elections in 1990, Kyrgyzstan was described as the "Democracy Island of the Central Asia” by Western observers.[4]

Akayev held power from his election in 1991 until 2005. When Askar Akayev came to power, the matter that he most dealt with was the new economic structure. As a result of the dissolution of socialism, like all other member countries of the Soviet Union, Kyrgyzstan also had difficulty during the transition to a pluralist democracy and free market economy. Especially since it did not have enough infrastructures in economic terms, Kyrgyzstan experienced a period of economic crisis from 1992 until 1994. With this, it was easily affected by other economic crises throughout in the world. For instance, the Asian Crisis in 1997 and the Russian Financial Crisis in 1998 both had a negative effect on Kyrgyzstan’s. 

The Tulip ‘Revolution’

After the elections in December 2000, Akayev was re-elected as the President of Kyrgyzstan. In the following years, there has not been much change in the administration. Even if Akayev received a series of measures to combat corruption and new decrees were issued, he could not be successful in preventing corruption and bribe. He appointed his relatives and closest friends to the important roles in the mechanism of the state. It cannot be said that Akayev was very successful in finding solution to the economic problems after the economic crises. A serious opposition has been occurred as a result of the continuation of the same problems in the country since 2000. The opposition tried to show its voice by way of protest and demonstrations. However, after the elections in 2005, Akayev came to power again and the people took to the streets with allegations of electoral fraud. In the meantime, the only common point of the opposition was that it was anti-Akayev.

One of the important internal dynamics triggering this situation was the division of the country as “poor south-rich north”. The South-North division was caused, as we mentioned above, by historical reasons, cultural differences and economic[5] structure. Since the people in the north have more privileges than the people in the south, the southern people voiced their complaints about injustices against them. Thus, more allocation in the state staff and rebellion started from the south.

Rather than having existed in the axis of the conflicts between the outside forces (East-West), like any examples of other colorful revolutions, the Tulip ‘Revolution’ in Kyrgyzstan was performed by the internal dynamics within the framework of the southern-northern differentiation inside the country. However, it can be possible to talk about the Western impact, although it is limited.

The Post-2005 Process and the Causes of the April ‘Revolution’

After the Tulip ‘Revolution’, which resembled a fight for power between the clans rather than a struggle for the sake of the Western democratic values, Kurmanbek Bakiyev came into the power. Bakiyev made northerner Feliks Kulov the Prime Minister. In the 2005 Tulip ‘Revolution’, the opposition also included Roza Otunbayeva. At the head of current interim government, Roza Otunbayeva has a strong political relationship with the United States and the West. Between the years of 1991-94, she served at the Kyrgyz Embassy in the United States and Canada. In 1997, she also served at the Kyrgyz Embassy in the United Kingdom.

Although it was expected that Bakiyev would take further steps after the ‘revolution’ to become more democratic country and would take more stringent measures in the fight against corruption, he followed the path of Akayev. First, he purged his friends with whom he made the opposition in 2005. He placed his close relatives in the upper echelons of the state one by one. The environment of unrest that led the country to the 2010 events started in 2008 in the preparation process of the opposition for the 2009 elections. Since the rise in corruption and any development has been done in the country during Bakiyev period, it encouraged a hope that the Bakiyev administration could end with the 2009 elections. Bakiyev did not lose power in the July 2009 elections. Northern people were unhappy with the results of elections and held a few demonstrations. But these demonstrations did not create enough impression and the elections were made valid.

