Замминистра юстиции...

Комментирвуя решение Конституционного Суда, Замминистра юстиции Мамбеталиева
противоречит сама себе. Во-первых она говорит что данная статья Конституции
2003 года указывала день, являющийся "началом следующих выборов главы
государства," (что единственно правильно сказано), то есть, последнее
воскресенье октября пятого года полномочий предыдущего президента. Но сразу же,
она определяет этот же день "окончанием срока и прекращением полномочий"
предыдущего президента. Далее, она толкует, что новый президент должен
приступить к исполнению своих полномочий "не позднее 25 октября 2009 года" -
это уже открытое искажение решения Конст Суда.

Интересно, какой логикой можно было приурочить столько событий - которые по
определению не могут произойти в один день - к этому дню?

Определение дня выборов...

Конституционный Суд вынес решение - в принципе правильное, но в одной детали -
не совсем точное. При дальнейшем неточном применении данного решения, а именно -
при определении дня выборов Парламентом - все мы можем оказаться в определенном
проигрыше.

Согласно соответствующей статье старой Конституции, последнее
воскресенье октября (пятого года президентского срока) определяется ДНЕМ
выборов, а не "началом новых выборов" и тем более не "соотвественно, окончанием
старого срока". Как КС правильно определил, началом срока Президента является
день принятия присяги. А следовательно, концом срока предыдущего Президента
является тот же день - когда новый Президент присягает. Данная статья
Конституции 2003 года никоим образом не гласит, что последнее воскресенье
октября - день присяги избранного президента.

Раз уж КС решил толковать в пользу применения старой Конституции (что является
вполне правильным, и КС дает разумное обоснование), то напрашивалось вполне
прямолинейное и простое применение: делать так как Конституция 2003 года
гласит. Но КС усложнил толкование и тем самым дал повод такой неточности.

Вследствие такого неточного определения, Парламент поспешил назначить день
выборов в конце июля. Во-первых, это оставляет очень мало времени для
подготовки: как организационно, так и для потециальных кандидатов. Во-вторых,
на основе неточного чтения закона, первый срок Курманбека Бакиева максимально
сокращается - на ровно год; урезается три допустимых, законных месяца.

А правильнее было бы назначить Днем выборов 25 октября - как и гласит закон. А
второй тур, определение-подведение результатов выборов, их узаконение КС,
период передачи полномочий - все случилось бы примерно в течение 2 месяцев
после 25 октября (как, например, случилось в России, в США. У нас, правда,
передача власти в результате выборов еще не случалась).

Так как решения КС окончательны и обжалованию не подлежат, резонно было бы
Парламенту применить решение КС в правильном русле. Хотя текст решения и вводит
в некоторое заблуждение, правильное (то есть, предлагаемое здесь) толкование не
исключается. А именно, пункт 2 решения гласит, что "выборы... должны быть
проведены не позднее 25 октября, 2009 года"; то есть проведение выборов
(первого тура, если понадобится два тура) в день 25го октября будет
соответствовать решению КС.

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!

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.

С тревогой смотря не на сей бренный час, а дальше...

"Жительницы нарынского села дают свои пожертвования в поддежку агит кампании Ак Жола". "Задержали(!) малолетних агитаторов за партию Ата Мекен". "Координатор партии СДПК задержан с гашишем"..."Многотысячные собрания Ак Жола", "Недопуск партий Ата Мекен и СДПК в ранее запрошенные здания"...
"Генпрокуратора подала иск на СДПК на 20 миллионов сомов возмещени... Суд вынес решение взыскать с СДПК 20 миллионов сомов для возмещения ущерба, якобы причиненного членом партии"...

При академике Акаеве я вроде был уже взрослый и понимал политику. Сегодняшняя грязь со стороны власти ни на йоту не отстаёт от Акаевской в области грязи, если не сказать превзошла. Я до почти последнего момента был склонен видеть в Бакиевской власти больше позитивного и оптимистичного, чем в старой. Сегодня у меня к этой власти нет никакой симпатии... Одни антипатии чистой воды. Знаю, "не я виноват, не я это всё делаю" скажет Бакиев. Нет у нас традиции брать и нести ответственность. Есть у нас лишь дешевые, лобовые, бесхитростные интриги деревенского уровня.

Вся система работает в до боли знакомом стиле, как по маслу. Те же акимчики на каждом шагу препятствуют другим, и воспевают партию власти. Тот же КТР играет в свои бездарно плоские интриги, что даже не смешно. Те же суды, которые по заказу выносят нужные решения в нужный час. Та же ЦИК, отвратительным образом поработившая процесс агитации. Те же инфантильные "держи, хватай, караул" по малейшим причинам, дабы потянуть неугодных вниз... Не мытьем, так катаньем. Сколько я думал и надеялся, что власть поймёт, что выиграть можно без этой грязи, что не обязательно выигрывать все 80%, что ей же и выгоднее выиграть в достойном уважения процессе, а не играми... Представьте, пустили 12 спринтеров на 600-метровку... 11и из них не разрешили одеть кроссовки, стартовую линию им назначили несколько метров позади... И главное, этого 12го любимчика посадили в спортивную машину. И как только машина любимчика проехала, посыпали соль на дорожку, чтоб не сильно спешили 11 "ненаших". Никакой существенной разницы не вижу...

