Party-based parliamentarism

...Kyrgyzstan-style. It was only to be expected, as I did, that the omnipotent Ak Jol party in the parliament would soon have internal troubles. It had recruited too many ambitious people. But perhaps all such ambitions won't equal that of the speaker. As I have said eslewhere in the blog, his ambition distinctly overshadows his political sense and practical reasoning. Come on, one does not show political guts and ambition over questions such as fancy decoration of the parliamentary building. There just must be more worthy and politically wiser issues to build one's profile over.

This can potentially be a good sign, this intra-party dispute. While the bone of contention isn't worth a penny (even though the price tags is over 1 million dollars), it is symptomatic of the nature of Ak Jol party, of its haphazard composition, youth as an organization, and absence of any intra-party ideological, political culture. It has been only a part of convenience. If these disputes are taken to a conclusion - hopefully - we might see a welcome shake-down of the party and of party-based parliamentary work.

Obama's new speech on race

Barak Obama gave a new speech today in Philadelphia. Just got through reading this long speech, and it is amazing.

For the last couple of weeks, Obama had been struggling with the controversy causes by some very hurting, racially-charged, angry statements made by his former pastor some time ago. These kinds of things, of course, do not just go unnoticed the attention of US media - and hence, the public - if you are on the spotlight. (Just like, incidentally, the facts of former extramarital relations one might have had, as it is happening with the freshly sworn-in Governor Paterson.) So, Obama could not get away from all the wave of anger and criticism with "I denounce and reject". He had to come up with something stronger.

So he did. What a speech! I read this rather long speech in amazement. Obama invites the Americans in his speech to 'live within truth' concerning the issue of race and racial inequality and prejudices in the country. While he strongly rejects and criticizes the statements by his pastor (which has made the headlines in major media), the speech is really much wider and way beyond those statements. It is about the problem of racism in America.

The speech spans very widely along horizons of this issue, from past to future, from prejudices to truths, from feelings to facts of life. It is a fine balance between stating honestly the continuing existence of the problem and also underscoring the long distance that has been covered in overcoming it. It is both about the discrimination against Blacks, and discriminated whites. It puts on the table all the strong prejudices that exist, and tries to unwrap them to get to their root causes - social and economic inequalities, bad policies, and etc.

It is of course imaginable (only hardly) that even this speech will be taken apart by media and commentators, will be mutilated into discrete bits of facts and statements contained in it, and perhaps put on weighing scales to see how many votes each word can cost and bring. It may so happen, because in American public discourse, led as it is by all those called "pundits", scarcely anything remains outside of minute 'analysis'. However, this speech in its entirety and force, I think, is one that will enter some books and lecture-halls with full deserve. It is a very strong, highly eloquent, sharply sensitive, and forcefully said speech.

For me, a foreign audience, this is no less an inspiring, deep-reaching speech than an American. Speeches such as this, honest and earnest about deep-seated problems, are needed in so many cases around the world, not least - in Kyrgyzstan. Earlier, I read a different speech, from my own compatriot in a newspaper (and reacted to it below, perhaps a little emotionally, but still true to the fact of the matter), and that speech is a way-too-typical, common kind of speech you get to hear, in Kyrgyzstan or elsewhere. A speech that is in no way aimed at mending, at bringing together, at overcoming. And it is a typical speech, alas.

Anyway, I do recommend to read Obama's speech. I didn't hear it, though; I hope he delivered it as strongly as he wrote.

Про исповедь инсайдера

Господин О. Ибраимов говорит что ему "стыдно за предвыборные дни марта 2005 года". Неужели (он) раскаивается?! Однако, такое заглавие даёт Акипресс, дабы преподнести "исповедь инсайдера" в более кошерном виде своему читателю, (наверно). (...) Изначальная тема в Независимой газете: то, что мало кто празднует 24 марта в "Киргизии". Прочитав статейку, опубликованную по обыкновению в российской газете (как обычно это делает сам Аскар Акаев), сразу понимаешь что раскаяния никакого тут нет. Даже непонятно о чем он стыдится.

