In Kyrgyzstan, the first signs of a political thaw are beginning to be noticed
Recent events in the political life of Kyrgyzstan have introduced several signs that may indicate a softening of the political climate. The Supreme Court has returned the case of journalist Mahabat Tajibek kyzy for reconsideration, akyn Askat Zhetigen has been released from a punitive isolation facility, and there is a noticeable change in the tone of political statements, creating the impression of a cautious reassessment of old approaches in politics.
The speech of President Sadyr Japarov in the Jogorku Kenesh was also a significant moment, as the head of state held an open discussion with deputies. Many parliamentarians noted that this format of meeting demonstrates a more transparent interaction between the various branches of power.
In addition, the authorities made several statements aimed at improving trust among entrepreneurs. The president emphasized that businessmen whose assets were illegally seized could appeal to the prosecutor's office, and if the facts are confirmed, the state will return them to their rightful owners. These words were perceived by the business community as a signal of readiness for constructive dialogue.
All these events create an atmosphere of cautious political thaw. Although we are not talking about major changes, these are the first steps towards changing the tone of political dialogue in the country.
At this moment, the Media Action Platform of Kyrgyzstan proposed to use this new dynamic to initiate a constructive institutional dialogue between the state, media, and civil society.
The need for such a dialogue is relevant not only for journalists but also for the state — this is precisely what we will discuss in this article.
Why are independent journalists important for the state?
The discussion about the role of journalism often begins with a mistaken emphasis. Sometimes it seems that independent media are primarily needed by journalists to preserve professional freedom. However, in reality, independent journalism is necessary for the state.
Effective governance requires reliable information about what is happening in the country. Officials receive data through reports, statistics, and memos, but there is a limitation: bureaucratic staff rarely report information upwards that could undermine their own reputation or the decisions of management. Therefore, the information reaching the upper echelons of power becomes more smoothed out and optimistic than the actual state of affairs.
Journalism, on the other hand, operates on different principles. It is not tied to hierarchy and can cover aspects that do not appear in official reports. This is why journalistic investigations often become the first signals of problems that are later confirmed by state bodies.
In Kyrgyzstan, journalists have repeatedly raised issues in the public space that later became the subject of official actions. It is important not only to mention examples but also to understand the mechanisms of their operation.
One of the most striking examples is the investigations related to the customs system and Rayimbek Matraimov, conducted in collaboration with Azattyk, Kloop, and the international network OCCRP.
These journalists did not just voice accusations; they systematically demonstrated, based on documents and evidence, how shadow financial flows related to customs operate. Before these publications, the topic was discussed informally, but afterward, it became central to the public agenda of the country, leading to official reactions and active state intervention. Thus, journalism not only informed but also set the direction for further actions.
The situation with Aziz Batukaev developed differently. There was no single loud investigation, but Kyrgyz media continued to raise this topic for a long time. Outlets such as Azattyk, 24.kg, Elgezit.kg, and Kaktus Media regularly returned to questions about his release and reminded of the consequences.
Ultimately, due to the accumulated public demand, the case was reopened, and law enforcement actions followed. This example demonstrates that journalism can influence not only through loud investigations but also by consistently keeping a topic in public attention.
Such an approach is also observed in less resonant but no less significant cases. Publications about dubious government procurements, conflicts of interest, and the use of municipal land in Bishkek have become starting points for inspections and intervention by the authorities. The story surrounding TSUM also follows this pattern: first, public discontent arises, then the media engages with the issue, and only after that does the system begin to respond.
Similarly, Bolot Temirov's investigations into the oil industry raised important questions regarding resource distribution and possible connections between business and government officials, bringing to public attention topics that had not previously been openly discussed. These publications also led to inspections and official reactions, confirming the same pattern.
It is important to note another aspect. Journalists work not only with documents and facts but also communicate with people. Through reports, interviews, and publications, the media conveys to the authorities the real problems faced by regions, entrepreneurs, and citizens. This information rarely makes it into official reports, but it reflects how government decisions are perceived in practice.
When such a feedback channel functions, the state can respond to problems more quickly before they escalate into crises. However, if this channel weakens, the authorities begin to see the country only through the prism of official information.
