Kyrgyzstan transformed from a part of a federal state (the USSR) into a sovereign, unitary, democratic republic. There was an evolutionary shift from Soviet totalitarian statehood towards democracy with a presidential form of governance. The political leadership of the country proclaimed the establishment of a secular rule-of-law state as a direction for development, enshrined in the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic.
As the state developed, it combined elements of both a presidential and a parliamentary republic. The combination of the structures of the two directions changed in one way or another as social relations evolved.
PERIODIZATION OF FORMATION
It is possible to identify three main stages in the formation of state governance in the Kyrgyz Republic.
FIRST STAGE (late 1980s — early 1990s)
This stage was one of anticipation for change, inspired by the romance of perestroika, and real steps to dismantle the Soviet administrative-command system and establish an anti-Soviet ideology on the wave of national-democratic mass movements. Whether we like it or not, all three stages of the formation of state governance are closely linked to the evolution of the institution of the presidency.
The relative bloodlessness of events during acute social upheavals can be explained by active financial and political support from Western countries and international organizations, but one cannot overlook the role of the first president of the Kyrgyz Republic. He gave an academic and liberal sheen to Kyrgyzstan's international image as an "island of democracy," attracted various forms of active external support, and instilled hopes in the population for prosperity and a better future for the country.
Thus, the 1995 elections expressed people's hopes for the possibility of implementing large-scale reforms. The majority of the country's parliament in the 1990s consisted of representatives of the Communist Party of Kyrgyzstan (CPK), whose ideas carried a semantic load of the Soviet type, representing demands for renewal and change in the public sphere. The course towards the creation of a presidential republic was explained by the necessity of consolidating power. The logical conclusion of this stage of contradictions was the dissolution of parliament in October 1994 and early elections in February 1995 on a democratic basis.
Instead of the dissolved unicameral parliament, a bicameral parliament was introduced, consisting of a 35-seat upper house and a 70-seat lower house. The electoral system was also changed, introducing a majoritarian electoral system. This step practically excluded the CPK (which had been restored only in 1993) from active political struggle and deprived it of a key role on the political arena of the republic. This was a significant victory for the president in the political struggle for power.
The concluding stage of this period in the history of Kyrgyzstan was the presidential elections of December 1995, in which Akayev won. Notably, these were the first nationwide alternative elections in the history of independent Kyrgyzstan (candidates: A. Akayev, A. Masaliev, and M. Sherimkulov). The elections on December 24, 1995, showed a fairly high voter turnout: 81.1% of voters came to the polling stations. President Akayev won the elections, receiving 71.6% of the votes. The CPK candidate A. Masaliev received 24.4% of the votes, while the third candidate Sherimkulov received 1.7% of the votes.
In February 1996, a new referendum took place, which granted significantly more powers to the President and, accordingly, reduced the influence of parliament. Thus, Kyrgyzstan smoothly transitioned from a semi-presidential republic to a presidential one. This marked the beginning of a new stage in the formation of the institution of the presidency in the Kyrgyz Republic.
Next page
SECOND STAGE (second half of the 1990s — 2000s)
This stage was a time of certain stagnation, when the gradual departure of the political leadership from the principles of democracy was accompanied by modernization rhetoric. The president now chose a policy that deepened the reforms that had begun back in the early 1990s. In the first stage, the president placed special emphasis on democratic transformations, the establishment of political pluralism, and fundamental democratic freedoms in the republic as the basis for progressive and sustainable development. In the second stage, the main emphasis was placed on the necessity of further economic reforms by the team of reformers and a technocratically oriented government.
In 1998, another significant change occurred on the political arena of the republic. The Kyrgyz Constitutional Court ruled on the possible participation of A. Akayev in the presidential elections of 2000.
According to the Constitution, the president can be re-elected twice. President Akayev was first elected in 1990 and re-elected in the December 1995 elections. In this regard, in 1997-1998, pro-government members of parliament called for amending the Constitution to allow the president to be re-elected for a third term. Some radical supporters of the president even called for the introduction of a lifetime presidential term.
This issue was actively discussed in the Jogorku Kenesh in early 1998, and the Constitutional Court ruled that the president could run for election in 2000 because, according to the existing Constitution of 1993, the president had only been elected once (in 1995).
On October 17, 1998, a new referendum was held concerning the electoral system. The main innovation was the proposal of party lists from which part of the parliamentarians would be elected. From February to March 2000, elections were held for a new composition of the bicameral Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic.
The use of pseudo-historical experience (the seven commandments of "Manas") to justify external forms of Western liberal development models inevitably led to a disconnect between words and deeds, a regression to the past, despite a large number (160) of national programs. The degradation of created social and economic institutions became a consequence of losing the benchmarks for effective governance. The failure of the state to fulfill its obligations undermined the entire system of state governance, making it increasingly dependent on external borrowings.
Next page
THIRD STAGE (2000-2005)
During the parliamentary elections (2000), a new Election Code was discussed. Unfortunately, practice revealed a number of "bottlenecks" that needed to be addressed. In particular, it was necessary to reconsider the criteria for party participation in elections, considering that the initially proposed registration period for political parties to participate in elections was extended by the Jogorku Kenesh from six months to one year. For this and other reasons, in 2000, the majority of candidates—407 out of 420—were identified as independent candidates for deputies. All of this indicated the low popularity of parties among voters.
The peak of discontent with the sharp disparities in the distribution of public goods and the outrage of the population over democracy only for selected clans and regional groups was the Aksy shooting in March 2002, which marked the beginning of a protracted political crisis in the country.
By the end of the last term of the president of the Kyrgyz Republic, some areas of state governance had changed. The necessity for comprehensive foundations for the country's development was recognized. Thus, in February 2004, the last referendum of the five-year period took place, which introduced many innovations into the Constitution: the system of arbitration courts was abolished (now these functions are performed by local courts, and the Supreme Court took on all the powers of the former Supreme Arbitration Court); a unicameral parliament was introduced (75 deputies); heads of local self-government (ayil okmotu) became elected.
SOME CONCLUSIONS
The realism of national state governance can be considered the main condition for ensuring sustainable economic growth in the country. The basis for growth can and should be innovative activity. It is determined by factors of technological renewal, the development of new market niches, and organizational innovations. While the first two factors are well-known, the third factor receives little attention in studies on state governance.
Organizational innovations require a special approach, as they belong to the class of institutional innovations and extend to the external environment in which economic activity takes place. The first to encounter the problem of organizational innovations were international organizations and donor countries operating in new independent states. Liberal reforms in many countries utilizing foreign aid did not yield the desired results, as the liberalization of reforms outside the framework of clearly functioning, strong state institutions often failed.
Perceptions of these processes have only begun to change recently. State institutions are called upon to ensure public order, without which neither legislative activity, nor banking operations, nor effective organization of social assistance, nor normal entrepreneurial activity are possible.
The global community and national construction have yet to develop effective mechanisms for building normally functioning countries. The international community knows how to provide country management services; it is much less knowledgeable about how to create self-sustaining local governance institutions.
The main obstacle is precisely the local specificity of the country. If there is no demand for power reform in a liberal sense in the state, it is simply impossible to create strong modern governance institutions there.
When providing assistance to countries in developing state institutions, efforts must be concentrated on three aspects. First, it is necessary to ensure basic public order. If this can be achieved, the next important direction of activity should be the formation of independent power institutions in the country (this is the second aspect). The third aspect of activity should be to promote the strengthening of key state institutions.