Two Views on Bakiyev’s Victory

Writing for Pakistan’s Daily Times, Simon Ostrovsky has the following comment on Bakiyev’s victory.

But the revolt, and Bakiyev’s subsequent legitimating of events through his landslide election win, sends a frightening signal to entrenched leaders in the region, analysts said.

“The election shows that people supported the leader of their revolution. His victory encourages the opposition in neighbouring countries by showing that a revolution can end successfully,” said Orozbek Moldaliyev, who heads a Bishkek think tank.

Contrast this view with the following excerpt from Erica Marat’s latest for Eurasia Daily Monitor.

Not all of those who voted for Bakiyev genuinely supported his candidacy. Many voted for stability in the country, fearing the fragile situation could unravel if a national leader was not clearly defined. The Bakiyev-Kulov partnership was a key factor in Bakiyev gaining nation-wide approval. The Kyrgyz capital was especially skeptical about the elections, as looting and numerous demonstrations have plagued the city since March 24. Indeed, about 3% of Bishkek’s registered voters voted “against all” candidates: “None of the candidates deserves the presidency. I voted against all, although this is not the way out,” said one 32-year old entrepreneur from Bishkek. For some Kyrgyz the presidential race represented a choice between the lesser of two evils — Bakiyev was regarded as the best possible figure among a field of rather unfamiliar candidates. His wide support is, therefore, susceptible to sharp decline. [Emphasis added--Nathan]

It is way too easy to look at the landslide victory and think that it is a sign of broad and deep support for the Bakiyev-Kulov alliance. Voter preferences are definitely key, and I definitely look forward to hearing what Alan Cordova finds.

People voted for Bakiev just for the sake of voting for him, rather than any specific policies or ideological alignment. I’m going to look into this further in the days ahead.

Alan notes that voting one’s political preferences may not be common in Kyrgyzstan. In my limited experience with voting in the former Soviet Union, I’d go right out on the limb and say that voters are not voting their political preferences and that Alan and Erica are much closer to the truth of the matter than Orozbek Moldaliyev (whose point of view certainly seems to be in the minority).

And my point in all of this is to be the killjoy that I so excel at being. I sincerely doubt that any opposition groups are emboldened by Bakiyev’s victory at the ballot box, and I am not at all convinced that they should be (considering that he appears to be far from the type of revolutionary figure found in Georgia or Ukraine). Bakiyev is making some of the right noises, and I wish him the best of luck, but Kyrgyzstan’s revolution (insofar as it was one) has entered the malaise phase rather quickly. And, as Erica Marat goes on to say in the aforementioned article, the toughest tasks lies ahead.