BACKGROUND: Askar Akaev, who has been a president of the Kyrgyz Republic for the last 10 years, was reelected for a next five-year presidential term on 29 October gaining 74.5% of the vote. Akaev had a considerable advantage over his opponents in the election. Apparently from the result of the election, Akaev has obtained more credibility and trust from the electorate despite the constant decline in the national economy and the quality of life of the people. The election results giving Akaev 74.5% of the vote are difficult for many Kyrgyz to believe prompting widespread speculation of election fraud.
In order to guarantee that Akaev would win the recent election, an extremely controversial legal provision was made. A special new requirement was enacted into law that candidates must pass a mandatory Kyrgyz language test as criteria for a candidates registration. The law eliminated 12 of 19 potential candidates. Among them a leading opposition leader Felix Kulov, who had been refused in permission to register as a presidential candidate, later described the examination commission as another trick of the authorities to prevent him from campaigning against President Akaev.
It is clear that President Akaevs run for a third term as president was a blatant disregard for the Kyrgyz Constitution that limits the president to no more than two terms in office. However, the constitution was sidestepped when Kyrgyzstans Constitutional Court in deference to the countrys leader ruled that Akaev's first term legally began in 1995 because Akaev in effect ran unopposed in 1991. This ruling formed the legal basis of Akaevs run for a third term. An Examination Commission was created in June of this year. By the time President Askar Akaev announced his decision on 28 August to stand for a third term only six candidates were left to oppose him.
IMPLICATIONS: International observers and election monitors have condemned the tactics used during the election campaign. OSCE Chairperson Bennita Ferrero-Waldner expressed her disappointment with the growing amount of autocracy in Kyrgyzstan and reiterated that its political system should provide for the full participation of the entire society, since the development of a functioning democracy is an essential part of comprehensive society. It is worth noting that in a small state such as Kyrgyzstan with its history of Soviet autocratic rule, it is likely that many autocratic traditions will die slowly and reveal themselves during the key national political decisions such as the election of the head of state.
According to the statement released by the monitory mission of the OSCE, such autocratic traditions came out in full force. The OSCE statement commented, the "2000 Kyrgyzstan presidential elections failed to comply with OSCE commitments for democratic elections. Moreover, the international standards for free, equal, fair and accountable elections were abused. Local and regional authorities were interfering in the electoral process and media coverage was extremely biased in favor of the president. Restrictions towards NGO's willing to observe the election process were used." Chairperson of OSCE Bennita Ferrero-Waldner expressed hope that President Akaev will use all his authority to rectify the elections shortcomings and put Kyrgyzstan on track of democratic and economic reform.
Even though international observers condemned in harsh terms the Kyrgyzstan presidential election, they also identified some positive features and expressed hope that democratic structures in the Kyrgyz Republic still remains viable, though increasingly challenged. Many in Kyrgyzstan are asking themselves a question: if democracy is viable in this small corner of Central Asia, why have international monitors been so quick to condemn it? They are further asking why the international community will not give Kyrgyzstan enough time to establish itself as an absolute leader in democratic reforms in the region? For the Kyrgyz people, it is clear that it is more important how Kyrgyzstan fulfills its obligations to the international community with respect to principles of a free and democratic society than who is elected president of the country.
CONCLUSION: In the world of globalization and integration there is a tendency to perceive that some features of the international system are global norms and standards. However, the importance of a nations cultural differences and its assumptions should not be underestimated. In Kyrgyzstan, democracy is perceived as the right for freedom, tolerance and equal rights. Such rights include the right to make a decision about who will lead them. On October 29, though the election process was greatly flawed, the Kyrgyz nation was able to express its will. Whether Askar Akaev actually won the election is in some ways not as important as the fact that the people were able to exercise their freedom to chose. The international community must acknowledge this cultural fact.
In comparison with 1995, this election was actually marked with even greater voter activity and participation along with the influence of leading opposition groups. These are clear examples of how democracy works in Kyrgyzstan. Compared to the other Central Asia counties where the oppression of the political opposition is a constant headache and with their presidents who hold power for life, it can be argued that democracy is flourishing in Kyrgyzstan. Civil society in Kyrgyzstan is politically advancing, mass media is growing, and the electorate is becoming more demanding of its candidates. These are all features of democratic society. After such a flawed election, it is now up to President Akaev in his third term to leave to Kyrgyzstan his political legacy of an "island of democracy" rather than turning the country into an island of autocracy.
AUTHOR BIO: Gulsara Osorova is an intern at the United Nations Headquarters in the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. She is a graduate in Political Science and International Studies at Birmingham University in the United Kingdom.
Copyright 2000 The Analyst All rights reserved