Analysis on Kyrgyzstan’s recent elections, and insight on the political atmosphere in the country.

On October 31 the voters in Kyrgyzstan elected Almazbek Atambaev, leader of the Social Democrats party and current Prime Minister, to become the fourth president of independent Kyrgyzstan. Atambaev won the first round with 62.5% of ballots cast while his major competitors, Kamchibek Tashiev of the Ata-Zhurt party and Adakhan Madumarov of Butun Kyrgyzstan, gained 14.3% and 14.8% of the vote respectively. Only 60% of the voters went to the polls, a 20% drop compared to the last presidential elections in the summer of 2009. International and local observers reported the misuse of administrative resources—that is using state agents to secure desired election outcomes. They further accused the Central Election Commission of mishandling the voter list compilation. On election day many voters did not find themselves on the electoral rolls and were prevented from casting their ballots. On the other hand, other observers evaluated the elections as free and fair and Atambaev was quickly recognized by major foreign partners as the legitimate heir to interim president Roza Otunbaeva, who took office after the overthrow of Kurmanbek Bakiev in April 2010.

The presidential race: No hope for a new politics

If the simple fact that free and fair elections in Kyrgyzstan is considered a progressive step forward, then the political situation and its trajectory remains a source of concern for most observers. The recent campaign failed to yield political ideas and programs to initiate reforms. In addition, while Kyrgyzstani citizens hoped to vote for integrity and a vision for a better future, the election contestation instead produced a smear campaign of unprecedented scale and nurtured fears of possible explosions of ethnic and inter-regional violence. In the end, each candidate only hoped to appear less corrupt than his competitors; almost every candidate used the recent Osh events in June 2010 and the ever-growing tension between the South and North to promote unity in the face of possible state break-up or to call for allegiance among the voters of one region to mobilize against those of another.

For the public audience in Kyrgyzstan, the election campaign turned into a theatre of discredited figures who were asking for the electorate's trust by providing scare scenarios of state collapse and ruin. For those who looked behind the curtain of the election this picture did not improve. Rumours of secret deals between the contesting candidates followed the campaign from the very beginning. Voters were left to decide between staged fears of violence or backroom-deal politics. In both cases politics in Kyrgyzstan promised not to take a progressive turn after the elections.

Now, some weeks into the post-election era most observers still don't expect change for the better. Negotiations between the winning party, the losing parties and neutral players have started. Since Atambaev will no longer perform the duties of prime minister, the new constitution of June 2010 dictates the formation of a new government. That in turn raises a question for the existing party coalition in the parliament, who will elects the prime minister: whether to continue its agreement or not. So far this majority is made up of the three parties, Ata-Zhurt of Kamchibek Tashiev, the Social Democrats of Almaz Atambaev, and Respublica of formerly acting Prime Minister Omurbek Babanov. Out of the two opposition parties in parliament—Ata-Meken of the Father of the Constitution Party as well as Omurbek Tekebae and Ar-Namys of Feliks Kulov—the latter demands to be included in the existing coalition. The concern of any side of this question for a new parliamentary majority is rooted less in programmatic congruence and more in the quest for power, it seems. Ministerial posts are subject to deal-making and bargaining, as are lucrative positions in the state economy that promise access to vast rents.

What Kyrgyzstan cannot expect from such negotiations are reforms. A collapsing security system, a decaying educational infrastructure, the legacy and pain of the ethnic clashes in Osh, a corrupt judicial body, and a poorly functioning social care system all ugently need government attention; good governance and reform to address these matters, however, seem elusive. On top of that, some experts raise concerns over prospects that earlier state decisions might be revised and that the new president will revert to an authoritarian state model. Will Atambaev change the constitution, enhance the powers of the presidency, and follow the steps of his predecessors Bakiev and Akaev? Or will the power bargaining actually fail and will instability ensue and tensions rise between the North and the South and between ethnic groups?

It is difficult to find positive signs of development given a current perspective that offers little more than political stalemate and widespread societal frustration. However, if this perspective is to be changed, a second story can be told. In it, Kyrgyzstan and its political trajectory appear as a remarkable experiment—less in terms of daily political decision-making and more on a structural level.

The new pluralization of voices in politics