Kyrgyz president Akaev wants to serve a fourth term from 2005 till 2010. That is an informal assumption, circulating among the masses in Kyrgyzstan, which explains the reasons for the constitutional reform currently under way. It has never been spoken anywhere in the local media, and is spread only by word of mouth. According to this theory, the referendum of February 2 is a tool used to legalize Akaev\'s fourth term. With the new Constitution, it will be possible for the president to claim that the new Constitution officially provides for two presidential terms which embrace his current term and the upcoming one from 2005 to 2010. Certainly, there are official reasons for the Constitutional reform targeting the average public. Last year Kyrgyz government made an attempt, in a series of other unsuccessful ones, to introduce a new ideology for the Kyrgyz state. \"The country of human rights\" was the main idea. It was initiated right at the time of the political crisis which culminated in March of 2002 in Aksy with the outbreak of violence resulting in several fatalities. Now the government claims that the proposed Constitutional changes will guarantee protection of human rights, increase the responsibility of all governmental structures, and improve the work of the judicial branch. However, the underlying cause for the reform as claimed by some analysts, was almost certainly a tactical move on Akaev\'s part in response to calls for his resignation. There will be two questions in voting ballots during the nationwide referendum on February 2. The first one is \"Should the law of the Kyrgyz Republic \"On a new version of the constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic\" be adopted?\", while the second question is \"Does Askar Akaev need to remain in the office until December 2005-to the end of his Constitutional term-in order to implement the approved changes to the Constitution?\". This is how Kyrgyzstan will shift into a new development phase after a five month long debate over Constitutional reform, which was in essence about the optimal division of power among the president, the government, and the Parliament in Kyrgyzstan. In the end of August Askar Akaev ordered creation of the Constitutional Council with members representing governmental and nongovernmental sectors as well as other significant public figures. Their main task was to work out amendments to the Kyrgyz Constitution. Those amendments would have to reallocate power between the president, the Parliament, and local administrations. The Council began its work in the beginning of September under the chairmanship of Akaev himself but didn\'t manage to finish its work by the deadline of September 23, continuing until the end of October. The total number of amendments reached more than 100. Akaev set up an expert team, which had to prepare a final edition of the new version of the Constitution, based upon the amendments prepared by the Constitutional Council. This initiative was largely opposed by the members of Constitutional Council. They accused him publicly of violating the Constitution by suggesting to hold a referendum before the Parliament adopted a law on referenda and of violating the Council\'s rights by forcing the proposed draft of amendments to be edited by another group of experts. Later, on January 23rd, the law on referenda was not approved for a lack of quorum. Since the end of October, there has been much public discussion of the amendments. The government set the seemingly clear and feasible goal of helping each Kyrgyz citizen to understand what the reform is all about. It is likely that an ordinary citizen without higher education and living close to the poverty line will not care, if not get confused, about the essence of Constitutional reform and can be manipulated into favoring it or not. Another problem was coverage. For instance, the Coalition \"For Democracy and Civil Society\" held a large scale campaign, trying to involve Kyrgyz people in the process of public discussion of the changes and additions to the Constitution. They managed to gather a little more than 6,000 individuals all over Kyrgyzstan. Taking into consideration the multiplier effect of all such meetings conducted, mass media coverage (which can only give a broad idea due to time and space limitations), special brochures/posters, access to information restrictions, the percentage of people aware of the reforms have been roughly estimated to 60-70%. The percentage of the population that is conscious of the reforms\' content and meaning are also thought to be less than 20-30%. Meanwhile, the government demonstrates its commitment to educate every Kyrgyz citizen about the reform and on January 22nd, almost three months after the public discussion initiated, its set up telephone \"hotlines.\" There is even a toll free number for use by those living outside of Bishkek-a novelty never practiced by the Kyrgyz government before. It is assumed that the new constitution will overcome the shortcomings of the previous one, and that protection of people\'s rights will this time be maintained. The problem, however, is that if a constitution is not applied, then why should a new and better one be?