... In fact, "what else" is the main part, as it is becoming clearer on the second day of the official start of electoral campaigns. Ak Jol, the pary of the President, which has nothing else in it other than its association with Bakiev and all the governmental power, is seeing its way cleared by crude, blatant abuse of power toward guaranteed victory by landslide.
The minister of education - the 'shepherd' of all university and school system personnel - has been replaced; a less-than-vigorous yes-man was replaced by a much more dedicated yes-woman who already had been in that position before and left a very bitter taste in the mouth. The governor of Osh oblast, former opposition politician and recent 'convert', has been charged for some abuse, and replaced by a reliable person from the White House itself.
Today, the interim prime minister has been politely asked to step down. In a way, this one had to happen, because PM Atambaev is the leader of one of two main contender parties against Ak Jol. But still, with the minimal leverage that a prime minister has over his ministers and regional administrators, the sacking of him just a few weeks short of the moment when a new PM could come in fully legitimate, is very upsetting. Especially that Atambaev had been in a very busy schedule lately, and performing quite well in very difficult economic condition. Bakiev just did not have any reason to sack him except for clearing the way for his own party. Therefore, this is perhaps the most blatant use of admin-resurs one might imagine.
This is very sad, although perhaps, sadly, only so predictable. Atambaev and his party may not end up losing in this situation, after all. Atambaev has been asked to leave at the height of his performance. He was doing very well, and he was asked to leave - this is the bottom-line that ought to be clear to voters.
Another thought that crosses mind is, in near desperation, alas: probably it's time to give up any hopes on the present generation of decrepit Soviet partocrats-turned-"democrats" devoid of any higher aspirations. Their shackles of corruptedness and abject, narrow-minded self-seeking are perhaps of such kind as to be insurmountable, and the only hope is for them to get old and leave politics. But realistically, it is dangerous to submit to such thoughts. New generations must come in while the old one is still in. The change of generations is not on blocks, one comes in and the other goes out. It happens continuously. So, while the old still last, the real issue is for the fresh, younger minds not to become carbon-copies of the old - and that is a much more important issue, and very alarming, too.
In the meantime, I feel a growing anger inside. Which means I am not a total pessimist as yet.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Abbas, Olmert, Bush... another moment of Hope
Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestine's leader Mahmoud Abbas came together in Annapolis (capital of Maryland, btw!) for a highest-level conference in the last more than half-a-dozen years, hosted by the closely involved President Bush, and honorably attended by representatives of many countries.
Hope dies last; to date, so many people on both sides have died, this one better be a fruitful moment of hope now. The speeches by both Abbas and Olmert were very serious. They both openly mentioned nearly all of the most sore issues between the sides. They were both very emotional (Abbas's speech was so emotional toward the end,I wonder how he was able to prevent tears). Both of them have staked their entire political authority and legitimacy in these talks.
Importantly, Abbas did mention terrorism (referring to Arab terrorism against Israelis) in the most open way one could expect, condemned it, and committed to fighting it no matter what. This was an important admission, although perhaps easier than for Olmert to admit Israeli violence upon the Palestinians. In Olmert's otherwise very strong speech, in which he truly said many things that can easily jeopardize his own leadership, he did not say anything to the effect of admitting Israel's systematically disproportionate "retaliations" upon the Palestinians... At a second thought, it is perhaps acceptable that he fail to admit anything of this, for he did already say much more than a prudent Israeli leader would say.
Now that both sides sound to have truly committed, and have opened up to talking about the most sensitive issues, and sound prepared to make "painful" decisions, one wonders how far the two leaders will be able to carry the weight. Hamas, to which Olmert referred openly as the terrorist group, is not a handful of suicide bombers - it accounts for a very sizeable portion of Palestinians, and Abbas has had to really struggle to stay in power. Similarly, Israeli prime ministers have not been very immune to domestic challenge, and the Knesset is not a body that just goes along. So, with so much hope hyped up, one hopes these two will be able to command legitimacy and support with their domestic bases.
