BACKGROUND: The March 2000 parliamentary elections shifted the image of Kyrgyzstan from an "island of democracy" that was supposed to guarantee the freedom of speech and basic norms of human rights, to a powerful image of a strengthening authoritarian regime. Feliks Kulov, the politically disgraced vice-president and former mayor of Bishkek, resigned his office in 1998 to join the political opposition. Kulov resigned his office and quit his political party over conflicts he had with President Askar Akaev and his politics. The conflict motivated Kulov’s run for the presidency.

Political motives were at the forefront of Kulov’s political maneuvers. The open confrontation with Akaev began when Kulov declared his opposition status and his leadership of the "Ar-Namys" party. The "Ar-Namys" party includes several other politicians who had been left out of participation in parliamentary elections. "Ar-Namys" provided these politicians a platform to bypass other pro-governmental parties and still participate in the politics of the land. The arrest of Kulov served to advance the opposition’s political struggle in Kyrgyzstani society and served as a litmus test to determine the level of basic human rights in Akaev’s government.

In the growing reluctance of the global community to be involved with Kyrgyzstan and embroil itself in the radical tensions existing within the population against its government, it became impossible for instigators of Kulov’s arrest to keep from buckling under the pressure. On August 7, Lieutenant General Kulov was released and is apparently eligible to run for the presidency in December. That there has been a resolution in this round of Kulov’s political life does not mean that the opposition has necessarily triumphed over Akaev’s government. And it will not be known until December if the public’s outrage over Kulov’s arrest will translate into a personal political triumph for Kulov. In fact, it is not clear whether Kulov’s release will even be a step forward in securing basic human rights and justice in the country.

IMPLICATIONS: Kyrgyzstan, as a state with a communist past and a tenuous democracy, has not been able to pave the path for pure democracy. The government opposition has been principally involved in a relatively non-threatening political exchange of views and values with the government. However, government officials have been greatly threatened by the growing popularity of Feliks Kulov and his supporters. The government felt compelled to place him under arrest and detain him with a complete disregard for the law. It is not yet clear who ordered Kulov, one of Kyrgyzstan’s most popular leaders, placed behind bars. Perhaps the most vexing question is why Kulov’s arrest was undertaken during such a critical period when Kyrgyzstan desperately needed to gain credibility with the international community by demonstrating that Kyrgyzstan is truly a democratic society.

The government’s treatment of Kulov, its abuse of power and pure audacity, has severely impacted the international community’s already negative views toward Kyrgyzstan. Since Kulov’s arrest, western countries have expressed their growing alarm towards Kyrgyzstan's movement away from the basic principles of freedom of speech and its lack of concern for human rights. Whether Kyrgyzstan acknowledges it or not, the country is heavily dependent on western capital to survive. The west’s continued support is predicated on Kyrgyzstan proving its democratic legitimacy, something that would secure western assistance for the economic and social development of the country. However, due to the lack of political intelligence of some officials, future economic support of the west has been put in doubt and could lead the country into a quagmire.

If there ever was the time to inspire international confidence in Kyrgyzstan's democracy through securing freedom of speech and upholding human rights, this is the time. The negative response of international community has already damaged the image of the country. For example, Kyrgyzstan was not properly invited to the OSCE meeting in Vienna, Austria. Kyrgyzstan promised to follow the OSCE’s principles of open society, but the country has fallen very short on its promise. Most international human rights organizations officially declared their concern for Feliks Kulov and requested his immediate release. Such outside political pressure to combat human rights violations within Kyrgyzstan were tremendously embarrassing for the local population as the nation’s political sovereignty was humiliated.

CONCLUSION: Public aggravation over the long-term detention of Feliks Kulov has demonstrated particular patterns that are certain to greatly influence the economic survival of Kyrgyzstan as well as the level of tolerance within the international community for abuses of government power throughout Central Asia. The Kulov case shows that although a nation’s government and politicians might violate the norms and legal standards in pursuit of their own interests, this should never be extended for the purpose of revenge and unlawful reprisal as it was with Feliks Kulov. In the future, for President Akaev to elevate his stature at home and abroad, he must consistently reinforce objective norms in legal matters in order to strengthen pulbic and international opinion that Kyrgyzstan’s legal system is impartial and fair.

The release of Feliks Kulov from prison is sure to spell further trouble for Akaev’s government. There is the yet unanswered question whether Kulov will run in this year’s presidential elections or withdraw his candidacy. He has already stated to the media that he would consider running for president in December. In general, the public attention focused on Kulov is enormous. Furthermore, Feliks Kulov’s arrest and detention has greatly damaged the Akaev government’s moral position as a democracy with an impartial judicial system. Therefore, the government will need to dramatically alter its policies to impress the local and international communities that Kyrgyzstan will continually strive to uphold its status as Central Asia’s "Island of Democracy," despite the fact that competition in this field is not very strong. To do so, Akaev has to provide an approach that takes a complete reversal of his current direction. He will need to champion the principles of democracy and open society.

AUTHOR BIO: Gulsara Osorova was a consultant for the Department of International Legislative Assembly in the Parliament of the Kyrgyz Republic. She is currently undertaking graduate studies in International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of Birmingham, England.

HOME

Copyright 2000 The Analyst All rights reserved.