Indeed, a year since the upheaval, there is growing dissatisfaction with the outcome of the street protests that swept away former authoritarian president Askar Akayev. People assumed – and opposition mass media outlets supported – the belief that all the social and economic problems were linked with Akayev’s unwillingness to pursue national interests and to combat corruption. The last drop of public dissatisfaction with Akayev’s regime was the falsified parliamentary elections in early 2005. It was because of these elections that people took to the streets crying “Akayev, out!”, seizing local administration offices in the regions until finally the Government House itself, in the capital, had fallen. From the day of the ‘revolution’ to the present, the country has suffered from land seizures, mass property redistributions, and contract killings of public figures as well as the growth of criminal influence in society. The new authorities continued to apply the economic development strategy instituted by Akayev, and failed to attract new foreign direct investment to the country. The struggle against corruption touched only the allies, relatives and family of former president Akayev, against whom many criminal cases were filed.

Recently, political analyst Aleksander Kniazev published a book called “Coup d\'etat: March 24, 2005 in Kyrgyzstan”. The book begins with the statement that “The March events destroyed the most democratic country that ever existed in the Central Asian region”. The 250-page book was published in Kazakhstan, because local publishing houses were afraid to publish it, fearing possible negative consequences. In an interview to “Beliy Parohod” newspaper, another political analyst, Nur Omarov, said that “there are now many disputes whether what had happened was a public revolution or a coup. I think it was powerful seizure of the authority, and society was convinced by the arguments of the opposition mostly consisted of the people offended by the former power. The main goal of most of them was restoring their personal ambitions of power. Unfortunately, they had no serious program for developing a new social model”.

During the revolutionary days, opposition leaders promised to conduct constitutional reform and turn the country into a parliamentary republic. However, after Bakiev\'s inauguration, talks about a referendum and the work of the constitutional reform commission have slightly calmed down. Later, Bakiev said that Kyrgyzstan “had not lived under the existing constitution long enough to change it again”, contradicting the ideas of the revolution. Presently, authorities vow to conduct a referendum, but its deadlines and terms are still unclear.

Nevertheless, Bakiev recently stated that he disagrees with the idea that the events a year ago were a coup. He said, “the old regime did not withstand the pressure of public anger and crashed down like a rotten tree under the wind. The people stood against the old regime, and this revolution was made by the people”.

As for Akayev, he presently teaches physics at Moscow State University, but periodically gives interviews to mass media about the mistakes of the new leadership of Kyrgyzstan. In a recent interview to the Russian “Nezavisimaya Gazeta” newspaper, he commented that “assessments of a ‘revolutionary’ trait originates basically from sources with vested interests. To confess that what happened was a coup d’etat would mean to sign his [Bakiev’s] own [political ]death verdict”.

In the meantime, authorities are preparing for the celebrations of the new national holiday. The day will be marked by a military parade, demonstrations of power, and mass festivities around the country.