This 'last minute' initiative on the part of the Bush administration, and himself personally, - an initiative not at all characteristic of Bush - is interesting, and hopefully carries true commitment. This is obviously an effort to leave something truly good as his legacy. Abbas expressed a hope about Bush's presidency that may be too late already: "We hope that this will be the culmination of your legacy for the world -- a world more free of violence, persecution and fanaticism." If anything, 'all other things being equal', the world has become more violent, intolerant and fanatical, in significant degrees thanks to Bush's foreign policy. But nonetheless, this last stroke of brush in Bush's presidency, if it succeeds, may indeed tilt the balance in his favor very significantly. And, if it happens, this one good news will have come from a kind of politics that Bush has mostly avoided.
Hope is certainly a noble thing; and as any noble thing, this one is also an easy target for the bigots, intolerants, and fanatics. Already, a few hours after the formal opening speeches, voices of criticism and rejection have come out against both Abbas and Olmert. Abbas in his speech was especially coming strong to touch some strings in the peoples' hearts, addressing both Israeli people and Palestinian people. Olmert was a bit less poignant in trying to make his message acceptable. I believe, Abbas's emphasis was well targeted, and it is important for the whole peace process now to be constantly also in communication with the peoples of both sides, and not become isolated in cabinet negotiations. One thing that certainly must be done to prevent the malign effect of the bigots and fanatics on the broader public support for the process on both sides, is to deliver the peace-making message more strongly than the bigots and fanatics against it do.
Hope dies last; to date, so many people on both sides have died, this one better be a fruitful moment of hope now. The speeches by both Abbas and Olmert were very serious. They both openly mentioned nearly all of the most sore issues between the sides. They were both very emotional (Abbas's speech was so emotional toward the end,I wonder how he was able to prevent tears). Both of them have staked their entire political authority and legitimacy in these talks.
Importantly, Abbas did mention terrorism (referring to Arab terrorism against Israelis) in the most open way one could expect, condemned it, and committed to fighting it no matter what. This was an important admission, although perhaps easier than for Olmert to admit Israeli violence upon the Palestinians. In Olmert's otherwise very strong speech, in which he truly said many things that can easily jeopardize his own leadership, he did not say anything to the effect of admitting Israel's systematically disproportionate "retaliations" upon the Palestinians... At a second thought, it is perhaps acceptable that he fail to admit anything of this, for he did already say much more than a prudent Israeli leader would say.
Now that both sides sound to have truly committed, and have opened up to talking about the most sensitive issues, and sound prepared to make "painful" decisions, one wonders how far the two leaders will be able to carry the weight. Hamas, to which Olmert referred openly as the terrorist group, is not a handful of suicide bombers - it accounts for a very sizeable portion of Palestinians, and Abbas has had to really struggle to stay in power. Similarly, Israeli prime ministers have not been very immune to domestic challenge, and the Knesset is not a body that just goes along. So, with so much hope hyped up, one hopes these two will be able to command legitimacy and support with their domestic bases.
This 'last minute' initiative on the part of the Bush administration, and himself personally, - an initiative not at all characteristic of Bush - is interesting, and hopefully carries true commitment. This is obviously an effort to leave something truly good as his legacy. Abbas expressed a hope about Bush's presidency that may be too late already: "We hope that this will be the culmination of your legacy for the world -- a world more free of violence, persecution and fanaticism." If anything, 'all other things being equal', the world has become more violent, intolerant and fanatical, in significant degrees thanks to Bush's foreign policy. But nonetheless, this last stroke of brush in Bush's presidency, if it succeeds, may indeed tilt the balance in his favor very significantly. And, if it happens, this one good news will have come from a kind of politics that Bush has mostly avoided.
Hope is certainly a noble thing; and as any noble thing, this one is also an easy target for the bigots, intolerants, and fanatics. Already, a few hours after the formal opening speeches, voices of criticism and rejection have come out against both Abbas and Olmert. Abbas in his speech was especially coming strong to touch some strings in the peoples' hearts, addressing both Israeli people and Palestinian people. Olmert was a bit less poignant in trying to make his message acceptable. I believe, Abbas's emphasis was well targeted, and it is important for the whole peace process now to be constantly also in communication with the peoples of both sides, and not become isolated in cabinet negotiations. One thing that certainly must be done to prevent the malign effect of the bigots and fanatics on the broader public support for the process on both sides, is to deliver the peace-making message more strongly than the bigots and fanatics against it do.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Race launched for a very rugged cross-country sprint
Starting today Kyrgyzstan's electorate will see the menu for them to choose from. As I heard, from the initial 50-odd parties that expressed interest in running for parliament last night there were 12 that went through all the barriers to arrive at the start-line for the morning of November 26. Some might try one way or another to get the ticket even if late, but permission to be included in the race is veeery far from license to be included in the parliament. Of the 12 that did get full regisration, it would be surprising enough if even 6 get the right to occupy any seats. That is of course due to the ridiculous 0.5% clause that haphazardly got introduced into the Election Law and even more ridiculously interpreted for application by the Central Election Commission.
