Investigators quiz fired Kyrgyz PM amid presidential purge

Investigators quiz fired Kyrgyz PM amid presidential purge
Sapar Isakov lasted just eight months as prime minister before being tripped up by Kyrgyzstan's neverending political machinations. / Daniiar.
By bne IntelliNews April 26, 2018

Sapar Isakov, the former Kyrgyz prime minister who was fired just a week ago, found himself being questioned on April 26 by the security services as part of a criminal investigation.

The past week has also seen much of the cabinet sacked and sweeping personnel changes across the government as the new presidential administration tried to shore up its authority.

The machinations in the capital Bishkek this week show how hard it is to establish a democracy in a post-Soviet republic. Kyrgyzstan has so often over recent years been hailed as “an island of democracy” in Central Asia, following its Tulip Revolution—one of a series of ‘colour revolutions’—which ousted the corrupt regime of Askar Akayev in 2005. After an attempt at building a representative government, the administration of president Kurmanbek Bakiyev was ousted in a second colour revolution in 2010, after it proved to be equally corrupt as predecessor administrations.

Isakov was fired by President Sooranbai Jeenbekov and the Kyrgyz parliament controlled by the ruling Jeenbekov’s Social Democratic Party (SDPK) on April 19 in an effort to make a clean break with the previous presidential administration of Almazbek Atambayev. Clearly Kyrgyzstan’s democracy is still not working very well.

Closeness to Atambayev
Officially, authorities said Isakov was being questioned in connection with a power plant accident that left parts of Bishkek without heating in the winter, but observers believe the real reason is his closeness to former president Atambayev. He only reluctantly stepped down earlier this year in line with a one-term constitutional limit on the presidency. Fears were raised even before the change of president that Atambayev would attempt to rule from the shadows.

Kyrgyz lawmakers on April 20 named Mukhammedkaliy Abylgaziyev as their country's new prime minister following his nomination by the SDPK. He previously held the post of chief of staff in Jeenbekov's office. The new Abylgaziyev-led cabinet is a mix of newcomers and ministers from the dismissed government.

In what amounts to a purge of Atambayev-affiliated politicians, Isakov was not the only one to lose his job.

Earlier, the president dismissed Prosecutor-General Indira Joldubayeva, widely criticised by activists for what they claim was the persecution of opposition politicians and independent media, and two high-profile security officials.

Isakov’s sacking crowned the purge because he was widely seen to be Atambayev’s stooge.

The firing of the Atambayev loyalists followed public criticism of Jeenbekov made by Atambayev on March 31, when he was re-elected as head of the SDPK.

Alarm bells sounded after Atambayev publicly said he wanted to "engage in politics again” in order to assist Jeenbekov and prepare the party for the 2020 parliamentary elections. While Atambayev, who calls Jeenbekov an “old friend”, said during the March 31 event that it was necessary to say “harsh words” about the new president in order to help him rule, the latter possibly took the criticisms personally.

(Dys)functional democracy
Kyrgyzstan held a referendum in December 2016 under Atambayev that weakened the presidency in favour of the office of the prime minister.

The change was seen as an effective failsafe for the SDPK in case the party’s presidential candidate lost the October 2016 election, but the need for this lever did not materialise, since Jeenbekov won. Yet Atambayev apparently did not consider the possibility of losing his hold over his proxies when his own candidate turned against him.

The referendum was put in place to maintain SDPK’s control over the country, by giving it the power to fire and appoint prime ministers thanks to its parliamentary majority.

The lawmakers, including those of the SDPK, appear to have largely aligned with Jeenbekov in his effort to cleanse the government of Atambayev loyalists, diminishing Atambayev’s real level of influence.

Kyrgyzstan is surrounded by autocratic neighbours and earned its democratic sobriquet after the Tulip Revolution in 2005 and the subsequent toppling of Bakiyev’s regime in April 2010.

Atambayev, who led the country from late 2011 until last November, is often credited as the leading figure of the Central Asian nation’s two consecutive revolutions. He has presented himself as a champion of democracy, but his popularity has waned over the years against the backdrop of the 2016 referendum and his commitment to keeping the SDPK in power.

Now it looks like Atambayev has shot himself in the foot as the democratic institutions he himself used against the SDPK’s opposition have slipped through his fingers.

Smear campaign
He has discredited himself by using dirty tactics, notably, a smear campaign against a leading opposition candidate, Omurbek Babanov, during and after the October 2016 presidential election, included a trumped-up criminal case brought by the ex-president’s loyal Prosecutor-General’s Office in November. The case started with arbitrary allegations of “stoking ethnic, racial, and religious hatred” and eventually escalated in March into charges of plotting riots and attempting to seize power in the ex-Soviet country.

The fallout between Atambayev and Jeenbekov took place the day after the fresh charges were levelled against Babanov. In a twist of fate that changed everything in a little less than a month, the ex-president now finds himself with no access to the Prosecutor-General’s Office. To top it all off, his favoured prime minister is now facing the pressure he exerted on previous prime ministers and other Atambayev opponents during his presidency.

These developments are not likely to be seen as a victory for the country’s democracy. If the power struggle between Atambayev and Jeenbekov evolves into a split within the party that could lead to political instability. The 2016 presidential election was sullied by almost continuous street protests as voters protested against the obvious politically motivated cut and thrust between the leading politicians.

On the other hand, Jeenbekov’s victory last year marks a chance to make real progress in developing a dominant party system, which in turn would introduce a measure of political stability at the cost of democratic freedoms. This is a model widely used in the rest of the CIS and populations tired of poverty and chaos are often more willing to choose stability over choice.

The SDPK has long attempted to balance the clan politics of Kyrgyzstan, where the North and the South are seen as two factions. Maintaining a balance between the two is seen as paramount for preventing political volatility.

Atambayev, a northerner, was no stranger to shuffling the northerners and southerners in key government positions to maintain this dynamic balance. Southerner Jeenbekov’s rise to power was also designed as a gesture of goodwill for the Southern clans.

In the biggest change with the current tussle for power both the North and the South are backing Jeenbekov, according to independent Kyrgyz political analyst Edil Baisalov.

“There is no split in the country or the SDPK to speak of. Everyone is firmly on the side of the incumbent,” Baisalov told bne IntelliNews on April 26. "In desperation, Atambayev is trying to revive and project some regional differences claiming [that he is] speaking for the North. But again it is absolutely baseless.”

“Atambayev is left only with his circle of bodyguards, secretary of staff and [his] drivers, whom he has elevated as ministers, awarded ranks of generals or made members of parliament,” Baisalov added. “But they lack any political base on their own and won’t help him withstand increasing calls for prosecution for alleged large-scale corruption and embezzlement.”

In the light of Kyrgyzstan’s democratic experiment, the ongoing attempt at a colour revolution in Armenia could be viewed with a measure of caution; colour revolutions are not always harbingers of post-Soviet success. This is especially true in Kyrgyzstan’s case, as the country still remains in the firm grip of Russia.

News

Dismiss