Статья представляет собой очередную (и совсем не оригинальную) попытку рассказать (россиянам?) о том, что в Кыргызстане был переворот, а не революция, и что с марта 2005 года в стране хаоc, кризис, и засилие нечистых на руку представителей "определенного региона". Пропустим всё это, ибо со многим фактическим раскладом согласиться приходится. Действительно, то что Кыргызстан получил сегодня в подарок после революции никак не вдохновляет. Однако, этому есть и субъективные, и объективные причины. Лишь один момент среди многих моментов больно вспоминается: когда весной 2007 года, на волне Куловского Фронта, оппозиция Кыргызстана додумалась таки не поддержать Атамбаева, не захотела участвовать в его правительстве, а решила стоять на Фронте... Сегодня все могло бы быть совсем по-другому, и гораздо лучше. Ума не хватило, али желания не было.

Осмонакун Ибраимов слыл одним из умнейших среди интеллектуальной когорты вокруг Акаева, хотя это всё-таки было обманчивым (само-)мнением. И вот в этой статье тоже, он постарался приложить свои умственные способности.

С тех пор, Ибраимов пишет, "в Киргизии не было ни одной новой идеи или стратегии...". Были идеи, и стратегии тоже, и есть они до сих пор. Разве что настолько же сырые и необдуманные, а чаще - гонимые узко-корыстными целями, какими они были и при прошлой власти. Тогда тоже разговоров и идей было много, деятельность тоже была, однако в итоге большинство "стратегий" заканчивались хищническими сделками народного добра.

Аскара Акаева опять мы видим чистым и честным. Однако же, вроде как Ибраимову было стыдно то, как выборы были организованы в преддверии 24 марта. То, что ничего не нашли коррупционного в делах Акаева - мало кто верит, и его "чистота" скорее благодаря бездарной работе тех кто этими расследованиями занимался. Ведь в "новой власти" оказалось очень много людей, которые были из старой свиты, и вполне могли быть и сами вовлечены во многие делишки. То бишь, неуспех этих расследований не совсем доказывает невинность Акаева. Но уж ладно, есть презумпция невиновности - принцип, который в последние Акаевские годы был частенько попран.

Говоря о том, как люди нигде не могли найти Акаева 24 марта (потому как он бежал из страны), Ибраимов пишет: "как стало известно позже, группа из числа отпетых уголовников была готова физически уничтожить Акаева". Интересно, как такое стало известно Ибраимову, от каких источников? Из какого числа отпетых уголовников? Конечно, глядя на настроение толпы, многое можно было ожидать. Пара человек из ближайших коллег Ибраимова даже испытали это. Слава богу, обошлось. Не то что сам Ибраимов, который подал в отставку чуть ли не за несколько часов до штурма... Вот как умный человек поступит, убежит с тонущего корабля. А потом позже постарается попасть на работу (уже оскорбительно ниже своего ранга) в посольстве Кыргызстана при новой власти. А потом, когда это будет предотвращено в следствие протеста самого широкого круга людей, будет писать "разоблачительные", полные морального гнева статейки в российских газетах.

Кстати, Ибраимов пишет, что был очень занят в те дни, разбирая разоблачения и разгромные материалы в оппозиционной прессе. Те у кого хороша память, помнят насколько оппозиционная пресса на тот момент могла и вовсе дышать, не то что разгромные разоблачения делать, и тем более, иметь эффект.

В отличие от "быка" и "боксера" Бакиева, Акаев, оказывается, был "типичным либеральным советским интеллигентом". Бахх. Надо иметь ибраимовскую гибкость ума чтобы такое аккробатическое словосочетание придумать. А если честно, очень глупое выражение, которое может "украсит" филолога, может быть, но не историка, не политика-демократа, не интеллигента.

