[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 135 (Friday, December 8, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2176]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   KYRGYZSTAN IMPROVES ITS DEMOCRACY

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, December 7, 2006

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as this Congress comes to a 
conclusion, I rise to make some remarks on the state of democratic 
development in Central Asia. I am inspired to do this by the very 
significant recent events in Kyrgyzstan, where last month, a new 
constitution was adopted that limits the power of the presidency and 
enhances the authority of the legislative branch.
  The Kyrgyz should be congratulated for peacefully negotiating a 
delicate political situation that could have turned violent. The 
outcome resulted in the strengthening of Kyrgyzstan's democracy at a 
time when its neighbors are moving in the opposite direction.
  Throughout post-Soviet Central Asia--and all over the former USSR--
the defining feature of political development has been the emergence of 
super-presidents, while parliaments and courts languish under executive 
control. As a result, the balance of powers, though constitutionally 
mandated, has remained a dead letter, and corruption has become 
endemic.
  But Kyrgyzstan has always differed from other regional states by 
virtue of its strong civil society and relatively combative 
legislature; former President Askar Akaev was never as powerful as his 
counterparts in Central Asia. Moreover, there is a well-established 
tradition of ``people power'' in Kyrgyzstan--Akaev was almost forced 
from office by a countrywide protest movement in 2002. He managed to 
keep his seat, however, until last year's ``Tulip Revolution'' of 2005, 
which led to his ouster and his replacement in July by Kurmanbek 
Bakiev. By all accounts, the presidential election of July 2005 marked 
a real improvement in elections held in Kyrgyzstan, and particularly in 
Central Asia.
  Since then, however, Kyrgyzstan has struggled with major problems, 
among them: uncontrolled criminality, high-level corruption, economic 
decline and a general sense of disappointment at unfulfilled promises. 
By this fall, discontent had risen to such a degree that a political 
movement, ``For Reforms'' led largely by President Bakiev's former 
associates, was able to mobilize protesters to pursue their agenda by 
peaceful rallies. Though the demonstrators originally called for 
Bakiev's resignation, in the end a compromise was reached in the form 
of a new constitution.

  The document represents a real achievement, primarily for limiting 
the executive's powers--a first in Central Asia. Bakiev will remain in 
office until 2010 but his successor will not appoint the government, 
Prosecutor-General, the head of the Central Election Commission and the 
holders of other important posts. Whichever political party gains 51 
percent in elections has that responsibility--an incentive for 
traditionally fractious political parties to align themselves in 
coalitions and work together.
  Naturally, the heads of neighboring states have been displeased. 
State-controlled media in those countries have portrayed these events 
in the worst possible light, emphasizing ``chaos and anarchy,'' and 
hoping thereby to discredit the Kyrgyz experiment by linking popular 
demonstrations with instability. But while crowds gathered in the 
streets of the capital Bishkek, the new constitution was adopted almost 
without violence, solidifying a tradition of politically effective 
peaceful protest. Most important, a framework has been created for 
developing all branches of power and resolving political disagreements.
  I believe Kyrgyzstan's experience has genuine significance for the 
possibility of democratization in Central Asia, simply because the 
Kyrgyz political class, cooperating with civil society, has shown that 
it is possible without bloodshed to reach compromise solutions to 
fundamental political problems. Whether Kyrgyzstan's experience can or 
should work in other countries is a different issue. But it is clear 
that all post-Soviet states need to find a way to limit the power and 
authority of their presidents if they are to escape the trap into which 
they have fallen. When people feel they have no representation or 
possibility of addressing grievances through state institutions, they 
will be tempted to find other methods. If this happens in other, more 
repressive countries with few or no democratic traditions, the outcome 
may not be so peaceful or positive.
  So far, there is little evidence that this realization has penetrated 
elsewhere in Central Asia, where presidents continue to jealously hoard 
power. Sapannurat Niyazov remains the all-powerful ``Turkmenbashy,'' or 
leader of all Turkmen, whom he continues to subject to his capricious 
campaigns, while running a permanent purge of the political class and 
making sure Turkmenistan remains the only one-party state to survive 
the Soviet bloc. Uzbekistan's Islam Karimov, who allows no opposition, 
has cracked down even harder and cuddled up to Russia since the 
international community reacted with outrage to the slaughter of 
hundreds in Andijan in May 2005. Tajikistan's Imomali Rakhmonov won re-
election last month; constitutional amendments adopted last year will 
potentially allow him to remain in office until 2020. And Kazakhstan's 
bid to chair the OSCE in 2009 has been resisted by the United States 
and the United Kingdom for failure to improve its poor human rights 
record.
  What happened in Bishkek is quite noteworthy, especially for the 
region--opposition groups were allowed to protest, the government did 
not respond with violence, and both sides agreed to a new constitution 
that actually decreases presidential powers and introduces a 
parliamentary system. Nothing like this is happening for thousands of 
miles in any direction.
  All in all, Mr. Speaker, 15 years after the collapse of the USSR and 
the emergence of new states, it is hard to summon up much optimism for 
the prospects of democracy. Still, Kyrgyzstan has given me a bit of 
hope.

                          ____________________