Comments on: Kyrgyz Constitutional Reform http://kyrgyzstan.neweurasia.net/2006/05/03/kyrgyz-constitutional-reform/ neweurasia\\\'s Kyrgyzstan blog Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:50:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3 By: James http://kyrgyzstan.neweurasia.net/2006/05/03/kyrgyz-constitutional-reform/#comment-500 James Sat, 06 May 2006 03:35:24 +0000 http://kyrgyzstan.neweurasia.net/2006/05/03/kyrgyz-constitutional-reform/#comment-500 Were I a Kyrgyz citizen, my vote would go for a parliamentary, winner-take-all system based on districts, <em>not</em> proportional representation (a system not unlike the British one). I would vote to vest all the power in the prime minister, and make the President basically a figurehead. Reasoning: The Kyrgyz want a strong leader, and I don't blame them. Kyrgyzstan has a long way to go, and IMO it probably wouldn't be ideal to pack the parliament with a million different ideological parties. That being said, some combination/compromise with part-proportional part-winner-take-all system might not be a bad idea for the reasons you mention. I strongly agree with you that term limits are absolutely paramount in the constitution. They should be explicit, and stipulate near impossible criteria for changing that aspect of the constitution. However, I think that the term limit should be two terms, like the US, so that the prime minister has an incentive to respond to the electorate. Creating a unified, powerful government capable of implementing much needed reforms while at the same time developing democratic priniciples is a tall order, but I think term limits would go a long way toward averting the potential for taking that power too far. Furthermore, the alternative - a democratic but impotent Kyrgyzstan - is much less palatable than a strong elected government. Were I a Kyrgyz citizen, my vote would go for a parliamentary, winner-take-all system based on districts, not proportional representation (a system not unlike the British one). I would vote to vest all the power in the prime minister, and make the President basically a figurehead.

Reasoning: The Kyrgyz want a strong leader, and I don’t blame them. Kyrgyzstan has a long way to go, and IMO it probably wouldn’t be ideal to pack the parliament with a million different ideological parties.

That being said, some combination/compromise with part-proportional part-winner-take-all system might not be a bad idea for the reasons you mention.

I strongly agree with you that term limits are absolutely paramount in the constitution. They should be explicit, and stipulate near impossible criteria for changing that aspect of the constitution. However, I think that the term limit should be two terms, like the US, so that the prime minister has an incentive to respond to the electorate.

Creating a unified, powerful government capable of implementing much needed reforms while at the same time developing democratic priniciples is a tall order, but I think term limits would go a long way toward averting the potential for taking that power too far. Furthermore, the alternative - a democratic but impotent Kyrgyzstan - is much less palatable than a strong elected government.

]]>