Kyrgyzstan's New Window of Opportunity

{
  "authors": [
    "Kelima V. Yakupova"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "russia",
  "programs": [
    "Russia and Eurasia"
  ],
  "projects": [
    "Eurasia in Transition"
  ],
  "regions": [
    "Central Asia",
    "Kyrgyz Republic"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Democracy",
    "Economy",
    "Security"
  ]
}

In The Media

Kyrgyzstan's New Window of Opportunity

Lasting change eluded Kyrgyzstan in 2005 when Bakiyev came to power. Now that his regime has collapsed, the new leaders will have to work hard to earn back the trust of the Kyrgyz people.

By Kelima V. Yakupova

Published on May 3, 2010

Source: Common Ground News Service

Kyrgyzstan's New Window of OpportunityAfter resigning in the wake of bloody anti-government protests that left 86 dead and more than 1,500 wounded, the exiled former President of Kyrgyzstan Kurmanbek Bakiyev told reporters in Belarus last month that he was still the country’s legitimate leader. The United Nations, United States, Russia, Kazakhstan and European countries, however, have brokered a deal for Bakiyev’s resignation, recognising an interim government chaired by Kyrgyz opposition leader Roza Otunbayeva in the hopes of returning Kyrgyzstan to a democratic course.

Kyrgyzstan, a majority-Muslim, central Asian republic, has endured two coup d’états in the last five years. The first, the Tulip Revolution in March 2005, led to the downfall of the country’s first post-Soviet president, Askar Akayev, whose 15 years in power ended amidst charges of corruption, nepotism and cronyism, and brought Bakiyev to power.

During the past several years, Bakiyev took the regime in an increasingly authoritarian direction, and on 7 April Scarlet Revolution protesters in Bishkek and several other cities rose up to drive yet another head of state from power.

Though lasting change eluded Kyrgyzstan in 2005, the Kyrgyz people now have an opportunity to ensure that history does not repeat itself.

The head of the interim government, Otunbayeva, has been active in Kyrgyz politics since 1981, serving as the USSR’s emissary to UNESCO and ambassador to Malaysia, the United Kingdom and the United States. In keeping with their promises to restore democracy in Kyrgyzstan, the three major opposition parties have reached a consensus to build a parliamentary state without the domination of any one individual. With Bakiyev out, and support from the major international powers, they have a unique opportunity to lead the country to economic recovery and representative government.

But the provisional government and its elected successor will have to work hard to earn back the trust of the Kyrgyz people.

Thanks in part to the Internet, which has made it easier for young Kyrgyz to form civil associations and keep one another informed, the Kyrgyz people have become more aware of government corruption. They watched as Bakiyev appointed members of his family to significant political positions and enjoyed the lion’s share of US government largesse in exchange for the use of the air base at Manas, a vital resupply point in the war in Afghanistan.

Several times in the past two months, thousands have taken to the streets of major Kyrgyz cities to demand the release of political prisoners and an end to the government’s harassment of the media: more than 60 journalists have been attacked since 2006, and at least two murdered. After electricity fees increased by 200 per cent, and heat by 400 per cent over the winter, protesters demanded reductions in utility costs and called for Bakiyev’s son, Maksim – accused of embezzling at least $35 million from a Russian loan – to leave the country.

Political activism does not come naturally to the Kyrgyz. Even after gaining their independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, they had a lingering fear of repression, little independent media, limited political speech and, above all, a lack of faith that citizen participation could bring about significant reforms.

However, recent events have encouraged dissatisfied citizens that public dissent is necessary and could be effective in the current climate. The Kyrgyz people must continue to press the provisional government to appoint public officials transparently and restart key institutions, including the constitutional court.

To address the country’s most pressing challenges, the new government will have to develop a commitment to protect freedom of speech and an independent media, as well as a long-term plan to jumpstart the economy, alleviate poverty and create new employment opportunities, which would provide a constructive opportunity for frustrated and unemployed youth.

Kyrgyzstan’s Scarlet Revolution has not yet put an end to the country’s cycle of turmoil. But thanks to the actions of Otunbayeva and her colleagues in the new government, and the many citizens who have taken to the streets to demand a say in how it makes its decisions, the people of Kyrgyzstan have reason to believe that this time change is actually in the works.

Kelima Yakupova is a Kyrgyz national and Junior Fellow of the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

About the Author

Kelima V. Yakupova

Political Reform Democracy Economy Security Central Asia Kyrgyz Republic

Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie India

Commentary
A Halting Turn: India’s Military Transformation
In any defense establishment, change is an ongoing process. However, despite the best of intentions, existing bureaucracies, bound by habit and years of socialization, have their limits in implementing transformative change.
Anit Mukherjee
Paper
Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with China
After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.
Saheb Singh Chadha
Article
India’s Press Note 3 Gamble: Opening the FDI Door to China
On March 10, 2026, India’s Union Cabinet approved amendments to Press Note 3, a regulation that mandated government approval on all foreign direct investment (FDI) from countries sharing a land border with India. This amendment raises questions primarily about whether its stated benefits will materialize and if the risks have been adequately weighed. This piece will address the same.
Konark Bhandari
Article
India’s Oil Security Strategy: Structural Vulnerabilities and Strategic Choices
This piece argues that the present Indian strategy, based on opportunistic diversification and utilization of limited strategic reserves, remains inadequate when confronting supply disruptions. It evaluates India’s options in the short, medium, and long terms.
Vrinda Sahai
Commentary
The Impact of U.S. Sanctions and Tariffs on India’s Russian Oil Imports
This piece examines India’s response to U.S. sanctions and tariffs, specifically assessing the immediate market consequences, such as alterations in import costs, and the broader strategic implications for India’s energy security and foreign policy orientation.
Vrinda Sahai

More Work from Carnegie India

Commentary

A Halting Turn: India’s Military Transformation

In any defense establishment, change is an ongoing process. However, despite the best of intentions, existing bureaucracies, bound by habit and years of socialization, have their limits in implementing transformative change.

Anit Mukherjee

Paper

Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with China

After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.

Saheb Singh Chadha

Article

India’s Press Note 3 Gamble: Opening the FDI Door to China

On March 10, 2026, India’s Union Cabinet approved amendments to Press Note 3, a regulation that mandated government approval on all foreign direct investment (FDI) from countries sharing a land border with India. This amendment raises questions primarily about whether its stated benefits will materialize and if the risks have been adequately weighed. This piece will address the same.

Konark Bhandari

Article

India’s Oil Security Strategy: Structural Vulnerabilities and Strategic Choices

This piece argues that the present Indian strategy, based on opportunistic diversification and utilization of limited strategic reserves, remains inadequate when confronting supply disruptions. It evaluates India’s options in the short, medium, and long terms.

Vrinda Sahai

Commentary

The Impact of U.S. Sanctions and Tariffs on India’s Russian Oil Imports

This piece examines India’s response to U.S. sanctions and tariffs, specifically assessing the immediate market consequences, such as alterations in import costs, and the broader strategic implications for India’s energy security and foreign policy orientation.

Vrinda Sahai