Moscow hosted a presentation of the book “Vectors and paradigms of Kyrgyz independence” by Alexander Knyazev
, coordinator of regional programs of the Central Asia, Caucasus, Urals and Volga Region Studies Center under the Russian Academy of Sciences. This work presents the first attempt of systematization of the post-Soviet period of Kirgiz history.
Alexander Knyazev
Regarding the book which we are going to discuss, it appeared with difficulties. Last spring an idea was born… 20 years ago the Soviet Union collapsed. It was the country where all of us were born and most of us were raised. From an historical point of view, this period is short and long at the same time. It is short because history includes centuries. It is long because this period of time is sufficient for coming to certain conclusions. Then I thought this idea over in summer, autumn and early winter. I considered the most appropriate conceptual structure. At first the book was an academic work. It was firmly scientific with the structure of a university textbook with its chapter hierarchy. But that didn’t work. Later I imagined another structure – a series of essays devoted to the acutest key moments, processes and tendencies of Kyrgyz history. The idea appeared that Kyrgyzstan doesn’t exist separately, but that like a matrix it could be laid on the histories of some other post-Soviet countries. And the work became easier. If we compare the variant written in July and the published book, they are very different. The complete variant was written in the period December-February. The work became easier after the scheme, the approach had been conceived in my mind. Critics will definitely note that the book starts as a scientific work and ends as a publicist's work. Probably it is due to my subjectivism, in other words my concern about developments happening there. I was born and raised in the Kyrgyz SSR. We all came from one country, and I emphasize that I was born the Kyrgyz SSR, not in Kyrgyzstan. And I do care about this country. Moreover, I see that similar processes are going in other post-Soviet republics. Depending on mentality and other factors, they have certain differences. But this winter we witnessed the post-election situation in Russia. Many elements and components, which were used twice successfully in Kyrgyzstan, were used in Russia. I won’t repeat the summary. The book contains the whole history of 20 years of Kyrgyz independence. I would like to pay special attention to the following. Ella Borisovna said about coming anniversary of the events in April 2010. I think that more important developments are events that happened 7 years ago in March 2005. In the conclusion of the book I compare them with the 1917 Revolution in Russia and the 1991 one in the USSR. I believe that before March 2005 the chance for establishing a state, even though it would be small, poor and weak, but an independent state, was maintained. In March 2005 the sacral attitude to the state of the post-Soviet people was destroyed; a total sense of impunity appeared in society; despite any statements by political leaders, the national idea narrowed down to the phrase “I want to be a president too”… and this is considering the population of the small republic is less than 4 million people. It is threatening. It proves the complete collapse and failure of the state. I don’t think it is only Kyrgyzstan’s fate. A lot depends on subjective factors. This thought is reflected in the book. If the first president of Kyrgyzstan was not Askar Akayev, but Absamat Masaliev, probably today the Kyrgyz would be like the Turkmen. If in Turkmenistan an intelligent scientific person was elected as president, then Turkmen would be like the Kyrgyz today. It is about the role of a person in history. This is a headline of one of chapters of the book. What does a normal non-politicized person need for a normal life? A person needs the predictability of tomorrow. He needs an opportunity to have a job, earn money and feed children. In comparison with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan is much different. 240 km between Alma-Ata and Bishkek, but people are absolutely different, from the point of view of mentality. In Kazakhstan people are sure of their future, they know tomorrow they'll get their money, their children go to kindergarten, school and university and build a good career, despite disadvantages typical for all our republics: corruption and so on. In Kyrgyzstan people live for the day. They don’t know what will happen tomorrow. Tomorrow the next president comes and new property redistribution starts. Tomorrow a new interethnic conflict appears. This is the problem I try to consider in this book. I think I will hear a lot of criticism, but that is good. I held a presentation in Bishkek last week. I said that at least it will be a motivation for critics for arguing with me and finding additional arguments. In this case their task will be done. I think today the world is experiencing the global self-identification of every country. Global competition is growing. Talks about “reloads” and so on are for politicians only. An expert differs from a politician by the possibility to tell the truth. So competition is growing. Whether it will turn into a military confrontation or it will stay at the political and economic competition level is another question. However, for small countries, including almost all the republics of the post-Soviet space, there is only one way out. Kyrgyzstan and its development pace is the brightest example in comparison with Kazakhstan and other republics. Its development pace is more rapid. It proves that only integration with powerful partners can lead to effective development.