This 0.5% rule, which requires that a party must win at least 0.5% of the total national number of voters from each of the seven oblasts and two cities, will be just numerically impossible to satisfy for more than half-a-dozen. The point in case is Talas oblast, with about 120,000 voters total. Half-percent of the national voter list is about 14,000-15,000. If Talassians' turnout is, say, at about 70%, then we have about 80,000 to split between the parties. Even if this number is divided as evenly as possible, it would still be too little to be enough for even 6 parties (it'd have to be at least about 85,000). Since most probably one or two parties will win much more than the minimal requirement, Talas promises to be an insurmountable hurdle for many parties that might win significant vote otherwise. Naryn and Batken are similarly very restrictive cases.
But even more egasperating is how completely random this rule is. First of all, the weight of a Talassian's vote will be about 7-8 times greater than that of an Osh-ian (oblast); this most elementary and fundamental democratic rule of "one person, one vote" is violated. Secondly, just look how random the regions themselves are. Were we to hold the same election 8 years ago, when Batken oblast did not yet exist, the Talassian's vote would then be about 9 times heavier than the Oshian's. All these oblasts were drawn quite randomly. Third, consider that unlike in the previous Election Law, when we would be concerned with the percentages of actual turnout vote (given that it's higher than 50%), now we are concerned with the total number of voters in the country, regardless of the turnout. And this is done with the knowledge that at least some 15-20% (probably higher) of Kyrgyzstan's voters are outside of the country, especially disproportionately many from Talas(!) and Batken(!). Fourthly, most ridiculously, this amendment to the draft of the Law was made after the referendum was already announced on the basis of the pre-amendment draft. A group of 'initiative' persons pleaded the President to make this amendment, and he did. No serious study, clarification, discussion, nothing like that. And ultimately, this most controversial last-minute change is left to the CEC members to interpret - a para-legal group at best, and apparently very poorly versed in law. It will be only reasonable to expect this rule to ignite some serious sparks at the vote-count stage.
With this shamefully illogical, illegitimate and illegal clause under arm, today we start the race campaign. I wonder whether there is really good reason to so strictly delimit campaigning period (they give some rationale, but nothing sounds convincing enough). Well, one thing is for sure - Kyrgyzstanis don't get to enjoy campaign fights for nearly as long as American voters for the next president. In just about three weeks, Kyrgyzstanis will be relieved of this nuisance. They will vote barely knowing what they are voting for. And this is an important point to dwell on.
What will the Kyrgyzstani voter vote for? For the first time, the entire parliament will be made up of political parties, who are going to campaign as political parties... Or will they? Kyrgyzstan is used to vote for persons, not ideas, and very likely the parties will stake their campaigns in that order: advertise the persons they have in their numbers, rather than their ideas. It was funny but also very representative in Jalalabad: a group of voters demanded that Mr. Tashiev, ex-parliamentarian, be included in a party's list, threatening that otherwise not a single person will vote for that party in their village. It is easier to campaign in this way for two reasons: one - the average voter will anyway look at the names in the party ballot when making the choice, two - most of the parties do not really have clear ideas beyond phony slogans.
