Kyrgyz Constitutional Reform
Hoorah! President Kurmanbek Bakiev has finally announced a date for Kyrgyzstan’s new constitutional draft to be completed - August. And further good news, Azimbek Beknazarov, a man who has repeatedly denounced the Head of State’s glaring incompetence has been put in charge.
It’s glaringly obvious that Bakiyev has made these moves in an attempt to defuse tension and disquiet over his current government from the opposition. Yet several key points are now raised.
Firstly when will such reforms actually be implemented? Bakiyev has previously said 2009 - when his current term should conclude - yet this is simply too far away given the mess Kyrgyzstan finds itself in. Is the government prepared to immediately implement reform? We shall see.
Secondly how will the people of Kyrgyzstan vote? The overall popularity of Nursultan Nazarbayev in Bishkek is undeniable. Stability, strong economic growth, an emerging middle-class - will the population, hoping for a similar leader, vote for another strong-man constitution?
Finally and most importantly, will the vote be free and fair? I don’t care what anyone else says but Bakiyev and Saakashvili (in Georgia) achieved completely unrealistic majorities in their post-revolution elections. Whilst in both cases progress had been made, if this was just a mere show for the west, then the chances of the government tweaking the vote are extremely likely.
Im interested to know what form you believe Kyrgyzstan’s political system should take?
I’ll get the ball rolling:
Parliamentary system, with Proportional Representation to guarantee the emergence of ideologically driven political parties. That might go some way to kicking out some of the current corrupt criminals in the National Assembly, and draw to a close the Kyrgyz personality-driven aspect to all politics. The President should only be allowed to stand for one 6 year-term with fairly limited power (dissolving the legislature if it cannot form a government in 30 days, appointing judges, commander-in-chief of the army)
on May 6th, 2006 at 5:35 am
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.