The Institute for Public Policy held a round table entitled, “Kyrgyzstan in 2006: Achievements, Lessons and Perspectives,” on January 11, 2007, with the participation of local experts - political analysts, economists and diplomats. The objective of the round table was to discuss the main events and tendencies of 2006 and their forecasts for 2007.

Opening the discussion, President of the IPP, Muratbek Imanaliev, said that 2006 had been interesting, stormy, and, most of all, unpredictable. “Many colleagues from abroad are trying to find out what is going on in Kyrgyzstan. But honestly, we cannot always answer their questions in such conditions, when new political construction emerge everyday, all breaking at the same moment.”

Most participants of the round table expressed their opinion that 2006 had not become a turning point towards a new qualitative period in political terms. The administration and the opposition demonstrated an equal lack of ideas on how to develop the country and in what directions. Vice president of American University–Central Asia, Bakyt Beshimov, said that “they [the administration and opposition] drew discussions on how to develop the country into the sphere of quarrels, not the sphere of active policy making. Neither the administration nor the opposition have an answer to the question of which model of development Kyrgyzstan should follow: post-socialist, nationalist, or liberal…”

The events of 2006, according to the Director of the Center for Political and Legal Research, Tamerlan Ibraimov, demonstrated that elites have not managed to find mechanisms and rules in order to negotiate. He said that “the main conflict is that we are building capitalism, but at the same time we are sticking with collectivist values. We will continue walking in one place until we clarify the laws regarding property rights.”

Some experts expressed the opinion that the Western model of democracy does not work in Kyrgyzstan. Program Director of the Development Programs Support Foundation, Valentin Bogatyrev, said that a new form of democracy started in 2006 in Kyrgyzstan, which is consensus, or agreement democracy. “In traditional canons of democracy, there is the rule of the majority; consensus democracy is rule by agreement, not rule of law, but rule of agreements; a subject unit is not the individual and his rights, but a clan and tribe.” Whether this circumstance is good or bad is a separate question, but, according to Valentin Bogatyrev, it symbolizes a return to the old cultural foundations of Kyrgyz society, and it has proved to be a working mechanism.

An expert of the “Democratic Governance” program of the UNDP, Zainidin Kurmanov, said that it is necessary to study thoroughly the history of oriental countries, which “successfully prosper without democracy.” However, according to him, oriental countries, when compared to Kyrgyzstan, “had, have and will continue to have a political philosophy and insert democracy in its ideology.” In Kyrgyzstan, democratic values remain alien; this concept should be reconsidered, taking into account national peculiarities. 

In economic aspects, 2006 became another year of hopes and might-have-beens, according to economic analysts. As in 2005, authorities did not demonstrate the presence of any goals or objectives in 2006, and the main achievement on the issue of economic development was the HIPC. An advisor of the Director General of “Marka Audit” Company, former Finance Minister Sultan Mederov, said that he already has one forecast for 2007 – that it will not bring many positive things, since no foundations for future development were laid during 2006. “Agriculture grew only by 1%, while industry is not even taken into account as a separate sector,” he said.

The country leadership put a goal of reaching 8% GDP growth, but at the end of the year, the growth for 2007 amounted to 2,7% only. Ulan Sarbanov, former chairman of the National Bank, said that the number does not tell about growth as such, if we consider that 2006 came after a turbulent 2005, during which the GDP grew only 0,6%.

In foreign policy, there was a practical fallback from a multi-vector policy in 2006, with Kyrgyzstan-United States relations clearly deteriorating. Neither the administration nor the opposition demonstrate a clear and consistent position on issues of foreign policy. The major policy issues of 2006 have been problems with the HIPC, building relationship in the “Russia-China-USA” triangle, problems with the American air base, and water and energy problems with neighboring countries. The impact of these issues on economics and politics will grow more and more acute in 2007. As IPP expert Erlan Abdyldaev said, in general, the role of external factors will grow in 2007, and the country leadership will have to take a series of tough decisions.

The full transcript of the roundtable will be provided soon.