Nine months after the elections, in April 2010, when the opposition was preparing to question the government, the events erupted. An increase in the price of electricity in the country within the framework of customization and ongoing corruption, while bringing the economy to a deadlock, also put the people into a difficult position. While the opposition was going to make a motion on April 7 in the usual ways, without waiting for the opposition, the people in the town of Talas rose up in rebellion on the night of April 6. The government put the army and police forces in place to suppress the insurrections. It wanted to quell the uprising by arresting the adversaries. But these arrests made the public much angrier. The demonstrators walked to the White House in Kyrgyzstan. While the White House was being looted, Bakiev run away from Bishkek to Osh. Opposition leaders Roza Otunbayeva, Almaz Atambaev, Ismail Isakov, Omurbek Tekebaev, Temir Sariev and Azimbek Beknazarov were in a hurry to establish an interim government after Bakiev left the country (he first went to Kazakhstan and then moved to Belarus, like a political exile).

The events that pushed the people towards rebellion can be classified as follows:

1)      Political: The policies that Bakiyev implemented take place on the top of the list of reasons for this situation. While Bakiyev made himself out to be a more democratic leader, the policies that he implemented looked like a dictatorial regime. For example, he took a step under the name of democracy. Accordingly, a general assembly is going to be created by people who have been randomly assigned and the assembly will be consulted on decisions. But again, the President would give the final decision. Thus, this would be an ostensible board. On the other hand, by making concessions to his family and relatives, Bakiyev’s nepotism led people to revolt.  

2)      Ethnic: The separation between north and south applied in the state staff can be expressed as the second factor. The Tulip ‘Revolution’ was carried out largely in the framework of north-south separation. In the Tulip ‘Revolution’, the elites of the south revolted because they were not comfortable with not taking part in state staff and were not represented by the government. In the 2010 events, the northern people rebelled.  

3)      Economic: After the recent global economic crisis, the Kyrgyz economy has worsened more because the Kyrgyz migrant workers working in Russia and Kazakhstan came back. The dramatic price increases reflected upon the public due to the privatization of the public service institutions led people to rebel.[6] Returning workers have faced unemployment, electricity and natural gas hikes (at a rate of 200%) and cost of living. This situation led people who have nothing to lose to go out into the streets.

The inadequate security force in the country to control a dissident group of 10-thousand people is one reason that the ‘revolution’ was successful. The deaths occurred with the recent ‘revolution’ have caused psychological pressure which led the government to resignation. The government did not expect such a reaction from the opposition.

The government was overthrown by a rebellion that approximately 10 thousand people attended. The most striking difference from the Tulip ‘Revolution’ is that this ‘revolution’ was primarily a bloody ‘revolution’. The 2010 ‘revolution’, in which 85 people died and more than 1,500 people were injured, could not have been predicted.

The public reaction in 2005 and 2010 was a revolt against the political power due to the economic situation. The majority of the group that was established to rebel against the ruling power was unemployed and young. The public was complaining in both of the ‘revolutions’ about the corruption and economic challenges. However, one of the ‘revolutions’ was started by the south and the other by the north. In 2005, the southern elites revolted because they wanted to gain the right of representation in the government and to take part in the state staff. During the 2010 events, the northern people revolted as a reaction to the economic insufficiency and the reasons mentioned above.

The Roles of Russia and the U.S.

As one of the external powers which is claimed to have played a role in the 2010 ‘revolution’, Russia played an effective role with regards to the uprising in Kyrgyzstan by capitalizing on the domestic developments in the country. In Kyrgyzstan, a TV channel located in Moscow broadcasted TV programs against Bakiyev claiming that he is guilty of cronyism and nepotism. Right after this, Russia urged the community already living under difficult conditions to rebel by implementing a new tariff for petroleum products. There is other evidence showing that Russia is behind this uprising: Putin was the first foreign leader who celebrated the Kyrgyz society for the successful uprising. Russia accepts and welcomes such a ‘revolution’.[7]

As known, the Manas military air base was set up in 2001 by the U.S. for the purpose of giving support to the operations in Afghanistan. Kyrgyzstan did not lean towards this U.S. base, as also it already permitted the establishment of a Russian air base. In January 2009, closing down the base was on the agenda for the first time on account of the fact that the rent of the base is extremely low. The closing order given in the same year was approved both by the parliament and the president. But right after this, the U.S. and Kyrgyz governments made an agreement in which the rent of the base was increased from 17 million dollars to 60 million dollars, and the U.S. continued using Manas.[8]   However, Russia did not favor the decision, because it did not want any other military bases apart from the Russian base.

