Abstract
|
In Kyrgyzstan, the shift from a single party to a multi-party system accelerated after the declaration of independence by the country in August 1991. By the end of 1991, five political parties were already in existence. The emergence of political parties in Kyrgyzstan has been strongly linked to elections, parliamentary and presidential. The number of political parties increased to 14 before the first parliamentary elections in 19955. The same trend was noticed in 2000 and 2005, before the parliamentary elections held in those years, when the number of parties reached 50 and 60 respectively6. Parties of those in power followed the same trend; they were set up by the countries’ rulers just before the elections. A good example is the Alga, Kyrgyzstan! (Forward, Kyrgyzstan!) political party that was set up by former President Akaev just before the parliamentary elections in 2005. The current President Bakiev and his allies formed their Ak Jol (Happy Way) Party before the pre-term parliamentary elections in 2007.
The emergence of political parties in Kyrgyzstan was also encouraged by introducing changes in the electoral system. In 2000, for the first time, there was a legal requirement for 15% of Parliamentary seats to be given to representatives of political parties. In 2005, there was another radical change when parliamentary elections fully transferred to the proportional system.
Today, Kyrgyzstan has quite liberal legislation on political parties and there is an array of political parties that the electorate can choose from. There are now more than 90 political parties registered with the Kyrgyz Justice Ministry7. However, despite the large number of parties, political parties have become neither sound actors in policy-making nor representatives of the interests of the electorate in government. The majority of bills is now initiated by the executive ruled by Kyrgyz President Bakiev while parliament is dominated by the Ak-Jol Party, which is also ruled by the president, ensuring the quick and alternative-free adoption of political decisions. The Ak Jol Party controls 79% of all votes in parliament while the remaining minority of votes, at 9% and 12%, belong to the Party of Kyrgyzstan Communists and the opposition Social Democratic Party of Kyrgyzstan respectively. In this policy-making model, parties in parliament are not seen as the initiators and debaters of bills, but rather as a rubber stamp of political decisions offered by a restricted number of actors – the President and his allies. Furthermore, such a model ensures not only undemocratic and uncompetitive policy-making, but it restricts the development of other political parties due to the lack of competition for ideas among them9. According to the Ata-Maken Party, one of the oldest parties, the lack of political competition is the key hurdle to the development of political parties10.
Moreover, Kyrgyz parties have not identified a clear set of values they pursue11. Many political parties can hardly position themselves as left wing, centrist or right wing. Therefore, some right-wing parties may oppose the free market or privatization, which is very confusing12. The lack of clear vision and values that parties stand for, forces electorates to unite around a leader, who is ready to serve his (her) interests13. Moreover, ruling elites can secure state resources to secure the loyalty of clients14. Therefore, party members and the electorate select parties mainly by their leaders rather than their manifestos. Even the ruling party Ak-Jol has no clearly defined ideological manifesto so members of parliament of this party often initiate bills covering ideas ranging from liberalism to totalitarianism15.
Political parties in Kyrgyzstan are also incapable of offering viable policies, economic or social. They have no well-articulated strategies. The current key function of political parties is limited to criticizing the actions of the current government. According to Valentin Bogatyrev, all Kyrgyz political parties can now be identified only by whether or not they support the ruling leaders16. He continues: “support does not necessarily mean supporting ideas or strategies, but whether or not the parties agree that the ruling leaders can continue exercising power”. The survey conducted among political parties in 2008 sponsored by the International Republican Institute confirms that most political parties have vague goals and fuzzy strategies.
As a result of these weaknesses, political parties have not gained the public’s trust. Research conducted in November 2004 showed that the names of many parties are not widely recognized, while confidence in political parties among the general public is at a low level and as many as 34.1% of respondents found it difficult to name any political party17.
|
