BACKGROUND: The presidential elections of July 10 ended the controversy over the legitimacy of the presidential power since the March Revolution that ousted former President Askar Akayev. The southerner and acting prime minister Kurmanbek Bakiev won the presidential race in an election competing with six candidates. According to civil society activists’ polls, 88% of citizens voted against the ousted former regime and for stability in the country. Other critics said the electorate’s credibility was given not only to Bakiev, but to the other prominent leaders of the new regime collectively, such as Felix Kulov, Roza Otunbaeva, and Azimbek Beknazarov. Moreover, the liberally-inclined electorate, including ethnic minorities, voted for the Bakiev-Kulov political alliance in favor of Kulov. Nevertheless, Bakiev’s victory promises to be a serious exam of how he and his team tackle rampant poverty and deep-rooted corruption in the higher bodies of state authority. As a matter of fact, the test for Bakiev’s leadership already started four months ago, shortly after he was swept to power as acting prime minister by the popular uprising. By now, the public expectations appear to be decreased as he publicly promises one thing, but delivers another. For instance, ongoing appointments at all levels of the state apparatus are largely based on regional preferences. The southerners gradually come to power ranging from the civil agencies to the educational institutions. Another challenge for Bakiev is the sustainability of his tandem with Kulov, who was his most formidable rival for the presidency. In May, the two signed an agreement that Kulov would not contest the presidency but be appointed Prime Minister in case of Bakiev’s victory. The key purpose of the political alliance was to steer clear of a perilous split between the northern and southern clans. Under the deal, the future President would have control over foreign and domestic policy as well as military and security affairs while the Prime Minister would be in charge of the economy. However, it is generally known in political circles that Bakiev is weak in foreign policy and security issues while Kulov lacks solid experience in economic affairs.

IMPLICATIONS: The clumsiness of Bakiev’s skills in security issues and international diplomacy was illustrated soon after the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit when, as newly elected President, he publicly raised the issue of a deadline for the U.S. military presence in Kyrgyzstan. The SCO summit’s declaration as well as Bakiev’s incautious message prompted the U.S. Defense Secretary’s visit to Bishkek to iron out the problem. The government backpedaled and assured the U.S. that the base will by no means be closed as the SCO declaration should be viewed as the beginning of a dialogue. Kulov turned out to be a more skillful player in geopolitics, stating that Kyrgyzstan should conduct a multi-layered foreign policy, to become a country where relations between the great powers meet and harmonize. It remains unclear how Bakiev and Kulov intend to combine their different outlook for Kyrgyzstan. Despite Bakiev’s calls for Kyrgyzstan as a self-sufficient nation that should develop its economy relying on its own resources, he nonetheless, does not seem to refuse aid from international donors. In domestic policy, he demonstrates a paternalistic approach, promising to provide everyone a deserving life. “We are obliged to pursue an economic and social policy that would secure the well-being of every family and human being”, he said in his inaugural speech. Kulov advocates the ideas of the business elite and technocrats, viewing Kyrgyzstan as the banking, financial, educational, and informational hub in the region. Compared with Bakiev’s paternalistic view, Kulov’s technocratic outlook is based on an opposite approach, encouraging people not only change their ways of thinking, but also to consolidate their aspirations as a community of leaders. Considering the people’s mentality as the chief and long-term resource, this outlook suggests the need to break the old dependence-focused way of thinking, creating a new one under the slogan: “the world is your opportunity, the world is your market”. Another line dividing Bakiev and Kulov is their contrasting stances on the political and constitutional reforms ongoing in Kyrgyzstan. The recommendations of the Constitutional Council, comprising political parties and civil society organizations, to a larger extent coincide with Kulov’ view on the constitutional reforms. Kulov has consistently called for a parliamentary type of governance. “The abolition of the bicameral legislature was an enormous political error with far-reaching effects,” Kulov recently said. He argues a parliamentary system with a bicameral legislature would enable the effective coordination of various political and regional interests in the country. Bakiev’s stance towards constitutional reforms conversely, is unpredictable. Looking back, a year ago as an opposition figure, Bakiev advocated a parliamentary type of governance. Yet as interim Prime Minister, he rejected the idea of constitutional reforms, saying that he was no supporter of frequent amendments to the Constitution. Bakiev himself exonerated his view with reference to maintenance of political stability in Kyrgyzstan, exhausted by multiple protests. “The Constitution is fine and it is possible to work with it”, he noted. The current Constitution provides the President with broad powers, putting him above the legislative, executive and judiciary branches of government. As a newly-elected President, Bakiev speaks for a strong Presidency, a strong Government and a strong Parliament which in his view is the basis for the development of the country. Moreover, the day after the inauguration he expressed discord with the current recommendations of the Constitutional Council saying they have been designed at redistributing power among the branches of government. The final challenge that both Bakiev and Kulov face in their alliance is their entourage. Bakiev relies on his brothers, influential players in current political spectrum as well as heterogeneous circles of the political elite. Among of his team members, a majority are southerners and few are northerners. Bakiev’s vulnerable spot is the absence of reliable ideological followers in his endeavors. Although his current supporters Prosecutor General Azimbek Beknazarov and Deputy Prime Minister Adakhan Madumarov were in the opposition camp along with Bakiev prior to March, neither shared a political persuasion with Bakiev. Kulov’s entourage includes key players of his “Ar-Namys” Party, the urbanized elite and the power structures. Interestingly, right after Akayev’s overthrow, Kulov’s moderate behavior, thoughtful and farsighted actions rapidly won him the support of large portions of the technocratic bureaucrats, the youth, business elite, “intelligentsia” and ethnic minorities. However, by now in the government team none of Kulov’s inner circle have been integrated. Bakiev recently reiterated he would stick with his prior team. Thus, it is still unclear whether Kulov will be able to push his associates to governmental positions. Besides, Kulov has some frictions with influential players in Bakiev’s entourage such as Deputy Prime-Minister Daniyar Usenov, Beknazarov, Madumarov, and Miroslav Niyazov, Secretary of the National Security Council.

CONCLUSIONS: During the inaugural ceremony on August 14, Bakiev in a message to the nation voiced time and again his paternalistic vision for Kyrgyzstan. The substance of the inaugural message as well as Bakiev’s suggestion to set up a new Constitutional Council signaled the newly elected President and Kulov have not succeeded to bring their positions on the political and economic prospects for Kyrgyzstan closer. Besides, manipulating the general public and civil society organizations, both Bakiev and Kulov seek to enlarge their powers under a new Constitution instead of leaving aside their political ambitions and designing a joint compromise strategy. Unless this changes, discord between the two Kyrgyz leaders (as in Ukraine) could precipitate a new political crisis in the Government, thus jeopardizing the democratic gains of the March events.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Ainura Cholponkulova was a Fulbright Scholar at the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at SAIS last year. She is a Professor at the School of International Relations, Kyrgyz National University and at the Department of Public Service and Local-Self Governance, Presidential Academy of Management. She also works as an independent consultant with state agencies, politicians and international organizations.