Kamchybek Tashiev's resignation from the position of Chairman of the State National Security Committee has sparked intense discussion in society, and many experts are already calling this event a crisis. However, Bakyt Baketaev, a well-known political scientist, advises approaching this issue without excessive emotions. In an interview with VB.KG, he shared his thoughts on the current situation and possible scenarios for its development.
Baketaev, who participated in decision-making during four revolutions in Kyrgyzstan, states that his assessment of the situation is based on experience rather than emotions. He emphasizes that Tashiev's resignation is an important but manageable event in the political process, and such personnel changes always have their strategic implications.
The first scenario suggests the possibility of reaching an agreement and stabilization, which is the most likely outcome. The President and Tashiev have a long history of cooperation, having gone through many challenges together and made difficult decisions. Over the past five years, the vertical of power has been significantly strengthened, creating conditions for internal stability. Disagreements between them in such a tandem are normal, as many decisions are made in the management process, and they do not always align in their risk assessments. If the decision to resign was made, it is likely that the President felt that the current balance of power could threaten stability. This may be related to the excessive activity of some of Tashiev's supporters, who began to prematurely position themselves for future arrangements. Tashiev, fully aware of the legal consequences of his actions, understands that any steps perceived as a threat to constitutional order could provoke sharp measures from the President, who has already demonstrated a willingness to act in the interests of the state. Therefore, the most probable scenario is one in which the parties reach an agreement and redistribute roles without open conflict.
The second scenario concerns the emergence of hidden competition and managed turbulence, although it is less likely. This option suggests that part of Tashiev's team may disagree with the decision to resign and begin to act independently, leading to increased tension within the system. In Kyrgyzstan, political mobilization can occur rapidly, especially in the context of rumors.
The main risks of this scenario include:
- fragmentation of elites, which could lead to managerial paralysis in some agencies,
- information escalation, including leaks and compromising materials, which are traditionally used in power struggles,
- the possibility of street protests — Kyrgyzstan has experience with the rapid transition of political conflicts to the streets; even limited actions can trigger a snowball effect,
- interest from external players — any internal instability will immediately attract the attention of international actors.
However, the likelihood of the second scenario being realized is decreasing due to a number of factors. Tashiev, as an experienced politician, understands the consequences of possible escalation, and the legal and coercive tools of the state today are more stringent and centralized than in previous revolutionary periods. Additionally, society is tired of change and shows no desire for radical transformations.
From his experience, Bakyt Baketaev concludes that crises in Kyrgyzstan arise not from personnel changes but from the loss of control over processes. As long as decisions remain manageable and are made within the system, the country will maintain stability. The President has clearly shown that the priority is the state interest, not personal connections. The future development of the situation will depend on the maturity of all participants. If the main goal remains stability, the second scenario will remain at the level of hypotheses. Kyrgyzstan currently needs the completion of ongoing reforms, not a new struggle for power," Bakyt Baketaev summarized.