In this context, the issue of independent journalism is not a conflict between media and the state. It is a question of governance quality. A state that hears only praise risks facing a reality that it has stopped being informed about.
Dialogue between the state and media as an element of governance
Discussion of dialogue between power and independent media makes sense only when it goes beyond emotions and enters the realm of governance. Otherwise, it may become merely a formal statement or political gesture that does not influence real practices. The experience of various countries shows that interaction with journalism is a key element that allows the state to maintain an adequate perception of what is happening.
Any hierarchical system ultimately faces the fact that information within it changes as it moves upward. At lower levels, it may be quite accurate, but at higher levels, it becomes smoothed out and adapted to the expectations of management. As a result, decisions are made based on a picture that often underestimates risks and problems. This phenomenon is described not only in political practice but also in management theory, explaining why even strong states sometimes make mistakes.
In countries with stable institutions, this problem is addressed through external sources of information, among which independent media play a significant role.
In the USA, journalistic investigations by leading publications have led to parliamentary hearings and reviews of political decisions for many years, starting from the Watergate scandal to modern cases related to government contracts.
In the UK, the scandal involving illegal phone tapping uncovered by journalists led to a major investigation and reforms in the media. In South Korea, the combination of journalistic publications and public pressure became one of the factors leading to the president's resignation. In each of these cases, journalism served as a channel through which the system received signals about its own failures.
However, an important aspect of these examples is not only the presence of strong journalism but also the existence of mechanisms that allow information obtained from the media to become part of the state process. Without this, even the most resonant publications remain outside the management system and become merely a factor of pressure rather than a tool for correction.
For this reason, many countries are forming sustainable forms of interaction that allow the journalistic agenda to be integrated into the context of decisions. One such form is regular consultations and discussions involving media, experts, and government bodies, where initiatives are considered before their final adoption. In European practice, such mechanisms are often integrated into the law-making process, allowing for criticism to be taken into account at an early stage and reducing the likelihood of conflicts.
No less important is an open information policy, in which government structures actively engage with journalists rather than limiting themselves to formal responses. In Northern European countries, access to information and transparency of government operations are seen as the foundation of trust, and regular communications with the media become part of the daily work of institutions.
Moreover, there are more complex forms of interaction that imply professional dialogue. These can be expert platforms and public discussions where representatives of power and media can analyze sensitive issues outside the pressure of the current agenda. In Germany and some other European countries, such formats allow for the discussion of complex topics, including reforms and crisis situations, in a more balanced and analytical environment.
In situations involving resonance or conflicts, applied mechanisms are used that connect different parties within a single process. These can be temporary working groups or special commissions where journalistic information is compared with official data and becomes part of a broader analysis. Such an approach helps transform public tension into constructive discussion and reduce the level of confrontation.
Digital transformation facilitates these processes, making interaction faster and more accessible. Open databases, online platforms, and digital communication channels reduce the distance between society, media, and the state, allowing for quicker responses to emerging signals and decreasing the risk of accumulating problems.
Overall, experience shows that dialogue between the state and media is an integral part of the management system. Where it is established, the state gains a more accurate understanding of what is happening and can adjust its actions before mistakes escalate into crises. Where such a system is absent, a gap gradually arises between reality and its perception, which may remain unnoticed for a long time but ultimately leads to serious consequences.
Thus, the issue of dialogue goes beyond professional discussion and becomes a matter of the effectiveness of the state itself, its ability to perceive the country not only through internal reports but also through independent sources of information that reflect the real life of society.
Conclusion
The dialogue between the state and independent media is not limited to political gestures; it concerns how accurately the authorities understand the country they govern. When there is a full-fledged feedback channel, decisions are based on the real picture rather than on smoothed reports.
The experience of Kyrgyzstan and other countries demonstrates that the resilience of the system is determined not by the absence of criticism but by the ability to perceive it and transform it into management conclusions. Journalism, in this context, becomes not a source of pressure but a mechanism that helps identify problems before they escalate into crises.
The current moment provides an opportunity to create a permanent dialogue integrated into the management system. Whether it becomes an effective tool or remains at the level of declarations depends not only on the state of the media but also on the ability of the state to see and recognize its reality.
Sanjar Erkindikov