While the first reason is perfectly valid and rational for parties to keep in mind, the second reason - absence of any clear ideological platforms, programs, values, and so on - is a problem waiting to loom large. Of the parties that are running (those that I know), most are content-vacuous. The relatively better ones are probably the Social Democratic Party - if they manage to pin down for themselves, and then for their voters, the basic credos of social democracy; the Ata Meken socialist party - if they, too, manage to communicate their socialist program and, especially, manage to get beyond bitter negativity (against the current regime); and probably the Communists - their ideological base, if they want it, is there in great volumes from our recent history, but it is hard to believe that Iskhak Masaliev is really a Communist, for one. But most parties, and especially Ak Jol - the prohibitively young presidential party poised to capture the power, are nearly content-free. All they have are shallow slogans such as "Unity", "Prosperity" or "Unity and Prosperity". (If emptiness is the truth, then it might as well be worth openly declaring it, like the party "Aalam - Party of the Partiless" has done: the emptiness then becomes a political statement, and hence, morally on a higher ground than pretense, perhaps). This may not be a problem today for parties to get votes, but it does pose a much greater concern in a slightly longer term perspective for Kyrgyzstan's politics.
With these in mind, I look forward to an interesting and instuctive couple of weeks. Alga!
This 0.5% rule, which requires that a party must win at least 0.5% of the total national number of voters from each of the seven oblasts and two cities, will be just numerically impossible to satisfy for more than half-a-dozen. The point in case is Talas oblast, with about 120,000 voters total. Half-percent of the national voter list is about 14,000-15,000. If Talassians' turnout is, say, at about 70%, then we have about 80,000 to split between the parties. Even if this number is divided as evenly as possible, it would still be too little to be enough for even 6 parties (it'd have to be at least about 85,000). Since most probably one or two parties will win much more than the minimal requirement, Talas promises to be an insurmountable hurdle for many parties that might win significant vote otherwise. Naryn and Batken are similarly very restrictive cases.
But even more egasperating is how completely random this rule is. First of all, the weight of a Talassian's vote will be about 7-8 times greater than that of an Osh-ian (oblast); this most elementary and fundamental democratic rule of "one person, one vote" is violated. Secondly, just look how random the regions themselves are. Were we to hold the same election 8 years ago, when Batken oblast did not yet exist, the Talassian's vote would then be about 9 times heavier than the Oshian's. All these oblasts were drawn quite randomly. Third, consider that unlike in the previous Election Law, when we would be concerned with the percentages of actual turnout vote (given that it's higher than 50%), now we are concerned with the total number of voters in the country, regardless of the turnout. And this is done with the knowledge that at least some 15-20% (probably higher) of Kyrgyzstan's voters are outside of the country, especially disproportionately many from Talas(!) and Batken(!). Fourthly, most ridiculously, this amendment to the draft of the Law was made after the referendum was already announced on the basis of the pre-amendment draft. A group of 'initiative' persons pleaded the President to make this amendment, and he did. No serious study, clarification, discussion, nothing like that. And ultimately, this most controversial last-minute change is left to the CEC members to interpret - a para-legal group at best, and apparently very poorly versed in law. It will be only reasonable to expect this rule to ignite some serious sparks at the vote-count stage.
With this shamefully illogical, illegitimate and illegal clause under arm, today we start the race campaign. I wonder whether there is really good reason to so strictly delimit campaigning period (they give some rationale, but nothing sounds convincing enough). Well, one thing is for sure - Kyrgyzstanis don't get to enjoy campaign fights for nearly as long as American voters for the next president. In just about three weeks, Kyrgyzstanis will be relieved of this nuisance. They will vote barely knowing what they are voting for. And this is an important point to dwell on.
What will the Kyrgyzstani voter vote for? For the first time, the entire parliament will be made up of political parties, who are going to campaign as political parties... Or will they? Kyrgyzstan is used to vote for persons, not ideas, and very likely the parties will stake their campaigns in that order: advertise the persons they have in their numbers, rather than their ideas. It was funny but also very representative in Jalalabad: a group of voters demanded that Mr. Tashiev, ex-parliamentarian, be included in a party's list, threatening that otherwise not a single person will vote for that party in their village. It is easier to campaign in this way for two reasons: one - the average voter will anyway look at the names in the party ballot when making the choice, two - most of the parties do not really have clear ideas beyond phony slogans.