"Бедная наша конституция". Это правда. Однако, участь нашей конституции была в очень многом предопределена предыдущей властью - той, в которой господин Ибраимов явно имел самую прямую роль во всяких референдумах и переписываниях. 24 марта, Конституция была определена как наиважнейшая деталь Акаевской власти, которую нужно было менять. А потом всё пошло как по сценарию. Те же конституционные советы, те же обходы тех же советов, те же торможения и подмены альтернативными текстами. Один раз Конституция была принята очень демократично (однако же...). Такого в акаевские времена вовсе не бывало.

До конца держался, но всё-таки не сдержался Ибраимов и высказался в открытую: караул, южане! Пишет он: "Власть сосредоточена в руках южан, на которых новый президент открыто делает ставку. С демократией тоже решили не миндальничать – арестуют, если даже молча стоишь на пикете. Нет ни одного отдаленно независимого телевизионного канала. Дороговизна, инфляция, безработица, растущая нищета. Бомжи кочуют по улицам городов как остатки наголову разбитой армии – большими стаями, злые, расхристанные." Да, литератор, будто сам Достоевский диктовал.

Что правда, то правда - с демократией Бакиевская власть не стала няньчиться как только смогла себе такое позволить. Осень 2007 года будет надолго в памяти Кыргызстанцев большим издевательством. Однако, опомнившись, господин Ибраимов должен наверное осознать - Россия, "мать наша", служит нам примером во всем этом. Вы там в России не сильно громко пожалуйста ностальгируйте про демократию: там тоже это слово как аллерген.

"Между тем отсутствие у нас устоявшихся традиций государственности сразу дало о себе знать. Все действия и решения новых правителей со всей очевидностью говорили о том, что мы все-таки вчерашние кочевники. Ни слова не было сказано о преемственности во внешней и внутренней политике, в стратегических, идеологических делах." Все правда, кроме последнего предложения. Преемственность официальная сразу же была провозглашена. Преемственность проявляется также и в неформальных подходах новой власти, увы. Но то, что устоявшихся традиций государственности - не говоря уже о 2208 годах - у нас не нашлось, то правда. Оного и быть особо не могло, ибо мы настоящим государством стали лишь вчера, в традицию это еще не вылилось.

Такую традицию построить очень сложно(.). Для этого, как минимум, должен быть сильный патриотизм, любовь к Родине, к Кыргызстану (которую конечно для российской газеты можно называть Киргизией). Патриотизм, который перекрывает мстительные порывы; патриотизм, который не смотрит на политику через призму регионов. Нужен конструктивный патриотизм, который бы вел к действительно умным, далеко-ведущим идеям для страны. А для определенной категории людей, такой патриотизм должен начаться еще и с раскаяния, прошения от народа простить их за прошлые нечистые дела. Нужно перестать лукавить и перманентно переигрывать свои карты в руках, прыгая то в одну, то в другую сторону. А если всего этого не можется, то эти определенные люди могут быть полезны для своей Родины своим молчанием. Ибо критиковать нынешнюю власть будут и без них; есть много людей, которые больше заслужили критический голос. А поливать грязью свою страну через иностранную прессу (той же грязью, которую вы и сами творили), "анализировать" каким образом устанавливается хаос, и какой регион душегубствует над каким - все это делу никак не помогает.

Кыргызстанские художники

Очень приятно было хотя бы прочитать о том, что в Вашингтоне успешно проходила выставка работ семьи-художников из Кыгрызстана. Как жаль, что не вовремя я услышал о ней - обязательно сходил бы. Приятно, что вот так, малозаметно и без помпы, многие наши соотечественники путешествуют по миру с просветительской миссией о Кыргызстане.
Вот только я бы возразил по поводу "советской школы". Асангали думает что успех наших художников объясняется сильной
"советской школой", "качественным образованием" советским. Там же, конечно, она себе частично противоречит, отмечая что "кыргызстанская школа считается одной из лучших в Центральной Азии" (то бишь, из пяти). Тем не менее, в моем понимании, живопись, искусство - это не массовый продукт, его успех выражается и заключается в уникалиях, в исключительностях, в искусстве Асангали, Шкурпела, Курмангазы, и так далее. Мне "советская школа" особенно была заметна потому, что в лексиконе псевдо-интеллектуальных размышлений, сие понятие является чаще всего пустым клише, стереотипом, нежели осмысленным понятием.
В случае Асангали, которая, как выясняется "стала" художником под влиянием мужа, и пишет в стиле "наив" (понимаемый как стиль художников без формального академического образования), она скорее всего ни в каком смысле не является представителем советской школы.
И в последнюю очередь, на вопрос о критериях творчества, она отвечает (хоть и не совсем ясно, с неуместным примером олигарха), получается что общих каких-то критериев вроде нет, и она преследует свои критерии. Уж тогда тем более нужно отделываться от клише-йных ссылок на советскую школу, тем самым подчеркивая свои индивидуальные примечательности и красоты, а не "терять" их в "советской" гуще.

