Zakir Chotaev, Ph.D. (International Relations), Deputy Director, Center for Central Asian Studies (Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan)


Political development of independent Kyrgyzstan has been geared at democratization and the best possible form of governance. Under presidents Akaev and Bakiev, the semi-presidential system turned out to be a failure: in the course of time it degenerated into monopoly rule and usurpation of state power. The events of April 2010 opened a new stage in the republics political development and created conditions for a semi-parliamentary form of governance.

This article analyzes the prospects for a parliamentary system in Kyrgyzstan, its weak and strong points, and its future. The author argues that despite its weak points, semi-parliamentary democracy will make the republics political system more democratic.

Keywords: Kyrgyzstan, political development, democratization, state governance, Jogorku Kenesh, Ata-Meken, SDPK (Social-Democratic Party), Ak-Shumkar, Asaba.


In April 2010, discontent with the authoritarian methods of state administration and economic management, which had been accumulating for some time, raised a high wave of popular unrest and demonstrated that people were ready to sacrifice their lives to put an end to the arbitrary rule of the political elite. This made it abundantly clear that the presidential and semi-presidential forms of governance had lost their credibility: the traditional values and the republics political culture inevitably produced monopolization of power and authoritarianism.

The political elite brought to power by the April developments in the form of the Provisional Government established a semi-parliamentary form of governance, its three years being full of diverse and frequently opposite trends. The new Constitution adopted in 2010; the elections to the..

Please fill subscription form to obtain full text of this jounal

SCImago Journal & Country Rank
 - Advertorial UP - E-MAIL