Before Bakiyev elected as president, he thrust Manas into the political spotlight, claiming that base-related payments had lined the pockets of the Akayev family.[9]  However Bakiyev seemed to be quickly adopted the system which he had harshly criticized after he became the president.[10]

The Central Asian policy of the U.S. in the last period has been implemented with respect to Afghanistan.[11] For this reason, during the war every strategic point which helped the U.S. to access Afghanistan has been very important. At this point, the U.S. has been criticized strongly for being a mere spectator to the ongoing tension and corruptions in the country. The unresponsiveness of the U.S. to the corruption in Kyrgyzstan led by Bakiyev’s son Maksim after entering Iraq with the cliché of “democracy and human rights” is also being criticized. However, at this point the U.S. should not be criticized very strongly. In 2005, incidents in Uzbekistan proved that when democracy becomes a cliché, countries are being pushed into cooperation with authoritarian countries such as Russia and China.[12] Within this scope, if we overview the relationship between the U.S. and Central Asian countries, we will see that for the U.S. it is not easy to actualize the requests for democracy and freedom in Central Asia, and for this reason, it is pushed into cooperation or it prefers to cooperate with the governments which are in the position to contribute to its own policies in the region.[13]

During the Tulip ‘Revolution’, Russia remained non-reactive and did not attempt to intervene in the situation. However, this time the non-reactive party is the U.S..

Conclusion

The latest developments in Kyrgyzstan show that the country’s governmental structure is still delicate. Two ‘revolutions’ made one after another proved to be fruitless for the country. Moreover the latest developments in the country point out to the fact that there will be more ‘revolution’ in the future for Kyrgyzstan if there is not any economic and political recovery.

The interim government[14] is working on a new draft constitution which forecasts revisions with respect to the authorities and duties of the presidency, government and parliament for the purpose of terminating the constitutional crisis besides the political and economic crisis. In the new constitution, which will be voted on at the referendum that will be held on the 27th of June, the authorities of the president are diminished and his successive election is prohibited. Besides, the authorities of the suspended Constitutional Court (the interim government has terminated the parliament and suspended the Constitutional Court) are transferred to the Higher Court.

In the country, conflicts arising from ethnic problems are also important issues that cannot be ignored. During the beginning of the crisis, attacks made on the Meskhetian Turks were a serious source of concern; however, in time it was revealed that these attacks were made by a minority group and the community did not approve such conflicts.

While the ongoing concerns related to subversion of the country and a possible civil war continued, by means of handouts with unknown origins distributed in various regions a call was made for the division of the country in two as south and north. On May 13 and 14, in the cities of Osh and Jalal-Abad, the occupation of the governorship premises by the followers of Bakiyev ended with 1 person dead and 63 injured. Meanwhile, in order to assure the public that everything is kept under control, the interim government made continuous announcements. This shows that the interim government is prepared for the possible conflicts which may arise in the country.

As regards to the spreading of the incidences that took place to other countries in the region, the countries within the region are not expected to be affected by such a domino effect. After the Tulip ‘Revolution’, peace was kept in the other countries of the region; this may indicate that similar incidents will not spread to the neighboring countries.

The third ‘revolution’ in Kyrgyzstan is very important with respect to its domestic stability and avoidance of similar incidences in the future. The interim government must put the six-month period to the best use. Today, the geographical position of Kyrgyzstan is very important with regards to the military relationships based on the war in Afghanistan. The developments regarding the future of the country are also very important for the stability of the region. If the country is weakened further politically and a chaotic environment arises, it may become an available center for terrorist activities and drug and human smuggling. For this reason, politic and economic stability of Kyrgyzstan is crucial for all countries in the region and beyond.