И почему я так заострился на этом? Наверно потому, что меня несколько беспокоит это явление, почти во всех сферах жизни, и особенно в Кыргызстане (нежели, скажем в Казахстане, или Узбекистане, или Украине), когда люди никак не могут отделаться от какой-то привязанности ко всему "советскому", видят и оценивают все через "советский" фильтр и "советскую" призму. Надо бы научиться думать по-новому, по-прогрессивному, или в конце-концов, по национальному, в хорошем смысле его.
Тем не менее, начинал и заканчиваю сие тем, что был очень рад и горд нашими художниками, которые действительно знакомят мир с Кыргызстаном в благородном, гордом, приятном тоне.

Не то что некоторые политики (Tekebaev, Sherniyazov, Alymbekov), которые едут в какой-то колледж в селе Орем очень консервативного штата Юта рассказать их студентам (которые Кыргызстан на карте не видели еще) о состоянии и проблемах демократии в Кыргызстане. Ну, наверное в безрыбье и рак рыба... Лучше в Юту съездить, чем...сами знаете.

Political amnesia and why avoid it

The case of ex-President Suharto, as he slowly succumbed to death, has raised an important issue for Indonesians as well as many other societies around the world. It comes only a couple of months after four high-ranking officials of the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime of Cambodia next door were arrested to face charges of crimes against humanity. In so many countries aspiring toward the difficult goal of democratic and just governance, be they called transitional or revolutionary or post-communist, there is one shared puzzle: what to do about their undemocratic and unjust pasts.

Criminal procedures pursued to enact retroactive justice – that is, justice over past crimes – can easily appear to be so many acts of revenge. Erich Honecker of former East Germany, in famous trials during the 1990’s for the injustices committed by his regime, called the whole process ‘the victor’s justice’, and many former subjects of his dictatorship found such depiction compelling. Vengeance, to be sure, is not a good springboard for starting a law-abiding, just society.

The grand criminals may be humbled, and their surviving victims tempered, by recalling that in most cases the magnitude of committed crimes far outweigh the realistic extent of punishment that might be carried out. The 1.7 million persons’ lives could not be proportionally ‘revenged’ even by electrocuting Pol Pot. At the end of the day, there is a risk to end up with a shallow memory that would say: “He killed lots and lots and lots of people. Then he was killed himself”.

Retroactive justice, therefore, is better done by aiming at monumental moral lessons from such crimes, rather than criminal reprisals. There is a stronger substantive, longer-lasting, and future-pertinent potential in the former. The regimes such as Suharto’s, Pinochet’s, Ceausescu’s, and many others, are unequalled monumental lessons to be learned by Indonesians, Chileans, Romanians, and any other society aspiring toward democracy, freedom and justice.

Certainly, not all former undemocratic regimes stand on equal footing with Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge. Many authoritarian ex-leaders may be culpable on accounts of corruption and embezzlement, nepotism and environmental disasters, and other less monumental wrongdoings. Nonetheless, to the extent that they led to millions of lives in unnecessary poverty, stolen chances, burdens of insurmountable debts and environmental disasters, and other such tolls, the consequences of such regimes are monumental.

