These are my notes from a discussion session we had at the London School called “The April Revolution 1 Year Later: Transition to Democracy or 10 Years Back?”. It was in a question and answer format with some questions submitted from the participants, and we had four Kyrgyz participants and about as many Americans. After struggling with how to present this narrative (as it quickly jumps from person to person), I've decided to present my notes more or less as is. The // symbol is where one person stopped talking and another person started, but note that I only started keeping track of this about halfway through the session. Until the third question, I'm reconstructing the flow of conversation from memory. My comments are in brackets.
What triggered the violence?
It was very unexpected, it started as a small conflict/protest in Talas, and it was thought that the government would stop it. It terrible for folks at university. At the time, no information was available. The phone services stopped working.
// The people who protested were more like drunk/high rioters. If you want change, change yourself. It can't be just a person who demands stuff. For some, the revolution was fake. What has changed? We have tribalism and everything that was associated with the old government.
Who started the revolution?
Remember that the opposition leaders were in prison. It was started in part because they were jailed.
// The idea is we need more control in Kyrgyzstan. It's too free. Here it's easy to get a visa. [At this point in the conversation, I was too distracted by what I was hearing to write it down. The best I can remember goes something like “It's very easy to get a visa, and there's a lot of drugs moving in from abroad. It's like there's too much freedom and we need someone powerful to solve our problems”.]
There was no organization, no stated goal/aim to the revolution, just complaints. When the first revolution happened, I was more positive. The second set us back 10 years. I lost hope in people, our civic consciousness hasn't formed. They can form a mob, but if there's no agreed agenda, it's a failure. Now parliament is arguing and can't share.
Kyrgyzstan? Where's that? [That was my snarky comment in the notes. I didn't actually say that.]
The U.S. does have bases here, but Kyrgyzstan isn't Egypt, and it's not an important U.S. ally.
While away [at a university in the U.S.], I heard there was a revolution. Once I came back, there it turned out not to be a revolution. [Between these two sentences, the conversation switched back to the claim that some of the protesters were drugged] In the U.S., first it was mass street protests. Then, at the end, it was half and half, the protesters were paid well and in some ways organized. // In some cases they added drugs/alcohol to make people more rowdy. // My dad came home from work and saw the revolutionaries. They were really drunk. Some filmed mobile phone videos where they looted stores. // Some of them said “They gave us water and I don't remember what happened.” Now some of them are heroes and are buried near Chingiz Aitmatov. This is a crazy idea and I don't accept it.
Flats for families of the victims. Is anyone better off than they were a year ago? // There has been some movement to a parliamentary system, not certain it's ready yet. It's hard to change the real social structure. There was good reason for a revolution, but it didn't succeed.
Is there potential for change?
It's awful soon to say anything about that, but if you think of the term “revolution”, I don't see it here. // I see possible outcomes, for example Kyrgyz C-SPAN [my phrase, the parliament sessions are now being broadcast on the national radio stations], everyone can hear that. // [Returning to the protesters again,] Not all of them were drunk or high, some were good people. At least half of them were good. // People who shot at the protesters, it was their job. I would have done the same and died for my country. Then once the revolution got inside, they were more violent. It wasn't revolution, it was mass craziness. // Some shooters were reported mercenaries // Some people were injured.
Can Ata-Jurt build support outside the south? [I submitted a two part question, and this was part 1]
Some people don't think in terms of north and south. Ata-Jurt does have some support outside the south, // but not much. There is a popular former mayor of Bishkek who is in Ata-Jurt.
Nationalism has become overblown. Amnesty International expected new violence after the first anniversary of the June violence. Kyrgyzstan has been tolerant, and not Kyrgyzstan is accused of being genocidal. I think it's important to remember that people weren't being killed on the same scale as the Germans killed the Jews. We do deserve to develop civic nationalism, Kyrgyzstani nationalism, where we can speak our local language, but not Kyrgyz ethnic nationalism. We studied Kyrgyz for years, and if you like your language, your culture, and your nation, you want to help your people. There were “Soviets” who lost their identity in 1991. // Everything in Turkey is in Turkish. Why don't we speak Kyrgyz in Kyrgyzstan? We need to develop our own love for our language alongside other languages. North/South, Uzbek/Kyrgyz, were all constructs and need to be changed.
Has the revolution inspired other countries?
Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Russia are all afraid, they saw it as a means of instability. How do you negotiate with a parliament? Yes, there's a Prime Minister, but classic West Wing politicking [my phrase] means meeting with multiple stakeholders.
There will perhaps be some tensions after the elections [in October] and squabbling over the results // For some people, revolution is an easy solution. Some deputies work hard, and some don't. Hopefully parliament will get some change done.
We need to toughen up on our borders. We have large mountains that are hard to patrol, and bribes. // Corruption is so much of a part of our system that if you remove it, you destroy it. // I'm only glad Bakiyev is gone if a good person replaces him. The June events cast a long shadow over the Provisional Government. Lots of people from the Bakiyev era are still here. The problem is people haven't gotten involved.
Sam Rayburn once said “Any jackass can kick over a barn. It takes a good carpenter to build one”. Now that Bakiyev is gone, the Provisional Government hasn't built anything to better in its place. Now the presidential elections are two and half months away, and all of the candidates look like corrupt members of the same old clan-based power structures that Bakiyev used to dominate. If you're Kyrgyz and you're not part of that system, and (as we'll see in a later post) you look across the border at Kazakhstan and see people doing comparatively better under Nazarbayev, how can you not want to see a strongman take over?
In the next post, we'll switch from domestic politics (kumys) to foreign politics (Kalashnikovs) where we'll see how Kyrgyzstan's disorganized clan structure has led to a disorganized foreign policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment