Who is the winner in the upcoming presidential elections in Kyrgyzstan? Answer: Kurmanbek Bakiev, current president of the small republic since the Tulip Revolution in March 2005.Was there ever a chance for a contender to actually challenge BaKS (Bakiev, Kurmanek Salievich)? Answer: not really! The opposition was struggling in forming a strong organization (1) and it lost most opportunities to speak to the public, since Bakiev and his apparatus shut down oppositional newspapers, attacked journalists and prevented HR organizations from raising criticism (2). Did the opposition ever had a chance to do something about the elections? Answer: yes, it had! Elections are times of vivid public attention, chances to direct criticism (international, national) are high and thus opportunities to push for an alternative political agenda available. Could the opposition, united in the United People’s Movement, have done more? Answer: Of Course! Aside from creating more effective organizational structures (also important) the opposition could have tried to represent authentic political alternatives. No strategy has been announced so far, no shadow cabinet proposed (in a society where most allegiances lie with personalities) nor have there been any more activities been seen except for outdated demonstrations and antiquated Kurultaj (people’s gathering). The general impression is that the opposition lost all its creative potential. But could creative potential lead an united opposition to success at the polls? Answer: no! As was stated before: Bakiev is going to be the winner. The administrative machine is rolling and aware of its strength and operating range. Surely no village will be left unsupervised and all heads of municipalities encouraged to help produce favorable results at the polling stations. Then what is all the show about? Answer: for Bakiev creating the illusion of a legitimate rulership somehow seems to be important. An illusion that is created by permeating the public with means of force and repression. Without such illusionary legitimation, it seems, Bakiev would risk loosing the power to set the rules for the dirty game of (illusionary?) politics. Sometimes I even have the impression, that it is all about proving one’s ability to successfully manipulate. Only in case you can do that and show it to your followers, they will trust you and follow (i.e. creating followers by showing the successful manipulation of something, less by the outcomes of such (succesful) manipulation; like: „… does he make the 80% or not, I wonder“) . For the opposition, in contrast, elections can create the arena for public challenges and disturbances aimed at the administrative machine of manipulation. Moreover, heightened political activity may serve as a base for the recreation of public trust into alternative political claims to power. Well, then do the latest decisions of the opposition concerning the selection of a candidate serve as such a base? Answer: surely not! In fact, what we observe is just another moment of oppositional self-discrediting. Almazbek Atambaev, the chosen oppositional candidate, is known for his decision in March 2007, when he left the (questionable) opposition under Feliks Kulov only to side with Bakiev and help suppressing his former friends. His co-optation was a final blow to any opposition’s attempts to seek public support by articulating alternative political agendas. After Atambaev’s changeover any opposition was no longer perceived in the public as an authentic representation of political alternatives. What’s then so interesting in writing about it, if all is for nothing and Bakiev’s rulership secured for the future? Answer: It is the first time, that somebody put the opposition’s problem of authentic representation on the public agenda. Temir Sariev’s decision (Sariev is the leader of the Ak-Shumkar Party, formerly member of the UPM) to run as a candidate and oppose the UPM’s decision for Atambaev, his public criticism of Atambaev’s role in March and April 2007 and his intention to modernize and professionalize his own party (my impression) might be the beginning of a new reflection phase within the opposition block and perhaps lead to new alliances, new programs, and – most importantly – new ideas!
Can’t the opposition just move things without reformation or innovation? Answer: no, it surely can not!