The numerous projects of building democracies during the so-called Third Wave of democratization have focused primarily on institutional and constitutional designs, on the here-and-now technicalities of democratic government, and promotion of oftentimes alien and abstract freedoms and rights. The apparent failures of most of the Third Wave cases are to be attributed to this formalism and detached-ness in no small part.

Alternatively, a stronger, more robust democratic project would be one that is based on lessons learnt from its own past. In that case, a given society would know it is headed toward a just, free, prosperous life, with institutions of multiple parties, checks and balances, and elections, most of which they never saw in their lives. However, they would know even better what they cannot return to, what they are moving away from, all the injustices, oppression, poverty, and so on, all of which they have known in the most immediate manner.

With Suharto departed from life, his legacy of three decades’ rule over Indonesia remains. The issue is whether that legacy will be learned, studied, and brought home, or whether it will remain in the raw, cast into oblivion, gradually forgotten, only to come back at some distant future in robes of glory – and possibly under a new Suharto.

The Beauty of Tennis

I have been watching the final rounds of the Australian Open with pleasure. What a beautiful great sport! Well, any sport and any tournament is likely to be beautiful and pleasant. It's just that every time you watch a particular game, and marvel at its particular beauty and outcomes, you appreciate it with renewed passion.

I was somewhat behind in tennis news in recent months. So, here I discovered Ana Ivanovic for myself; she was #4 in the world, and has now become #2 as a result of her plays in Australian Open. I had not known her at all. Anyway, what amazed me was her strength to persever and to come back. She horribly lost her first set to Daniela Hantuchova, and started with losses in the second set... and then, she turned the tide around. Against Ana's charming, naive-looking, almost child-like face, you would immediately notice Daniela's demeanor - aggressive, somewhat bitter, tense, almost angry. A couple of times she did show her impatience with Ana's squeaking shoes... And as Daniela started to lose, her bitterness got bitterer and less pleasant. Ana, on the other hand, was totally amazing. What a great game it was.

Maria Sharapova won the championship. She was great throughout the tournament in her game. The little bit of antidote to amazement was her somewhat unsporting demeanor, too, like Daniela. (I was amazed those two looked alike, too!). Her father's stupid gesture exacerbated it, none of her fault of cause. And then, at her prize receiving speech, she said something about Serbian fans being louder than Russian fans... Come on, you are in Australia, and playing an individual sport, not national teams sport. The fact that cheers for Ana's were louder is simply about the crowd's liking of Ana - a charming, personable, and strong young lady... Oh well, 20 year-olds, young.

And in the men's final, we have a complete surprise game with Djokovich and Tsonga. Wow, I await a very interesting game, and I don't care who of the two wins. They both are just amazing. A grand slam without Federer and/or Nadal, that's something new. Any sport is so much more interesting when it is indeed competitive, not dominated and predictable. I love tennis.

Viva Tennis!

Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, The Broken Sword...

Kenya appears to be going down the wrong track in earnest. Known for a long time as one of the better-doing African states, relatively well developing, stable, relatively free country... It took one fraudulent election (and whatever built up to it) to scrap all those decades' blessings. Took one very old politician (who himself is to be thanked for a lot of achievements) who did not want to leave, and who stirred both emotions and ballot counts to that end, to throw away the cap from Pandora's Box. It is very sad. It is also very disheartening for other, younger, shakier "democracies", less-prized societies to see Kenya in this state.

I am reading Tologon Kassymbekov's The Broken Sword these days. Enjoying it very much. If I read any extract of it at school, I must have just glossed over it. Now, reading it closely, I would want everyone interested in Kyrgyz, Ferghana Valley, Central Asian society and politics to read this great novel. It is not a smooth and fast reading (I don't know how it reads in Russian or in English (there's apparently an English translation, too)), but the Kyrgyz version is not easy. The style is a demanding style, definitely not the kind where you'd say "you won't notice how you finished it". It is about identity and dignity, about political betrayal and fluidity, about parochialism and spiritedness. But very vividly, it is about the style of government and politics, about the political culture of the Kyrgyz, of Central Asians more broadly. Such an eye-opening novel.