While the first reason is perfectly valid and rational for parties to keep in mind, the second reason - absence of any clear ideological platforms, programs, values, and so on - is a problem waiting to loom large. Of the parties that are running (those that I know), most are content-vacuous. The relatively better ones are probably the Social Democratic Party - if they manage to pin down for themselves, and then for their voters, the basic credos of social democracy; the Ata Meken socialist party - if they, too, manage to communicate their socialist program and, especially, manage to get beyond bitter negativity (against the current regime); and probably the Communists - their ideological base, if they want it, is there in great volumes from our recent history, but it is hard to believe that Iskhak Masaliev is really a Communist, for one. But most parties, and especially Ak Jol - the prohibitively young presidential party poised to capture the power, are nearly content-free. All they have are shallow slogans such as "Unity", "Prosperity" or "Unity and Prosperity". (If emptiness is the truth, then it might as well be worth openly declaring it, like the party "Aalam - Party of the Partiless" has done: the emptiness then becomes a political statement, and hence, morally on a higher ground than pretense, perhaps). This may not be a problem today for parties to get votes, but it does pose a much greater concern in a slightly longer term perspective for Kyrgyzstan's politics.
With these in mind, I look forward to an interesting and instuctive couple of weeks. Alga!
Adahan, the burden
Since recently I have been frequenting the tazar.kg site for news and opinions. Especially the latter, because it seems a lot of journalists are unable to report news without adding their oft-misheaded opinions. Anyway, that's not the point presently. A bitter expose of Adahan Madumarov was posted at the following link.
While the author might be a bit too bitter at times, for most part all that is reported and 'opined' about this person is correct. A shallow-brained demagogue with little faith. If one were to collect all the controversial stupidities that he has uttered in recent years, it would be only so amazing how he can still be courted and reckoned with. For all those who despair about the utter bankruptcy of Kyrgyzstan's politics, Adahan might be a good example to show as proof. Far from a top-level politician, his many utterings resemble a foul-playing boy in children's games who then thinks he can lie his way out. He is No.1 in Ak Jol party's list for the vote.
While the author might be a bit too bitter at times, for most part all that is reported and 'opined' about this person is correct. A shallow-brained demagogue with little faith. If one were to collect all the controversial stupidities that he has uttered in recent years, it would be only so amazing how he can still be courted and reckoned with. For all those who despair about the utter bankruptcy of Kyrgyzstan's politics, Adahan might be a good example to show as proof. Far from a top-level politician, his many utterings resemble a foul-playing boy in children's games who then thinks he can lie his way out. He is No.1 in Ak Jol party's list for the vote.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
My Reactions
Today is the birthday... of my Reactions. Quite behind the 'virtual' trends of recent times, I decided at last to make the move and start my blog journal. I hope it to become a good outlet: I really feel this need oftentimes to speak out on various issues, problems, events, incidents, sometimes even persons. I hope my occasional readers will find my entries of humble interest, stimulating some of their own afterthoughts, and not feel like they just wasted another few minutes in vain. But no guarantees, friends, alas.
Why reactions? All we say or think or argue is more or less certainly reaction to something or someone. It would probably be inaccurate, to put it mildly, to claim that some thought or action is purely pro-active (as in "first/originary action"). Moreover, there is an intellectual, epistemological value to the awareness about the intrinsic reactivity of most of our thoughts and arguments, because by admitting this one makes a more fundamental admission or claim: that all (or nearly all) human knowledge is in fact a long and highly complicated chain of reactions. 'Nearly all' is perhaps well-advised, because sometimes some or other of these chains of reactions break, and then we witness something truly unprecedented. For the most part, however, we do function within such continuities of reactions, and that is probably the better.
Lastly, there is a certain negative connotation that gets attached in our minds to the word reaction and its generics: reactive, reactionary... As in: "...he is only able to react, he cannot come up with anything his own, original." To which I say, "re-read the previous paragraph", and add more: if we were all after our "own", "original", "totally new" and "first", we would probably have gone mad in frustration, or something worse. Thankfully, in most of what we do best, we are acting reactively. And let our critical reactions lead the way to better reactions still.
Most finally, I should promise myself that this is the last time I write these kinds of not-so-clear entries, and speak about real things. The scope of such real things, as I envision, would be generally broad within the loosely delimited theme of "social-political", but perhaps featuring what pertains to Kyrgyzstan more often than others.
This all said, let me click on "post it" button to post my first entry. Cheers:)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