Alexander Kadyrbayev, senior scientist of the Oriental Studies Institute under the RAS
The book by Alexander Knyazev is the first book on the history of the post-Soviet period, because this post-Soviet period hasn’t been systematized. And the book causes ambiguous attitudes. Some mythical stories are described there. But the work is complete. Acute problems for contemporary Kyrgyzstan are considered in the book. The path of development is retraced. Some things can be argued. Of course, a book that doesn’t cause arguments has little value. I think it is important that the book is easy to read due to the emotional style of the work. I like the popular scientific style. The book will be interesting not only to experts, political scientists and oriental scientists, but also to the public at large. From this point of view the style is perfect. Of course, some aspects got more attention than others. The author describes the events from his point of view. I think Alexander won’t settle on what was achieved. Fortunately for an expert and unfortunately for the Kyrgyz people, we see that developments haven’t stopped. We receive rather sad news from there. And it proves Alexander’s prediction of the failure of the Kyrgyz state. I think only Russia saves the country from a second Kosovo by its presence. After the Osh riots… usually young people accumulate protest attitudes in society, they are full of energy, but they emigrate to Russia and the situation becomes calmer. But I’m afraid even more tragic developments are coming. The book systematizes all developments. The history of 20 years is presented as a deep analysis. We can discuss these problems infinitely. I wish Alexander to continue his work as a chronicler of the Kyrgyz history.
Sergei Mikheev, the head of the Political Situation Center
I have to work with the post-Soviet space a lot. In almost all the countries of the region I have had short- or long-term projects. Recently I visited South Ossetia, where the second round of the presidential elections will take place on April 8th. In Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia I had several long-term projects. I was living in Kyrgyzstan for several months, including 2005 and 2010. Most of our problems were caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was a global disaster. The dissolution of the USSR was a geopolitical disaster that influenced the political situation in the whole world. I think it initiated many destructive processes in the world, and many of them cannot be controlled even now. Remember that in the 1980s and the early 1990s they said that at last the bipolar world had collapsed and the planet would live happily from now on. Does it live happily? No. Instead of it we got many chaotic processes, the number of regional wars increased. Unfortunately, there is no positive tendency yet. I think the region became a victim of two destructive processes. On the one hand, it is globalization, an attempt to impose democratization and liberal norms which are not typical for local mentalities. On the other hand, it is archaism. All the states of Central Asia had returned not to pre-Soviet, but to a pre-Russian model of life after the dissolution of the USSR. It was the reconstruction of semi-feudal relations in society and political mechanisms. At the same time the process layered on implemented shallow democratic political procedures. The fabric of the process became feudal, but the top of it imitated Western liberal approaches to the political reality. As a result, a difficult situation caused by collapse of the USSR was worsened by the conflict of two absolutely different processes. Both of them are working on destabilization and destruction of reality. Some countries, for example Kazakhstan, are saved by oil and gas. They have resources; resources bring money; money gives an opportunity to stabilize the situation. The third aspect was mentioned by Mr. Knyazev. Not only due to the dissolution of the USSR, but also due to historic logistics, Central Asia has never had stable statehood. The mythology implemented in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan is one thing. The reality is different. The region has never had firm strong historically-formed states. I'm not speaking about separate khanates on Uzbek territory, it was a difficult process.
Therefore, there were no states in terms of contemporary history. That is why it cannot be said that statehood revived there. In Kazakhstan they develop the idea that the great Kazakh plain has been restored. Probably this idea could be true partially. But in general it is no more than a statehood myth. Myths are easy to destroy with reality. One iceberg and the Titanic of Central Asia will sink. Considering the fact that the presidential terms of the leaders of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are running out, in five years we might face a situation when the simultaneous collapse of political systems in these countries would cause the deepest crisis in the region. 2005 was a crucial year for Kyrgyzstan. It is true. I think Akayev managed to preserve Soviet and early post-Soviet reality, adapted to the traditional mechanism of political power. 2005 opened Pandora’s Box. The remnants of statehood were destroyed. Of course, there was no revolution. Remember that revolution is a change of the socio-political formation. From this point of view, August 1991 was a revolution, other processes that happened in the post-Soviet space were not revolutions. In Kyrgyzstan a takeover took place, one elite took power away from another elite. But the problem is that at that moment chaotic political processes had been launched. Everyone understood that by paying a certain sum of money 3-5 thousand people could take to the streets and a revolution could be made. For example, if my relative was fired from his position as head of a district, I take people, block a highway and state that democracy is infringed. This is the point of the processes that have been launched there. Bakiyev became a victim of the processes that were launched by him. People saw that no obstacles exist, investing some limited sum of money can even bring you state power. The result is a catastrophic decrease in the population's trust level in the state; professionalism and effectiveness of power lowered down to zero almost; developments became unpredictable. At the same time, such a system is vulnerable to foreign influence. It leads to instability. When the situation will come to an end, it is difficult to say. I don’t think Atambaev will manage to control the situation. He is influenced by the same destructive process – pseudo-fighting for democracy. Is it real democracy? If real democracy means destruction, then yes, it is real democracy. We shouldn’t hurry concerning integration. These steps should be thought over. I think the vector is correct. But risks should be minimized and potential candidates should feel the cost of the integration. Often the post-Soviet republics think that everything received from Russia is obvious, i.e. Russia owes them. But it is not so. The situation has changed.
