Ulan Melisbek and the New Media

Ulan Melisbek was appointed head of the Kyrgyz License Service in October last year. Having returned home from abroad he was quick in familiarizing with Bakiev’s handling of power relations in post-revolutionary Kyrgyzstan. Although criticizing Bakiev for his political course on various blogs, Internet forums and the Internet News site www.gazeta.kg, he found ways to adapt to the new environment once he was back in Kyrgyzstan (from the States). He justified his change of mind by explaining that he had been cut off from objective information while abroad. When returning to his ‘rodina’ he found that Bakiev took much responsibility in changing the country’s course (to the better of course). Assuming the office at the License Service he promised to work solely for the welfare of the Kyrgyz State (and its people), not meddling in (dirty) politics.

Several months later Melisbek, this young promising guy from California, is in the middle of a scandal that threatens to force him out of his position. The scandal is not worth mentioning in regard to its roots in extensive corruption which seems to growingly subdue all of Bakiev’s state apparatus to its destructive logic. It is also absolutely not clear who actually is the guilty one in this episode and to be blamed. The whole thing is, however, new in its staging and the way it was constructed as a political question subject to public debate.

From the very beginning Ulan Melisbek caused harm to his reputation as a representative of a new, unspoiled (meaning: non-sovietized) generation by exaggeratedly adulating the powers-that-be and himself. Comments made on an interview he gave to gazeta.kg show the amount of suspicion Melisbek raised when constantly referring to himself as the savior for the still sovietized Kyrgyz bureaucracy. In a comment one reader expresses his reservations:

„… во 1-х хочу поздравить нашего патриота, молодец, если сам всего достиг! но прочитав я много чего опосаюсь: у всех горят глаза, как только приходят на новое место,как у нас в народе говорят „кыйратывием“,но такой темперамент имеет статус как быстро вспыхнуть да и так же погаснуть, слишком самоуверенно говорит наш патриот.могут и палку в колесо-как принято к сожалению. [...] но не смотря на свои высказывание все таки хочется поддержать этого молодого специалиста,все таки человек к-рый побывал в других странах имеет более обширное мировозрение,но как приподнесет себя -время покажет.“

(A fascinating logic: the reader wants to believe in the success of Ulan Melisbek, but fears for the worse because of the high degree of ‘самоуверенность’, self-confidence. Already used to the strategy of self-discreditation in Kyrgyz politics he expects Ulan Melisbek to sell himself (and all his beliefs and convictions) out to the power-holders in the state apparatus.)

The suspicion gained momentum when first rumors emerged that put Melisbek in a wrong perspective. Any rumor indicating that the head of the State License Service was acting against his self-proclaimed image as a frontman of a new, de-sovietized generation, supported the impression that Meslibek was just another guy, playing a dirty game and only simulating a new spirit.

Melisbek, known among young people because of his presence and role in the new media in Kyrgyzstan, was unable to silence criticism, once it got started. Usually, such criticism is put to an end with the helps of threats of repression. Or often they simply cannot find enough public response. Not in this case where a full scandal unfolded. The reason for such a development are the new techniques used to launch the criticism. It was channeled through the Internet, through E-mail lists, blogs, news sites and with the help of public petitions. Once suspicion and criticism manifested itself in the Internet it could not be blocked, removed or otherwise repressed. It had to be dealt with, with the help of counter-arguments.

In Melisbek’s case this turned out to be rather difficult, since an audio-record of one of his meetings with private license dealers presented him to the public as an authoritarian state bureaucrat, constantly referring to his state authorized carte-blanche to pursue a repressive strategy in dealing with subordinates and clients. The audio record can be found on rutube and a written copy is posted on Makfireball’s Blog. Listening to the audio-record it is hard to believe that the guy demanding blind obedience, threatening clients, trying to blackmail them and openly promoting illegal deeds is the young Ulan Melisbek. Here one example from this strange episode:

„На самом деле про каждого из Вас у нас имеется достаточно информации и целый список нарушений, который мы можем задействовать для того, что бы исключить Вас из числа патентных поверенных. Не надо бояться этой нормы, потому что есть другие нормы, которые нам руки развязывают. И в принципе нам необязательно значит, очень сильно настаивать вот на этой норме. Мы можем просто задействовать другие нормы закона о патентных поверенных, чтобы Вам было плохо. Мы этого не делаем. Мы работаем честно. Недавно был апелляционный совет. Леонида Борисовича дело рассматривалось. Я еще раз попросил одуматься, да. И, а он задал прямо открытый вопрос, неужели там значит, теперь судьба решения будет зависть от этого вопроса. Но мы же Вам решили, так как Вам надо было. А ведь мы могли совсем по-другому решить. Так вот, мы не будем злоупотреблять своим положением, что бы нарушать закон и правила. Нам, наши законы и внутриведомственные правила, положения, дают достаточно административного ресурса, что бы со всеми Вами, на законном основании расправится. Но мы этого не делаем. Поэтому господа. Дамы и господа Вы…“

This meeting made the news. Once it popped up in the Internet the link to the posting was distributed through E-mail lists, petitions were formulated with the help of the Council of HR defenders with the Ombudsmen, which called for the resignation of Ulan Melisbek. After some time, first information indicated Melisbek’s willingness to step down.

Recently the wind changes and those responsible for the record openly state it was re-edited, distorting the original meaning of some of Melisbek’s statements. Though hard to believe that Melisbek’s words could mean anything different but threats to some clients of the State License Service, it might be fully possible that the whole episode was set up to discredit him. A reconstruction of the whole scandal at Akipress proves Melisbek a promising guy indeed, who initiated reforms in his  department where he earned the respect from his subordinates. What really motivated either of both sides to behave the way they did remains unclear. But fact is that the incident showed a new form of generating and directing public attention and its use as a tool for control and even public pressure.

In times of tightening grips on free media in Kyrgyzstan the episode with Ulan Melisbek provides an fascinating example of how subversive methods (of covered investigative journalism) can create public attention, the control of which by the political power-holders is difficult to nearly impossible. One can only hope that this technique will be emulated by others (with honest goals).  And thus perhaps contribute to the creation of an atmosphere, where members of the state bureaucracy in Kyrgyzstan don’t think of themselves as untouchables and above public criticism and control.