Bakiyev will not be removed: Interview with Vice Speaker of Kyrgyz Parliament Erkinbek Alymbekov

Read it in Russian

Erkinbek Alymbekov, Member of Zhogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic from Karakol electoral district #72 of Issyk-Kul region. He was born in the village of Jany-Aryk, Ak-Suy district, Issyk-Kul region, on November 5, 1961. In 1983 he graduated from the Moscow Ordzhonikidze Institute of Management. He started his working activities as economist at the Agriculture Ministry in 1983. In 1984-1990, he worked as economist at Frunze Shoe Factory. In 1987, he was elected the first secretary of Sverdlovsk District Committee of Komsomol of the Kyrgyz SSR. In 1990-1992, he was the manager of the Small Business Association. In 1992-1994 — chairman of the board of the Asia Invest JSC. In 1994-1999 — chairman of the Executive Committee of the Unity Party of Kyrgyzstan and the vice president of the Association of Independent Lawyers. In 1999-2000 — head of department at the Kyrgyz Prime Minister’s Staff, first deputy head of the Oktyabrsky District Administration of the Bishkek Municipality, the assistant of the chairman of the Central Electoral Commission of the Kyrgyz Republic. In 2002-2005 – chairman of the board of the Central-Asian Fuel Company, president of the Karakol Public Foundation. In March 2005 he was elected into the third Zhogorku Kenesh (Parliament) of the Kyrgyz Republic. He is the deputy Torag (Speaker) of the Zhogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic.

REGNUM: Mr. Alymbekov, recently people in Kyrgyzstan have been actively discussing the idea of conducting constitutional reforms, particularly, introducing the presidential form of government. What is the political sense of these discussions?

I think that the organization of such discussions was a tactical maneuver by President Kurmanbek Bakiyev. Over a year has passed since the March events, but almost nothing has changed. Many understand that there is an objective reason for this – we can assume that the past year has been used for general stabilization. However, by further delaying system reforms, the new authorities are gradually losing popular confidence. Their wish to rule the country in the ways Akayev did is leading us to a system crisis. And by formally pleading that we should first hold a referendum to choose the form of government, President Bakiyev is, in fact, delaying the conduct of constitutional reforms. Democratic forces do not object to the classical presidential rule with a balanced system of state administration ensuring highly efficient economy. However, what the presidential side means is something like the regime of Turkmenbashi. 

In fact, after the March events and given the present developments, many have begun to say that the presidential form of government is not an optimal model for Kyrgyzstan. Those saying that “in Asia” everything must be based on “iron rule” do not know history well. The Kyrgyz have never had a single khan. They had a council of heads of clans who decided everything jointly. The lessons of the far and near past show that we should better choose the parliamentary form of government, but for this we should create legislative and institutional basis, develop party building and elect 2/3 of our parliament by party tickets. If we add to this free mass media, we will ensure normal democratic development for our country. 

REGNUM: What is the real extent of the parliament’s influence on the home and foreign policies today?

With all its deficiencies and restricted powers, our parliament is still the key stabilizing factor and the key deterrent against destructive processes. However, because of governance defects, we “de facto” have two governments: the government of Felix Kulov, with the whole social bloc, and the administration of the president with the military bloc, fiscal bodies and profit-generating industries. As a result, our government is disorganized and inefficient, while the parliament, being strongly restricted in its power, is constantly appealing to the public to show the government’s mistakes. Indisputably, the foreign policy is the prerogative of the president, but it too is controversial and inconsistent. 

REGNUM: You mean that in the President Bakiyev-Premier Kulov tandem the military agencies are controlled by Bakiyev even though it is Kulov who “comes” from the top brass? 

Bakiyev is certainly the first figure. The premier and the government are trying to have some influence, but they have little chance to do that for the above-mentioned reasons.

REGNUM: What consequences President Bakiyev’s recent government reshuffles may have?

In my opinion, the resignation of the head of the presidential administration Usen Sydykov was a big and positive step. He was a kind of “gray cardinal,” a destructive type of personality, who used the president’s weakness and turned political problems to his own advantage. That’s why those in opposition welcomed this resignation. True, we are not sure that Sydykov has actually resigned and will not continue influencing Bakiyev’s policy. All depends on how strong and independent his substitute will be.

REGNUM: Right after the revolutionary events of March 2005 all experts began to speak about antagonism between the North and the South. How topical is this scenario today?

For some objective reasons – economic situation, population density, etc. – there has always been certain antagonism between the North and the South, like there is in many other countries. And any leader of the republic, even in the Soviet times, effectively or not, but tried to keep regional balance. This tradition was broken by the former head of the presidential administration Sydykov, who began artificially manning the authorities with natives from the south. Even more, he publicly spoke on TV about the dominance of officials from the north. This policy has raised the north-south antagonism and it is Sydykov who is responsible for the north-south problem. And given catastrophically falling popular confidence and threateningly growing crime, religious extremism, drugs trafficking and radical moods, this process may burst into north-south civil clashes.  

REGNUM: By June 30 Kyrgyzstan is to decide on the further stay of the US military base in its territory. What influence may this decision have on the country’s internal policy?

As I have already said, there is no consistency in this issue. This is a complex and controversial issue. Here we clearly see the contradictory interests of the US, from the one side, and Russia and China, from the other. However, Kyrgyzstan should be flexible in the matter and should, first of all, consider its own national interests. First, the presence of the air base gives profit to the Kyrgyz economy, which is already present in the budget (another question is negotiations for optimizing the payments). Second, Bakiyev is not Islam Karimov to openly demand the withdrawal of the air base — especially now that the government is weak and any third force can destabilize the situation. At the same time, this is not contrary to our priority and historically prerequisite relations with Russia.

REGNUM: What political consequences the opposition’s late May action may have?

Unless Bakiyev starts serious system reforms with the support of wide democratic forces, their demand may be the resignation of the Bakiyev-Kulov tandem and this demand will get increasingly popular.

REGNUM: And who can come in their stead?

In fact, nobody is going to remove Bakiyev from his post. Democratic forces just say it is high time for system reforms that will ensure worthy life for people.

REGNUM: What political reforms are primary?

I think we should not invent the wheel. There are simple classical ways to ensure highly efficient state administration. I mean constitutional reforms. We should first of all create institutional and financially independent judiciary, reform the law enforcement and financial agencies, improve the tax code, hold administrative-territorial reforms, raise the role of local government, support and develop free mass media as the cerberus of democracy, ensure party building, i.e. develop pluralism and political competition and conduct effective and transparent staff policy based on party representation. We understand that there are many objective obstacles to this, that this is not that simple. However, we believe that if we paid such a high price as the March 24 events, we simply have no other way as to carry out these system reforms.