Some politicians and public members have much criticism against the current version of the constitution. However, the new draft of the basic law won’t create conditions for the stable development of Kyrgyzstan, as some prominent political analysts think.
Follow us on LinkedIn!
Currently, Kyrgyzstan is actively working to develop the new draft of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic. The current draft suggests the significant strengthening of presidential powers and reduction of powers of the legislative branch. The constitutional council keeps on working, but it considers the already proposed “framework” of the document.
This ambitious suggestion has caused bitter criticism of some part of the society – activists, lawyers, experts, politicians and ordinary citizens. In their opinion, the country must continue to live with the current constitution that was adopted 10 years ago, and should amend it only after the parliamentary elections (they are postponed to the summer of 2021) without haste.
However, the supporters of the now influential politician Sadyr Zhaparov disagree with this position. According to them, there’s no use in protracting this process, and on January 10, 2021, on the presidential election day, the citizens must have their say: whether Kyrgyzstan must be a presidential or parliamentary country. If more than a half of all voters choose the presidential rule, the current draft of the constitution that is actively discussed now will become effective.
Some key experts in politics interviewed by CABAR.sia tend to think that the new draft of the constitution will be adopted. However, they also think that it will mark the beginning of the new phase of political instability, which the country has faced since October of this year.
Director of the centre for political and legal studies Tamerlan Ibraimov claimed the situation in Kyrgyzstan is aggravated because of the division of the society into pros and cons of the adoption of the new constitution, which, in turn, will reflect badly not only on political, but also on social and economic processes.
“The worsening of the situation in Kyrgyzstan can lead to the confrontation of political forces,” he said.
The expert leaves open the possibility that the authority can be allured into exerting regular pressure on the opponents. If it happens, it can cause the aggravation of the situation, not the solution of problems.
According to Ibraimov, the current unstable situation has had the worst impact on foreign investors, who take the situation cautiously. It concerns not only foreign, but also domestic investors.
Political analyst Chinara Esengul said that the confrontation between the supporters of and opponents to the constitutional amendments can lead to instability.
The biggest impact will be on the national economy, she said. The reason is the shift away from legal actions and double standards applied to the decision of the same agency. In particular, she noted the cancellation of the CEC decision on repeated parliamentary election in December and calling of presidential election on January 10.
“The global community witnesses that we go beyond the legal environment. It will lead to the fact that donor organisations will not be able to provide aid to us despite the existing agreements and treaties. Now many projects are suspended because the concerned parties abroad wait until Kyrgyzstan has legitimate government,” she said.
According to the political analyst, it will have a serious impact on the socioeconomic status. There is no question of development as it’s the case of mere survival.
Political analyst Emil Dzhuraev thinks that the new draft of the constitution will be adopted and this fact will hardly have any significant impact on the situation in the country. However, with time, when the constitution shows its worth, all the power will be concentrated in the president’s office.
“So, we can expect the risks of persecutions, excesses and difficult relationships between the president and other participants of political life,” he said.
Where’s the consensus?
According to Tamerlan Ibraimov, the path to consensus lies through the ability of different parties to listen to each other. He noted that some people in the society are tired of the parliament, others are tired of the president. The true reason of the conflict is not the constitution, but the fact that different parts of the society can hardly listen to each other. The only right way is to follow the legitimate path. But it causes big problems now.
“Both presidential and parliamentary forms of government work great in different countries. None of them works here. In fact, it’s not the constitutional amendments we should think about, but economy and real sector. Once we change the constitution, we won’t improve anything and the reforms won’t go faster,” he said.
Meanwhile, Chinara Esengul thinks that Kyrgyzstan will never reach a consensus. According to her, the country is at such stage now when the relationships between the rivals will be decided at rallies. The consensus could be possible if the parliamentary election was held on December 20, she said. The parliament would be legitimate in this case. Besides, Chinara Esengul emphasised that the people who want to come to power do not want to negotiate. Therefore, there’s only one way to have one’s say – to go out to protests.
“The moment for consensus was lost. We will be moving in the path when the authorities will do whatever they want,” she said.
Emil Dzhuraev also thinks that it’s impossible to reach a consensus now because the constitution should be coherent. This is impossible now. However, he noted that fundamental points of dispute could be kept to a minimum now. In particular, he said that the parliament should remain strong even despite the presidential form of government. The check and balance system could be applied here despite the prevailing power of the president’s office.
The political analyst also said that the constitution should be fully analysed, effective and ineffective laws should be identified in order to have the parties come to agreement. Only after that the basic law could be amended instead of adopting the new draft.
Will there be a referendum?
The deputies of the Zhogorku Kenesh have initiated to hold the referendum to determine the form of government on January 10 together with the presidential election. In particular, they suggested asking the voters what form of government they want – presidential or parliamentary. The draft law was already considered in the first reading, but deputies did not have time to vote on it.
According to Tamerlan Ibraimov, the main purpose of the authorities in power is to legitimise the process of constitutional amendment and change of the government form. He noted that the referendum is not legitimate and there’s no public consensus on this issue. There are different, often diametrically opposed, points of view. Despite that, Tamerlan Ibraimov thinks that the authorities can hold a referendum at the presidential election, if they want to.
“However, it unclear whether the referendum is on constitution or the form of government. The authorities are now acting ad hoc, often change their mind because they see the confrontation in the society,” he said.
Chinara Esengul predicts that the authorities will hold the referendum on the new constitution on January 10. According to her, the draft of the new constitution will be prepared by January 10. The political analyst said that those who want to come to power just reassure their opponents by saying that draft of the constitution is widely discussed, but it won’t be adopted at the presidential election. However, the referendum will be held, after all.
According to Emil Dzhuraev, the situation with the referendum is uncertain. However, he thinks that the statement by Sadyr Zhaparov that the public opinion poll would be held first indicates that the politician knows his steps are illegal.
“He knows that the process and the approach that are used to push the constitution are illegitimate,” he said.
According to political analysts, Kyrgyzstan has never had the parliamentary government, so there’s no question about its inefficiency.
Tamerlan Ibraimov added that the mixed system, which is now practised in Kyrgyzstan, works well in many countries. But Kyrgyzstan has a problem of administration and responsibility of leaders; therefore, this form of government seems inefficient to some people.
Emil Dzhuraev and Chinara Esengul also think that the parliamentary government as it is has never been in Kyrgyzstan. The president de facto dominated over the parliament and the government.
This article was prepared as part of the Giving Voice, Driving Change – from the Borderland to the Steppes Project