Thirteen years ago Kyrgyzstan made headlines around the world during the so-called 'Tulip Revolution', which was later labelled as Central Asia's first democratic revolution.  On 24 March 2005, after almost two weeks of large-scale demonstrations throughout the country, protesters stormed the government buildings and forced the President Askar Akayev to resign and flee the country. Other top government officials such as the defence and interior ministers were also forced to resign and the country was effectively left without a legitimate government for some time. Multiple reasons for such a sudden and wide-spread revolt were identified: irregularities in both presidential and parliamentary elections including extensive vote-rigging; significant limitations of civil and political freedoms imposed by the state authorities; wide-spread corruption and nepotism of the ruling political elites; chronic economic crisis and lack of economic growth, etc. A provisional government was installed by the end of March 2005, which somewhat restored a sense of law and order in the country.

The Tulip Revolution put the country back on the democratization path by transforming a largely autocratic regime, installed in the country in the 1990s, into an electoral democracy. Electoral democracies can be characterized as deficient democracies which fulfil a minimum definition of democracy but have not yet managed to achieve the top status of a consolidated democracy. (See Chapter 22 on the specifics of democratization processes in post-Soviet Russia.) Electoral democracies are generally successful in installing nominal democratic procedures such as political institutions and competitive and multi-party elections, but these regimes fail to ensure the democratic performance of institutions and actors, e.g. the rule of law, representation and accountability, separation of powers, civil and political rights, civil society, constitutionalism. Thus, Kyrgyzstan together with two other post-Soviet republics which experienced 'coloured revolutions' in the first half of the 2000s (Orange Revolution in Ukraine and Rose Revolution in Georgia) was characterized as a second path of political transformations in the post-communist world—from a post-communist autocratic regime to an electoral democracy. (For a more detailed discussion on this see Chapter 22.)

Years later Kyrgyzstan has not had a smooth road to democratization. On 7 April 2010 a violent uprising in Kyrgyzstan left more than 80 people dead and removed the President Kurmanbek Bakiyev from power. The revolt on 7 April represented the culmination of ongoing monthly protests all over the country against government corruption and nepotism practices; rising prices for electricity, heating, and water; lack of economic and political reforms; and severe restrictions of civil and political freedoms. The very same Bakiyev, who was installed as a head of interim government during the Tulip Revolution in 2005, was accused of the same political mischief and abuse of office as his political predecessors prior to 2005, forcing him to flee the country.

In response to the revolution that deposed President Kurmanbek Bakiyev, Kyrgyzstan adopted a new constitution in 2010 that was mostly vague about the distribution of powers.  The interim government agreed to postpone further constitutional amendments until the new parliamentary system had a decade to consolidate itself. By June 2016, President Almazbek Atambayev proposed a series of constitutional amendments which represented a step back from what had originally been promised. Same sex marriage would be banned, judicial independence would be reduced, international rulings on rights violations within its borders would be disregarded and the powers of the prime minister would be expanded. These amendments passed with 80 per cent public support in a referendum.

Since the passage of these amendments to the constitution, Kyrgyzstan was further spiralling into dictatorship. Civil liberties were threatened as President Atambayev regularly attacked journalists and activists. The State Committee for National Security also expanded its powers and involvement in the political processes. The agency was being used to silence critics. The opposition has also seen their leaders attacked and arrested for trying to organize anti-government protests. Opposition leader Omurbek Tekebaev was detained at Bishkek airport in February 2017, sparking protests which went on for four days.  Kyrgyzstan was once the brightest hope for democratic consolidation in Central Asia, and appeared to be reversing to authoritarianism. 

But in November 2017 presidential elections were held and incumbent president Atambayev did not try to run again (constitutionally he was limited to one term), nor did he try to become the prime minister. Instead, Sooronbay Jeenbekov, a member of the ruling party, won with 54 per cent of the vote in an election deemed to be relatively fair by the international community.  Though there were concerns that there was a misuse of public resources, some pressure on voters, and media biases against the opposition leader Omurbek Tekebayev, the results were accepted and there were no complaints from the opposition to redo the elections. Time will tell if the leadership of Jeenbekov can avoid the authoritarian pitfalls of his predecessors.

Critical thinking questions

• Can Kyrgyzstan in the 1990s be characterized as a case of failed democratization? How does a failed democratized state differ from an established autocracy?
• How useful is the concept of electoral democracy when analysing democratization trends in the post-Soviet area? What are the main reasons for electoral democracies emerging in the post-communist world?
• How serious is a legitimacy crisis for a political regime? Are autocracies prone to legitimacy crises?
• What role do political institutions play in democratic transformations? Compare various opportunity structures for political actors that exist in parliamentary and presidential systems of government, and assess what are the most likely outcomes for politics in Kyrgyzstan if the form of government is changed from presidential to parliamentary.
• Does Kyrgyzstan have a possibility of consolidating democracy?