Курманбек Бакиев! Дело не столько в том, что кто-то поёт песенки Запада про демократию или что-то в том роде... Дело в том, что вы делаете из народа Кыргызстана одну серую продажную массу. Да бог с вами, даже, возьмите этот парламент себе домой. Но не губите душу и достоинство народа! Народ наш становится дежурным воспевалой. Народ перестаёт понимать смысл мозгов. Народ перестаёт различать между правдой и неправдой, между белым и черным... И становится сам участником всего этого лицемерия... Горько просто. Наплевать бы на всё это, если бы не все эти горькие и очень далеко идущие последствия.

Анекдот в тему, кыргызча.

Жаш келин экинчи класстагы баласы менен кыргыз тилинен сабак кылып отурушат. Суйломдорду толуктоо, берилген создордун арасынан туурасын таап. Суйлом, "Менин олком - менин ..."; берилген варианттар, а) Ак Жол, б) Социал Демократия, в) Ата Мекен.
Баласы: - Менин олком - менин ак жолум. Туурабы?
Апасы: - Жоок, балам, азыр эмес, эгер сен чоноюп, Кыргызстандын президенти болсон, ошондо мумкун ушинтип айтасын. Азырынча бул соз туура эмес.
Баласы: - Менин олком - менин со... сости... деморк....
Апасы: - Жааным, сен бул созду айталбайсын азыр, кичине дагы жакшы окуп чонойсон, маанисин тушунсон, ага чейин олкобуз чындап эле ошо сен айталбаган создой болуп калат, кудай буюрса.
Баласы: - аа, апа, эми билдим, тушундум, туурасын таптым, "Менин олком - менин Ата Мекеним"!
Апасы: - Ой азаматыыым! Туп-туура. Бирок катуу бакырба, антип айткан азыр кее бир адамдарга жакпайт.
Баласы: - Апа, эмнеге туура айтсам бироолорго жакпайт?...

Выборы по-ЦИКовски

Центральная Избирательная Комиссия КР - важнейший орган при проведении выборов. На нее возлагается неимоверная ответственность, так как от ее работы и действий зависит чрезвычайно многое в политике страны, а значит - в общем развитии нашего государства. Выдержать, и достойно, легитимно, убедительно, и на высоком уровне выдержать такую ответственность должно быть нелегкой задачей.

Нынешний состав ЦИКа, в финишной прямой на подходе к ранним парламентским выборам, ясно показывает насколько это трудно. В очень важных моментах этого необычайно тернистого пути, ЦИК не справляется с этой ответственностью. В результате такой работы, Кыргызстан рискует получить Жогорку Кенеш избранный, по сути, ЦИКом, а не народом Кыргызстана - избирателями. А заверение члена ЦИК, Жолдошевой о том, что "Оценку работе ЦИК будут давать по завершению избирательного процесса граждане Кыргызстана, а не Коалиция", далеко не убедительно. Народ Кыргызстана почти никогда не имел шанса давать оценку ЦИКу, кроме как в марте 2005го. И если заткнуть рот и Коалиции, и ей подобным, то и вовсе не будет никакой оценки от независимых институтов.

Важнейшим шагом ЦИК, предопределяющим расклад голосования заблаговременно, станет их решение о том, как толковать требование о 0.5% барьере для партий. Вместо того, чтобы обратиться, скажем, в Конституционный Суд - который как раз наделен полномочием толковать конституционные законы, и вместо того, чтобы хотя бы просто с умом и логикой прочитать это требование, ЦИК истолковал его наиболее нелогичным, наиболее анти-конституционным, и наиболее искажающим способность избирателей справедливо определить свои предпочтения, образом. Ренат Медетбеков лаконично объяснил это требование с юридической стороны, но даже без юридического образования, которое к сожалению многие члены ЦИК не имеют, вполне можно было бы прочитать этот закон правильно. Требуется исключительная инфантильная фантазия, незнание элементарных положений Конституции, и отсутствие логической основы, чтобы прочитать его так, как прочитал и узаконил ЦИК.

Во-вторых, ЦИК не смог должным образом проследить и обеспечить равные права партий на пиковые часы на КТР. Сегодня, лишь чуть более недели перед выборами, и лишь через суд, партия Ата-Мекен смогла отвоевать свои законом обещанные минуты. А ЦИК лишь констатировал, что мол пытались истребовать от КТР соблюдения закона... Очень плохо пытались, значит. Ведь предоставление равных агитационных возможностей на носителях, за которые платит народ - самое основное и элементарное право всех участников выборного процесса, которое ЦИК призван обеспечить. При промедлении реакции со стороны КТР, ЦИК сам должен был давно подать в суд на КТР.

