Tekebaev Repeats Criticizm Against President’s Reforms

Unfortunately it doesn’t say which newspaper the article was published in:

Omurbek Tekebaev Criticizes Recent Changes in Kyrgyz State Structure

Usually the most sophisticated analyses of the political situation in Kyrgyzstan are provided by the leading members of the Socialist Party ‘Ata-Meken’ (Fatherland). Not long ago I posted an article from Vice- Chairman Alymbekov, in which the former Vice Speaker of the Zhogorku Kenesh discusses the advantages of democracy and disadvantages of authoritarianism using an approach that borrows some of its terms from systems theory.

This time the leader of Ata-Meken, Omurbek Tekebaev, steps forward with a trenchant critic of Kyrgyz president Bakiev’s plans to reform the government and most of the state apparatus. His analysis first sheds light on trends in Kyrgyzstan’s history of independence before deconstructing the myth behind the slogan of progressiveness and reform in Bakiev’s actions. Tekebaev points out the meaning behind some special changes. He highlights the role of the new ‘Central Agency’ that will take over management of all financial resources and that will be responsible for forming the budget without being subject to any further (public) control. He also directs attention to the new ‘Development Fund’, which will be headed by former Prime Minister Igor Chudinov and supervised by former State Channel Director Melis Eshimkanov. This fund will be the new gate for all foreign money to enter into Kyrgyzstan and like the activities of the Central Agency, it will not be subject to any control. Such fact alone should make all donors stop sending (useless) development aid to Kyrgyzstan.

Tekebaev’s comment did not remain unheard in Kyrgyzstan. Though published only at www.centrasia.ru and at the website of the Social Democratic Party, the Genprokurator found out about it and now considers an investigation against this ‘last opponent’ for alleged defamation of the president. This reaction by the law enforcement agencies was answered by the head of the Human Rights organization ‘Kylym Shamy’, Aziza Abdirasulova, who issued a press release, condemning the actions of the Genprokuratura and supporting Tekebaev’s right to freedom of expression.

Tekebaev’s article starts as follows:

To download the full article as pdf follow the link: Report_OmurbekTekebaev

The Statement from ‘Kylym Shamy’ reads as follows:

Attacked Kyrgyz Journalist Kubanych Zholdoshev Repudiates MVD Report

Kubanych Zholdoshev, head of the net of correspondents of the Osh city newspaper ‘Osh shamy’, was beaten up at the beginning of November this year. The police that filed a report about this incident spread false information according to a recent press release from Zholdoshev. The MVD employees described the journalist as being drunk, did not mention their authoritarian attitude towards the journalist and his drive and forgot to report that the criminals who had beaten up Zholdoshev stole money from him and threatened him to cut his tongue out.

Such misinformation forced Zholdoshev to release a written statement repudiating the MVD report. Here is a photocopy of the statement and a typed version of it:

Roza Otunbaeva compares recent changes in government structure with return of the Kokand Khanat

This comparison outraged many deputies from the ruling parliamentary group ‘Ak-Zhol’. Ulugbek Ormonov and Askarbek Shadiev accused Otunbaeva of unfounded criticism and warned her not to divide the people:

‘What does it mean the Kokand Khanate appears? [...] Don’t divide the people! If you ask around, we are all relatives! We are a little people, we should stick together! Today is the time to increase the wealth of the people and the economy of the country!’ (Ormonov)

Shadiev seconds:

‘Why does the opposition speaks only of bad things, about the shortcomings of the president and his relatives? You need to be blind to not to see how extensively our roads are built everywhere in the republic. Today the capital is improved and for the first time „Kambar-Ata-2″ is realized. [...] To contend that someone is somehow ruling is wrong. We shouldn’t divide the people! We have one and the same aim and task! In times of economic crisis we have to close ranks and get out of the crisis.’

Interesting to see, how representatives of ‘Ak-Zhol’ constantly refer to the unity of the people, being afraid that someone might actually introduce some form of difference (and thus disunity). It is the prerogative of the opposition to criticize and thus introduce an alternative perspective. It is not only the prerogative of the opposition, it is main genuine job opposition has to fulfill. To deny this prerogative simply means to reject opposition at all. One might add that such strategy realizes itself as the arrival of the Kokand Khanate, Otunbaeva was speaking about.

A second very interesting moment is the rejection of any reference to misbehavior of the president and his family. Today it becomes difficult in Kyrgyzstan not to see the parallels between Bakiev’s regime and Akaev’s regime who promoted his relatives into central positions within the state apparatus as well. With his son Maksim now being responsible for all question of state finances and foreign investments and his brother Zhanysh heading decisive parts of the security forces, one can hardly deny that the political regime in Kyrgyzstan resembles more and more a family-run business organization, and less a modern polity. And the fact that Ak-Zhol members furiously react to any reference made to these developments simply confirms that all observers in Kyrgyzstan perceive it exactly like that.

The Venice Commission’s Opinion on the Constitutional Situation in the Kyrgyz Republic

The Website of the Venice Commission features an archive that contains past opinions and draft laws the Commission was asked to conclude upon. Among the many documents that deal with legislation in the Kyrgyz Republic is also the document titled CDL-AD(2007)045 Opinion on the Constitutional Situation in the Kyrgyz Republic adopted by the Commission at its 3rd Plenary Session (Venice, 14-15 December 2007). This report provides a short comment on the changes to the constitutional foundations the Republic underwent in September and October 2007.

It diplomatically but nevertheless clearly criticizes the constitutional court for its decision on 14 September 2007 in which it abolishes the two constitutions adopted on 9 November and 30 December 2006:

The report continues questioning the democratic character of the constitution adopted during the referendum on 21 October:

It finally concludes that the presidency in the Kyrgyz Republic is much too powerful and nearly uncontrolled in its actions:

The report is an interesting document that helps to question the legitimacy of the current regime in Kyrgyzstan that by proclamation adheres to the principles of democracy but in its decisions turns more authoritarian with every year.

To download the full ‘Opinion’ in pdf follow the link: Opinion_Venice_Commission_Dec2007