Judging the political past

I have been thinking a lot about this lately; one of my final papers was about it (oh, did I mention that I am finished with school for now:)).
"It's all deja vu all over again". As so many of us in Kyrgyzstan (and outside) are outraged by the way elections were handled, our reactions so far have been mainly expressions of outrage. As we think for the future (for obviously we can't live with just the outrage itself), we need to consider some more substantive and deeper reasons of why we are ending up seeing the same things all over again.

One thing we must go through is an 'audit of our past'. As my "headliner" above from Orwell suggests, there is a lot about history. I am talking about recent history, not the one of 2200+ years ago, not even 1000 years. I am talking about our more recent past within the range between early 20th century to this year. Our Soviet past was far from just "Moscow's domination"; there was a lot that had to do with, and was done by, the Kyrgyz ourselves. There is a political history of Iskhak Razzakov, which has been just barely opened up - only so much as does not hurt anyone. There is then the history of Turdakun Usubaliev - the person who just two years ago was jostling for power like anyone else, and his legacy of quarter-century rule in Kyrgyz SSR is well censored so far. And then of course there is the history of Askar Akaev, who now and then appears in Russian media speaking in the voice of righteous conscience and victimhood.

It is no surprise that Mr Bakiev is absolutely no different, contra his banal-to-the-point-of-annoyance references to "the previous regime". He uses the same tactics, with the same appearance of honesty amid Dishonesty that pokes the eye.

Realistically, Kyrgyzstan has not gotten much opportunity to judge its recent past. There was a brief such moment, when Akaev had just become the president, and had not dirtied himself yet. If he were more closely following the suit of some Eastern European post-communist politics, he would have seen how important and instructive the lessons of recent past would have been. He did not do that, for many possible reasons.

A second weak chance was attained in March 2005. However by now, those who jumped into power had too many of their own 'skeletons in the closet'. Still, as is so often done, some 'house-cleaning' could have been done on the wave of regime change, even if selectively, and some willingness to repent on the part of the 'new' people. However, that second chance was also lost, and by now Bakiev and Company (if they lost that chance knowingly) are only so happy to have lost it. Mr Beknazarov in his brief stint as Prosecutor General had a chance (and he could easily do it) to start some substantive 'audit', but instead he was embroiled in 'small-talk' and got soon devoured by it. The parliament, of course, did not have such possibility - it was mostly Akaev's handpicks, who survived March, and they would certainly not be the ones "judging the past".

What is it, that judging of the past? It is an active history. It is not the myth-history like the 2200 years of statehood, or Manas, or Tamerlane-the-Magnanimous (formerly the Butcher)... Even with all these myths (one can have them if they think can't live without), the 'active history' of the very recent past can and ought to be done. It is 'active' in that it should provide fresh and sticking lessons for the future; it should draw instructive conclusions; it should create strong 'taboos' on what cannot be done by politicians that come afterwards; it should capitalize Responsibility, Repentance, Honor, Glory, and Shame; it should monumentalize both the best and the worst.

Who would do it? Many ways have been tried in countries who faced this task, including legal prosecution, parliamentary commissions, cadre 'cleaning' (known as lustration). I would be in favor of non-legal, moral ways of procedure, such as the parliamentary commissions, but especially for Kyrgyzstan - even less formal work by those who are not 'incorporated'. Not least, I believe there is potential with journalists and writers. But with the latter, there is some danger of extremes... Some formality/solemn public authorization is needed to make the process legitimate.

This is something Kyrgyztsan will have to do at some point. It need not happen overnight, not in one breath; can last over years. However, without doing it, it will be ever hard to learn any lesson. We will be seeing repetitions of the same humiliation, same inglorious actions, same corruption and dishonesty... and letting out same depressing outrage. All of this will lead to an ever-deeper cynicism and disaffection among the people, because one can only compromise his/her conscionce very few times and still hope to retain honor.

BTW, the term 'mankurt' is so well-known among the Kyrgyz; but it is always applied in the wrong subjects, for wrong reasons. One is called a mankurt if he doesn't speak Kyrgyz, if she doesn't care about Manas so much, if they laugh at stories about 2200+ years ago, if they are too modern for the taste of the 'judges'. We are all a bunch of real mankurts as long as we, for example, say "Akaev was sooo much better", or "Bakiev is new", or god forbid, "We need a good Stalin back".

"He who the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future". Alas. So we better admit this, and act accordingly.