President of the Kyrgyz Republic Visits Harvard University, September 29, 2004

"Kyrgyzstan at the Crossroads"
President Askar Akaev of Kyrgyzstan Speaks at Harvard

By Erdin Beshimov - A.M. in REECA ('06)

On September 29th, 2004, the Davis Center hosted a visit by President Askar Akaev of Kyrgyzstan, who was in the United States to attend a session of the United Nations General Assembly. The talk, entitled "The Prospects for Kyrgyzstan's Model for Reform and Engagement with the West," was attended by an audience of scholars and students poised to understand the transformation of a post-Soviet republic through the eyes of the chief architect. 

In his introductory remarks, Director Timothy Colton gave a candid assessment of the transformation in Kyrgyzstan, noting that, more than any other Central Asian country,  it “experienced a very strong impulse towards democratization and the market economy in the early 1990s.” However, “a growing concentration of power in the presidential administration and seemingly increasing limitation on the press and political opposition” followed this period of progress. Colton continued that, while the aftershocks of this transition having subsided, Kyrgyzstan now stands at a crossroads, moving either towards greater democratization or towards political corruption, authoritarian rule of the Soviet-era that will render a democratic government impossible. “What has happened? And what will take to ensure that the country remains a bright spot in the region and in the world?” With these overarching questions from Professor Colton, President Akaev began his speech.  

The President began by explaining the difficulty in finding an appropriate political model on which to build the country. At the early stages of its independence, Kyrgyzstan needed to develop new guidelines of development that would “approximate the western model of public, social and economic life.” At that time, different developmental models considered and tried– the Polish, Swedish, and Turkish, in particular,  with the Chinese model continuing to be of interest to this day. But President Akaev came to the realization that, as appealing as foreign models were, their implementation seemed internally defective. Instead, Akaev’s administration decided to develop their own model, taking into account Kyrgyzstan’s distinctive national characteristics.

This approach according to Akaev, has seemed to work, and he put forward a sanguine assessment of Kyrgyzstan’s current economic situation. “Having overcome the hardest crisis developments, today our economy has reached sustainable regime of development. The GDP growth this year makes up nine percent; the inflation rate is one of the lowest of the CIS countries; and peoples’ quality of life improves yearly.” He explained that the benchmarks his administration set out to implement during the initial stage of transition are complete. “These positive changes are irreversible” confidently stated.

Returning to economic issues later in the speech, Akaev offered a more nuanced picture of his initially optimistic assessment. He outlined the numerous challenges that face the country: Kyrgyzstan has no outlet to sea, no noticeable sustainable energy source; is experiencing a high level of poverty, and largely relies on international forces. Akaev continued that “As known, the world community prefers to help those countries that help themselves. But today our today our own resources are insufficient to do so. I cannot fail to mention with bitterness that despite promises of support to poor countries from rich nations does not respond to their needs.” This latter view was a  stark assment of the country’s reality. In the absence of comprehensive regional cooperation, Kyrgyzstan’s geographic position evokes not the sense of centrality, but that of isolation. And despite the alleged macroeconomic stability, Kyrgyzstan faces tremendous difficulties alleviating poverty and building up the economy. The question of whether Kyrgyzstan’s dire economy is the result of external and geographic conditions or the result of policymaking and administrative failures, however, remained unanswered by the president.

Turning to the issue of democratization, Akaev illustrated the difficulty of this process, and the naïveté involved in expecting a full-fledged democracy so soon after the fall of authoritarianism. He reminded the audience that America needed two centuries after the signing of the constitution to institute a true democracy.

“My democratic creed is based on the principle that there is not and cannot be a universal formula for democracy applicable to all countries and peoples.” Democracy, Akaev believes, “should ripen internally in the depth of society itself, and correspond to the historical practice and experience of a country. It should organically integrate into conscience of people and only in this way will it take firm root in the public conscience.” He admonished that some people “continue to attach labels of ‘non-free’ or ‘not completely free’ country to the Kyrgyz Republic.” He warned that, far from harmless political criticism, these types of judgements translate into a policy of discrimination.

Yet the issue of what has impeded democracy in Kyrgyzstan did not find a way into Akaev’s speech. The question remains: Is democracy being suspended in order to carry out painful, rapid, and effective economic reforms, and to conduct administrative structural changes, or is the suspension of democracy concealing corruption and mismanagement?

Akaev recollected, “I remember well the dramatic events of 1991. There was no alternative to national independence. To us at that time the light was coming from two lighthouses. One was coming from Russia; the other from overseas – the USA. Without a support of the renewed democratic Russia we would not have been able to achieve independence. The Kyrgyz-Russian relations have a many centuries long history. Russia was given to us by God and History…This expression became a national slogan.”

This forms the basis of Akaev’s foreign policy doctrine whereby neither the U.S. nor Russia is favored, but equal importance is attached to cooperation with both of them. Indicative of this is the stationing of the U.S. and Russian military bases just thirty miles from each other on Kyrgyzstan’s territory. “We did this with no hesitation,” stated Akaev concerning this strategic move. Anticipating that doubts many can have, Akaev suggested that, “[there] were many set predictions regarding the inevitability of the Russian-American confrontation in this regard. This did not and could not happen in the first place because of the commonality of the interests of the USA and Russia and the entire world community in the war against a common enemy – the international terrorism.”

“Kyrgyzstan is a small country, but we provide that it can play a key role in enhancement of cooperation of great powers. Our territory did not become and will never be an area of competition and confrontation of the USA and Russia, but will be a place of their cooperation and coordination of interests. This is one of the most important fundamentals of the Kyrgyz foreign policy,” summed up Akaev. China was mysteriously omitted.

In the time reserved for questions someone asked, as many anticipated, about the pending presidential handover in Kyrgyzstan. This issue is central to democratization in Central Asia and many want to see the first precedent. Announcing that he will step down as president, Akaev answered, “I am for the people choosing the next president. Therefore, I have not aimed to determine a successor. Our people are educated and wise and I am convinced that it will choose a worthy next president.”

- Reproduced by permission of the Davis Center's newsletter, Novosti, Fall 2004 .

[Back to top].

Program on Central Asia and the Caucasus
Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies
1730 Cambridge Street Rm S-320
Cambridge, MA 02138
centasiafas.harvard.edu
617-496-2643 | 617-495-8319 (fax)