The downfall of Kyrgyzstan's President Askar Akayev last month took his countrymen and foreign governments alike by surprise. The president fled the country before marchers had time to set up their yurts in the capital, Bishkek. Yulia Savchenko, a Kyrgyz television journalist who covers politics, has been in Washington since October on a Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellowship at the National Endowment for Democracy. Outlook asked her to share her perspective on events in her country:
When the revolution started, I was in Boston. I knew there was trouble in Kyrgyzstan, civil unrest in the south, but I never would have predicted what happened. We had had trouble before, and everyone was sure the president was there to stay.
The Post's opinion and commentary section runs every Sunday.
• Outlook Section
| | |
|
In March 2002, protesters came to Bishkek from the south after police killed five demonstrators. The people were angry because a member of parliament had been put in jail. They said he was arrested because he criticized the government. When the marchers got to the suburbs, I was there with my cameraman. We were between the police and the marchers. I was scared. Fortunately, no one shot.
I thought of that when demonstrations started in the south last month, protesting the rigged elections for parliament. I was worried, but our people are used to rigged elections. I didn't think anything would really happen.
On March 24, I was at the computer, watching the news agencies, talking to my friends, trying to find out what the demonstrators were doing in Bishkek. Finally, I went to sleep. Four hours later, the phone rang. It was NPR, asking if the Kyrgyz White House had been seized. It was a shock for me. Our president had fled. In four hours, everything had changed. Finally, after 15 years of Askar Akayev's rule, the country he controlled had forced him out, with no sign beforehand that it would happen.
People were happy. They cheered. Then the looting and ransacking started, and it was a nightmare for everyone.
People tend to perceive any revolution in the former Soviet Union as something that will create democracy. But in our case, no one among these new leaders is talking about democracy. We have a very colorful opposition, but they are not proclaiming democracy. I can't even think about rejoicing.
Our golden age of democracy has already passed. We had our democracy from 1991 [when the Soviet Union fell] to 1995. Our president was really romantic then. It's very easy to proclaim yourself a democrat but difficult to sustain it in a country like ours with a strong Soviet legacy. Akayev's term was due to end in 1995. For him and his family, a future without power didn't seem so bright. His wife, his son and his daughter started to become more and more influential in ruling the country. And lately we've acquired a son-in-law.
In 1995 we started to experience repression of the media and free speech. It became worse in 2000, with another presidential election. The president's family bought up the press. The president's son-in-law -- people in Kyrgyzstan call him "our son-in-law" -- acquired much of it.
After the second round of parliamentary elections last month, I was so upset. The new parliament contained 69 representatives of pro-Akayev parties and only six from the opposition. Our people expect rigging and falsification. Our leaders could write a manual. But this time it was surreal. It was too blatant. The elections were badly rigged. That was the spark that started the protests.
The opposition got half of its wish. They got rid of the president, but the parliament remains. This parliament was elected just as we were changing the structure of our government, moving from a strong presidential system to a strong parliamentary system. What we'll have is a president from the opposition who is subservient to a pro-Akayev parliament.
I expect a fierce fight, and it won't be about democracy.
