EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - Referendum Ratchets Up Rancor in Kyrgyzstan Political Analysis

EURASIA INSIGHT

REFERENDUM RATCHETS UP RANCOR IN KYRGYZSTAN POLITICAL ANALYSIS
2/05/03

Rather than breaking a political stalemate and promoting reconciliation, political analysts say the results of Kyrgyzstan’s constitutional referendum appear to be exacerbating the rancorous mood in the country. With no end to the political confrontation in sight, Kyrgyzstan remains prone to instability.

President Askar Akayev has portrayed the February 2 referendum as the best way to settle the increasingly contentious political battle over Kyrgyzstan’s development. According to official statistics, over 75 percent of voters supported a new constitution, which was framed by an expert committee hand-picked by the president. Over 77 percent said yes to a second referendum question on whether Akayev should serve out his presidential term, due to expire in 2005. Administration supporters say the results provide Akayev with a mandate to pursue the administration’s policies, while discrediting opposition calls for the president’s resignation. [For additional information see the EurasiaNet Human Rights archive].

Opposition leaders, however, are dismissing the referendum tally, charging the government with massive vote fraud. Opposition observers assert that less than 40 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in the referendum, far below the 50 percent threshold required to make the results valid. In the southern Ak-Sui Region, scene of a March riot that left at least 6 dead [for additional information see the EurasiaNet Culture archives], referendum participation was only about 10 percent, according to an opposition statement.

Meanwhile a statement distributed by the anti-Akayev Kyrgyz Committee for Human Rights (KCHR) on February 4 detailed numerous ballot irregularities. For example, the KCHR document alleged that students at the State National University were threatened with expulsion by administrators unless they voted "yes" on both referendum questions. It also cited numerous instances in which independent observers were barred from watching the tabulation of ballots.

Some observers believe the actual results may lie somewhere in between the official and opposition accounts. Central Asia analyst Catherine Fitzpatrick suggested a narrow majority of voters could have backed Akayev’s administration on both questions, but she cautioned that whatever the actual numbers, the referendum is unlikely to promote stability.

"It may be that the government has more support for maintaining the status quo than the opposition has," Fitzpatrick said in characterizing the government’s victory as hollow.

"Whenever you have a referendum in these [former Soviet] countries it erodes public trust because it tends to be fixed," Fitzpatrick added. "The numbers are always prone to manipulation."

Other observers expect Akayev, utilizing his referendum mandate, to attempt in the coming weeks to deal a crippling blow to his political opponents. Local experts suggest the president’s first move may be the dissolution of parliament. Under the new constitution, a unicameral body will replace the existing bicameral legislature. The reorganization, observers add, may make it easier for Akayev to exert influence over the legislative branch. Some fear that the government will resort to vote-rigging in a new parliamentary election to exclude its most ardent critics. In any event, new election procedures, shifting the vote from party lists to first-past-the-post contests, could make it more difficult for opposition movements to win seats in the new parliament.

John Schoeberlein, director of the Harvard University Program on Central Asia and the Caucasus, expressed concern that Akayev may be tempted to crack down on opposition leaders. "It’s reasonable to expect that there will be more arbitrary behavior [on the government’s part]," Schoeberlein said.

Kyrgyz opposition figures, meanwhile, deny that Akayev possesses a popular mandate for his administration. "The rigging of the referendum will not strengthen the government’s power either inside the country, or in the international arena," Opposition MP Omurbek Tekebayev told the Interfax news agency February 3.

Fitzpatrick suggested it is now important for the international community to exert pressure on the Akayev administration not to take retaliatory action against the opposition. "Unfortunately, who is going to call them [the Kyrgyz government] on it [possible rights abuses]," she added, noting that the United States is preoccupied by the looming campaign against Iraq.

There is a risk that the government’s post-referendum policies could hasten the radicalization of the opposition, Fitzpatrick said. "If they suffer repression, it could push them in a less democratic direction," she said.

Some observers, including Schoeberlein, expect a continuation of the political muddle in which Kyrgyzstan has been mired for almost a year since the Ak-Sui tragedy. [For additional information see the EurasiaNet Opposition Reports]. "A continuation of the stalemate is highly possible in which Akayev serves out his term without being effective, and without the country moving forward," he said.

Kyrgyzstan now finds itself in a "rolling-thunder situation," in which the administration-opposition stalemate could suddenly deteriorate into political violence, Fitzpatrick said. Such a scenario may not be likely, but it cannot be ruled out over the near to medium term, she said.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.