KYRGYZSTAN AFTER AKAEV: HAT HAPPENED AND WHY, WHAT NEXT?

Abstract

None expected the fall of Askar Akaev’s regime, a major political sensation in March 2005, to be so sudden and swift. Like everyone else, the opposition was taken by surprise. Just a few days later, Felix Kulov had to admit: “It was all more or less spontaneous. A crowd gathered for an open-ended rally. Then some people started chasing others, who ran to the ‘White House’ for shelter, and those pursuing them burst into the office building after them.”1 This appears to be a pretty accurate description. The “White House” security, militia and special forces were obviously at a loss and act-ed haphazardly; taken by surprise, the republic’s leaders and President Akaev seemed unable to make up their minds. Defeat was imminent. The myth about Kyrgyzstan, an “island of democracy” in Central Asia, dissipated; the head of the republic fled the country in the manner of a Latin American dictator. The country’s future is dim. All this, however, was no accident. For the past 15 years, President Akaev and his supporters have been marching toward their fall: their foreign and, especially, domestic policies abounded in errors and miscalculations. Over time, historians and political analysts will undoubtedly acquire new facts and new eyewitness accounts to complete the picture of the Kyrgyz “revolution.” Here I will analyze certain facts of the republic’s recent past to provide answers to the following questions: