러시아ㆍ유라시아

One year after Kyrgyzstan adopted a parliamentary system the question arises whether a strong parliament can really ensure freedoms better than a centralized presidential system. Introduced after the violent regime change in 2010, Kyrgyzstan’s parliamentary system was to bring greater openness and equality after a decade of authoritarian leadership. However, in a recent resolution, the parliament has moved to oppress civic freedoms and freedom of the mass media in a manner more closely resembling the typical governance of post-Soviet authoritarian regimes. However, such moves have previously contributed to stirring social unrest in the country.

BACKGROUND: At a constitutional referendum last year, Kyrgyzstan’s ethnic majority and minority groups both voted to support the transition from a presidential system to a parliamentary one. The referendum took place just two weeks after ethnic violence in southern Kyrgyzstan claimed the lives of approximately 470 people and forced 400,000 to flee their homes. In spite of the uncertainty of the situation in post-conflict Kyrgyzstan, voters turned up at polling stations en masse. In return, the interim government pledged that the new constitution would move Kyrgyzstan away from the possibility of concentration of power in the hands of one person or a powerful elite. Thus, Kyrgyzstan sought to avoid excessive control over public life and make the political process more transparent.
 
While over the past year Kyrgyzstan indeed experienced greater freedom of speech and was able to conduct free and transparent parliamentary elections, the parliament’s recent undemocratic decisions demonstrate that the country is still caught in the cycle of political oppression. On June 17, the parliament issued a decree aiming at regulating interethnic relations through controlling the media and restricting certain behavior. According to 95 of the total 120 MPs who voted for the decree, this would help sustain stability in the country.

Among other statutes of the decree, the parliament wants to ban the popular news website Fergana.ru, which has frequently published material exposing atrocities committed by Kyrgyz law-enforcement structures during and after the June violence. A number of MPs have also called for shutting down or imposing rigid moderation on the popular social networking site Diesel.kg. Furthermore, the parliament entrusts the Prosecutor General to prevent any inter-ethnic tensions by controlling the work of mass media.

Yet of all 35 statutes, the perhaps most alarming aspect of the parliament’s recent resolution was to ban the “emergence of monoethnic” communities in ethnically mixed areas, as well as in places that have experienced interethnic conflict. The statute effectively seeks to control the freedom of movement for ethnic minorities inside the country and their right to preserve their ethnic identity and cultural heritage.

In a similar vote last month, the same number of MPs voted to ban the Finnish diplomat and leader of the Kyrgyzstan Inquiry Commission’s (KIC) investigation Kimmo Kiljunen from entering Kyrgyzstan. According to the MPs, Kiljunen’s report inspires ethnic hatred in Kyrgyzstan and must be considered as a threat to national security. Kiljunen’s report underscores the largely destructive role played by Kyrgyzstan’s military officials during the conflict; the parliament argued that the report is biased and unfair.
 
Although President Roza Otunbayeva has criticized the parliament’s decision by saying that Kyrgyzstan should no longer live in fear of oppression and persecution, she is taking a cautious stance on the issue. The president has also said that she wants the Kyrgyz language be mandatory in all schools. Furthermore, three major NGOs have spoken out against the parliament’s decisions, calling on it to follow Kiljunen’s recommendations. In an open letter to the president written on behalf of the International Federation of Human Rights, they asked Otunbayeva to prosecute all perpetrators of the ethnic violence. “The implementation of the KIC recommendations on conflict prevention and reconciliation, in particular on public safety and security, and on accountability is crucial. It should be central in the mandate of the national commission of implementation which the Kyrgyz government announced”, the statement argues.
 
IMPLICATIONS: Events of the past month have demonstrated that Kyrgyzstan’s free and transparent parliamentary elections held in October 2010 did not promote democratic-minded politicians to power. Instead, ethnic nationalism and chauvinism mixed with a lack of understanding of democratic values has seemingly driven the parliament’s recent decisions, as it attempts to control public discussion and thus shield the ethnic majority from criticism of its control of the country’s political space. 

The Ata-Jurt party, which holds the largest number of seats in parliament, was previously known as the most nationalist of the five parties represented. The degree of intolerance, however, has spread also to other parties. Edil Baisalov, leader of the Aikol El party (that is not represented in parliament) recently posted on his Twitter account that it is presently mostly members of the Ar-Namys party who speak out in favor of controlling public discussion. “Ar-Namys came to power primarily through support from ethnic minorities. But its MPs are now the main advocates of xenophobic decisions”, he wrote on June 16.

Despite the fact that one of the most conservative members of parliament, Tursunbay Bakir uulu from the Ar-Namys party, is himself an avid Twitter user, he was the first to act in favor of blocking websites. According to Bakir uulu, he is not against the functioning of websites like Diesel.kg, but wants to prosecute and arrest anyone who inspires inter-ethnic hatred online. Bakir uulu has effectively demonstrated that most MPs prefer to be guided by their own judgment as to what is important for the population, rather than being accountable to the rule of law and demands of their constituencies.
 
By restricting the freedom of speech and seeking to regulate the media, the parliament has shown that it mostly comprises of MPs who are unfamiliar with the freedom of speech concept and are prepared to take unanimous illiberal decisions. Moreover, most Kyrgyz MPs are web-illiterate and some MPs are convinced that by blocking one web source they will be able to control the spread of unwanted information on the wider web.
 
A small group of moderates, mostly from the ranks of the opposition Ata-Meken party, has spoken out against the parliament’s decisions. Especially younger MPs have shown a propensity to learn and to liberalize their views. Some of them have complained that their votes were used while they were away in favor of the resolution and now seek to change the voting procedures.

A number of NGO leaders warn that in the past, restrictions on the freedom of speech have increased tensions in Kyrgyz society. In 2004-2005, former President Askar Akayev sought to block media and shut down NGOs. In a similar manner Akayev's successor, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, moved to shut down independent and foreign media in 2008-2010. Both were ousted as a result of popular protests.
 
Ousting the current parliament through popular support is nowhere in sight in Kyrgyzstan. However, NGOs and moderate politicians continue to play an important role in the public discourse and in resisting the urge of the parliamentary majority to impose more restrictions. The parliamentary system has played a role in exposing the views of individual politicians and political factions that were previously not as forthcoming. In the upcoming presidential elections scheduled for the end of this year, the struggle between hardliners and moderates will become ever more evident in the country.
 
CONCLUSIONS: With roughly 95 hardliners in the parliament, Kyrgyzstan has shown that it does not necessarily take an authoritarian leader to move rapidly to oppress civic freedoms. It took only one month for the parliament to shrink civic freedoms and replicate some of the authoritarian methods practiced by Kyrgyzstan’s ousted presidents Akayev and Bakiyev. Yet, despite the parliament’s recent decrees, Kyrgyzstan remains the most liberal state in the Central Asian region. The parliament’s decrees on Kiljunen and the June violence have attracted extensive critivism, as well as some support from the population. The debate on what the parliament should and should not do continues in Kyrgyzstan.

 

Erica Marat

���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������