The political climate with which we enter 2008 resembles some periods in Kokand khanate at one or another time (for 'times' shifted constantly). President Bakiev is in full charge of all formal political structure. That is all you need. He asks the Parliament to consider removing the Chairman of the Supreme Court, who still had some 6 years to go, according to the Constitution, unless he does some major mistake. No such mistake is cited. Parliament dutifully removes him. A draft of a law is given for Parliament's approval, about the administrative-territorial arrangements; largely an impractical, non-innovative, and economically unjustified (not justified anyhow, really) law. Deputies pretended to discuss it, with some critical remarks (such as, "let a village be called a village it it has 250 inhabitants in it"), and of course, it is approves in the first hearing.

All this may not be that bad. If one views politics in Kyrgyzstan with the hindsight of many decades in the past, including Soviet and pre-Soviet, it appears that representative democracy never really functioned, and whenever tried - mal-functioned notably. But on the other hand, it appears there is a tradition (now vivid, now somewhat hidden) of holding leaders accountable. President Bakiev is taking all the burden of responsibility. "All roads lead to Rome", as it were; all traces of responsibility end up in his office - and that is what he chose knowingly. What remains for him to succeed in living up to his onerous responsibility is for the people to see this, to know that he is the person calling all the shots and hence, answerable for all his shots. The opposition, free from Parliamentary or Government duties, might find a job for itself in helping the people to see this map of responsibility more clearly.

Assembly-line democracy of US presidential primaries

The American democracy that Alexis de Tocqueville famously observed in the middle of nineteenth century was best practiced in local town hall-style politics, where citizens directly deliberated and decided their common affairs. Today, if a foreigner came to America to learn democracy, there is likely to be quite some disappointment. In the heat of primary campaigns for party nominations – a supposedly quintessential democratic process – the quality of America’s glorious tradition is in peril of an ‘assembly-line democracy’.
The relatively small populations of Iowa and New Hampshire were so bombarded by the intense campaigns for state nominations in recent weeks that one should feel sorry for them. While the remarkably high turnouts in both states may indicate that their citizens did not resent such onslaught, the chances were that democratic deliberation and possibility of making intelligent choices would be compromised greatly, leaving most of it to the account of soundbites.
There were some parts that were more genuinely deliberative and geared to understanding, such as the question-answer sessions, especially well done by Senator John McCain, and the debates between contenders in both parties. Those were the off-the-cuff unrehearsed, live discussions of the candidates’ positions on important issues at stake. However, they have been the lesser part of the process. Most of it has been more like a sporting race, or better yet, an accelerating assembly line putting together the so-called winning strategies.
Take a few examples. Even the commendable, brawl-defying campaign by John McCain has ridden on a resounding but opportunist slogan of danger. “My friends, we live in dangerous times” says he, as he drives home his credentials as a war veteran, an experienced foreign policy leader, and notably a maverick anti-withdrawal voice in the Iraq war. If the majority of Americans gave in to the ‘dangerous world’ view deeply enough, Senator McCain should do well. There is at least the question of ethical responsibility here as the candidate tries to blow the wave of danger and to ride that wave, too.
There is a more flagrant problem in the danger compartment: the speeches of Governor Huckabee, the Republican winner in Iowa, and of Mayor Giuliani, the former leader in the Republican field in national polls, are replete with mentions of Islamic danger. In a nation witnessing more Columbines and Virginia Techs every year, no one dares to raise gun ownership as a danger – Huckabee defends it as a sacred freedom. All danger is from Them, not within Us, be it Islamic whatnots, illegal immigrants, or Middle Eastern oil producers (never mind the Amocos and Texacos).
But even beyond such substantive issues, of which the above are just a few, there are procedural ways in which the democratic process is blunted. In the height of emotional arousal of stump speech rallies, people are easily led to thinking that experience does not really matter, and somehow change and experience become opposites. Daily polls are followed and discussed like a heart patient’s pulse, even though no major poll predicted either the loss in Iowa or the victory in New Hampshire by Senator Clinton. The prize, however, would probably go to Fox News, when they had a focus group press ‘up’ or ‘down’ buttons on a gadget every second to measure approval of what a candidate was saying during the Republican Forum organized by them.
The general rhetoric of the process is both revealing and disheartening. Change and experience have become juxtaposed in a curious twist, and it has become risky for, say, McCain and Clinton to identify themselves with both of them. Nearly every day, we hear things like re-focusing the campaign, changing the strategy, revising the tactics. Having virtually won an evangelical ticket in Iowa, Huckabee barely mentions God in New Hampshire. Clinton’s alleged ‘moment of softness’, after dominating that day’s news, was then invoked to explain her ‘surprise’ victory. Frontlines are made of endorsements, be they from political honoraries, culinary union leaders or former karate champions. All of this reminds of Wall Street auction sales rather than a democratic process.
Five days after the dramatic Iowa results, New Hampshire gave no less dramatic victories to Iowa’s third-place runner-up of the Democrats and fourth-place runner-up of the Republicans, and the whirlwind blew off to Nevada and Michigan, respectively. That is, the whirlwind of assembly-line manufacturing of support in what is deemed to be democracy at work but feels much like a deeply problematic perversion of once-glorious American tradition.