И в-третьих, "работа" с самими партиями и их членами. Самое недавнее - исключение Эдиля Байсалова из списка СДПК. Вопрос о бюллетенях и вопрос о кандидатстве Байсалова - две разные вещи, и ЦИК ни по какому закону не имел такого права. Он имел право подать на Байсалова в суд - и суду бы оставалось еще решить, повинен ли Байсалов в каком-либо нарушении существующих правил. ЦИК не есть судебный орган, и лишать кандидатства по неписаным правилам он не имеет права. По той же причине того, что ЦИК - не судебный и не законо-толкующий орган, он не имел никакого права вовлекать партию СДПК к ответственности за бюллетени, и тем самым повести мощное негативое освещение этой партии в ходе агитации. Партия и Байсалов сами разберутся, как и кто будет отвечать, и ЦИК в этом деле не имел никаких полномочий. Я надеюсь, что СДПК за ето подаст в суд на ЦИК. Чуть ранее, ЦИК лишил кандидатства одного человека в списке партии Глас Народа, по причине несостояния того человека в членстве партии. Это уже другая ситуация, и к ней - совсем другие веские претензии, но уже по закону. И не станем обсуждать еще более важное дело - недопущение ряда партий к участию в выборах. Эти партии оспаривают такое решение, но ЦИК уже пустил караван дальше.

И наконец, эта пресловутая идея об организации голосования на рынках России. Кому могла прийти такая провинциальная идея - с мобильной урной прохаживаться по рядом российских базаров, или сидеть в контейнере с урной... Из почти 500 тысяч граждан Кыргызстана зарубежом, почти 100% которых в возрасте избирателя, только мизерные доли голосовали в прошлые разы, когда организовали такую возможность. Более того, очень много наших сограждан подверглись преследованию со стороны российских, и казахских, полицмейстеров, которые ловили наших избирателей уходивших от урны, как рыбку на червяка. Слава богу, что отменили такую идею вовремя.

Многие другие инциденты обсуждать - конечно же будет бесконечно. Но в массе своей, действия ЦИК ведут к тому, что предстояшие выборы будут в очень многом выборами со стороны именно этой Комиссии, а голосование народа окажется лишь конечноы модификации. Иначе говоря, ЦИК уже нарисовал важнейшие контуры состава Жогорку Кенеша, и говорит народу "раскрась сам", и при этом подсовывает ему краски. В этом смысле, то что «Центризбирком КР не допустит ... действий, которые могут привести к срыву парламентских выборов или повлиять на их ход," звучит очень правдоподобно. "Оценку доверия политическим организациям дадут только избиратели! Никто - ни НПО, ни государственные органы - не имеет права вмешиваться в этот процесс», говорит та же госпожа Жолдошева. Однако же, НПО - это те же избиратели, самые активные и организованные избиратели. И в отличие от государственных органов, НПО (пока что) не сидят на деньях налогоплательщиков; они не имеют никаких административных ресурсов, и потому, существенно отличаются от них.

Вот так, вот, с Центризбиркомом полным провинциальности, алогичности, незнания своих прав и обязанностей, и тем не менее носящим на себе ношу, кричаще ей непосильную, идем мы выбирать первый в своей истории парламент по партийным спискам. И даже хочется крикнуть, "Где же вы, Сулайман Иманбаев, всеми нами очень недавно нелюбимый?! Помогите тут нам!"

Looking for a killer, not The Killer, sorry.

More than 40 days passed since the brutal murder of Alisher Saipov. Since then, investigations into his killing have not produced anything genuine. President Bakiev took personal oversight over the conduct of investigations, but he may be regretting that he did so, given the intricacy of the killing. The killer is known from the outset - the Uzbek government (or whichever arm of it). The Kyrgyz police has been trying by all means to 'look the other way' from the blinding light of actual killers' known-ness. They have instead tried to find the killers among Islamic extremists - the default suspects for anything you want to dump. The glaring illogic of such a suggestion is not any hindrance to the police. Never mind the fact that Alisher was actually speaking out in defense of religious freedoms, against persecution for beliefs, and certainly against demonizing Islam for anything that Islam (Karimov) was nervous about. The some holds for the Uzbek political opposition abroad, who have benefitted from Alisher's brave reporting, giving them publicity.

The New York Times carried an article about the killing of Alisher Saipov on Dec 3, where it highlighted the widespread conviction that Uzbek KGB was involved. More interestingly, after some public pressure, and perhaps because it is just so impossible to ignore it, the Kyrgyz police, too, voiced that Uzbek connection, at least one of their four alternative scenarios. Of course eventually they will do anything to dismiss this alternative... One of the four alternatives being just a criminal act, not motivated in any political way. Coudn't get any more hypocritical.

...President Karimov (and why on earth this person should end up with a first-name Islam?) has cleared his way to another term as president of another thorn. The presidency was so guaranteed, it was not worth any blood-letting, but they would do it anyway. Just how much more blood is he willing to swim in? At 70 years of age, looking much less than a 'strong and fit man', just what is the ultimate drive in this man to such extreme self-assertion? Well, as if this is the first example of such brutality. It's just that when it's closer to your time and home, it hits you harder.

Campaign. What else?

... 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.

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.

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!

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.