by ERIKA MARAT
One year after Kyrgyzstan adopted a parliamentary system the question arises whether a strong parliament can really ensure freedoms better than a centralized presidential system. Introduced after the violent regime change in 2010, Kyrgyzstan’s parliamentary system was to bring greater openness and equality after a decade of authoritarian leadership. However, in a recent resolution, the parliament has moved to oppress civic freedoms and freedom of the mass media in a manner more closely resembling the typical governance of post-Soviet authoritarian regimes. However, such moves have previously contributed to stirring social unrest in the country.
BACKGROUND: At a constitutional referendum last year, Kyrgyzstan’s ethnic majority and minority groups both voted to support the transition from a presidential system to a parliamentary one. The referendum took place just two weeks after ethnic violence in southern Kyrgyzstan claimed the lives of approximately 470 people and forced 400,000 to flee their homes. In spite of the uncertainty of the situation in post-conflict Kyrgyzstan, voters turned up at polling stations en masse. In return, the interim government pledged that the new constitution would move Kyrgyzstan away from the possibility of concentration of power in the hands of one person or a powerful elite. Thus, Kyrgyzstan sought to avoid excessive control over public life and make the political process more transparent.
While over the past year Kyrgyzstan indeed experienced greater freedom of speech and was able to conduct free and transparent parliamentary elections, the parliament’s recent undemocratic decisions demonstrate that the country is still caught in the cycle of political oppression. On June 17, the parliament issued a decree aiming at regulating interethnic relations through controlling the media and restricting certain behavior. According to 95 of the total 120 MPs who voted for the decree, this would help sustain stability in the country.
CACI for more