Happy New Year (depending on the old year)

Happy New Year! Every year, at midnight from December 31 to January 1, we all symbolically break with the past and step into the new. We make all kinds of "New Year resolutions", new wishes of happiness and success, and in various other ways go through an imaginary mental catharsis. Imaginary it is.

New Year can only be as happy as the past year(s)' records allow. There is a continuity in our lives that does not work by the chronometer or calendar. It may change or partially break according to the strength of our will, but generally and for the most part, it is a continuity. Our self-delusion that somehow all the troubles and problems of the past year should stay in that year, and the new year should begin as a tabula rasa with all the goodies that we wish for ourselves, comes back at us very quickly in its upsetting truth.

The past stays with us. It cannot be cut off with curtains or scissors - it can only be faced, encountered consciously, and accounted for. Only after taking that accounting to its conclusion can the past allow for a genuine new beginning, for a new change, to take place. Importantly, this is not to say that the past is a constant Damocles' Sword suspended over our necks, keeping us in a constant threat of coming loose. Or rather, it need not be so. There is a positive, empowering element to 'accounting' for our past.

Accountability, or better yet, responsibility, is our act of recognizing the immanence of our past record, and therefore resolving to squarely face that past and proceed into the future accordingly. Responsible act is an act that does not assume "tabula raza" anytime it fits the actor, because he understands that an act made with such an assumption can only risk to backfire or at least be wasted.

For Kyrgyzstan, the past year has left a number of important things as its legacy. Among them is the adoption of a new Constitution - in the specific way it was adopted, the specific law with all its advantages and problems. There is also the election of a new Parliament based on political parties, in all its uncompromising fraudulence. There is the metamorphosis of a number of political figures: Kulov, Eshimkanov, Karabekov, and so on - once again. What do these episodes bring to the new year? A lot, difficult to enumerate. Summarily, this all brings a truck-load of responsibility for all of us, together and individually, to bear. For those in power (and they indeed are unitarily one now, it is the responsibility to keep up the play of the last year, to own up to the Constitution they wrote and passed, to own up to the entirety of functions they assumed in the wake of parliamentary elections; it is the responsibility that is now crystal-clear to those who await it. For the opposition, it is the responsibility to understand why it failed, thither-blaming aside. For all citizens of Kyrgyzstan, it is the responsibility to remember what happened last year, lest the new year's problems come as "surprises".

In being responsible with the past, there is the positivity - the promise of us being in (partial) control of how we live and of realizability of all the good wishes we just made for the new year. Be it in politics, in the economy, in households and private lives, it takes this accountance-with-the-past to be able to look ahead to the future in good deed.

Happy New Year, if You Remember the Old!