Decision Time
Dickens’s classic novel of the French Revolution, “The Tale of Two Cities”, has probably the best opening line and closing lines in all of British literature. It is an extremely well crafted list of eight opposites that compliment each other almost like poetry:
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.”
Few people, (myself included), can quote from memory all 120 words and so they usually reduce it to a single couplet: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times …”. These two phrases encapsulate both the promise and the anguish of those turbulent times.
They also summarize the current election process that we are going through at the moment. This thought came to me as I read the comments of Edil Baisalov, (one of the “players” in the interim government that took power when Kurmanbek Bakiev was ousted from power in April), when he remarked that “Central Asia has never seen such a competitive race … If it weren’t for those bloody events, this would be a time to celebrate.”
Those bloody events, of course, refer to the revolution itself – which cost over 80 lives, the incidents in Maevka- which cost another five lives and riots in Djalal Abad and Osh – which cost more – many, many more, (although we official figures of over 400 fatal casualties, it is likely that there were far, far more).
The election has, indeed, been a remarkable process. Over 3000 candidates representing 29 political parties are contesting for 120 seats in the Jogorku Kenesh – the Kyrgyz parliament. There is no obvious front runner and it has been a closely fought campaign. It has also been a surprisingly clean and cordial campaign – almost civilized. Most of the campaign has boiled down to personalities rather than policies, but there are signs that the people are taking the whole process seriously and conscientiously – those that haven’t been put off by their experience of politics over the last 19 years, that is. There are those that have taken to heart the feeling so often expressed elsewhere: “I don’t like any of the politicians…. They all come along and promise to do this and that. But in the end, no one does anything.” Even one of the parties with candidates contesting the election has posters urging that people vote “Protiv vsech” – against them all.
An interim report of some of the long term election observers concluded that there had been few violations of procedure. For example, every party had been able to secure space in the media – with only one case of a refusal being recorded and another of “undue pressure” being brought to bear on a representative of the media.
The first signs of potential problems, however, began to emerge. This included name calling and what is known here as “black PR”. For example, a new newspaper was launched and it’s first issue disparaged leading members of some of the parties. This followed the airing of a programme on Russian TV – widely available in Kyrgyzstan – which seemed to discredit others – leading to claims that Russia was trying to influence Kyrgyzstan’s internal affairs. Leaflets appeared in the South criticizing Roza Otunbaeva and her government. Also in the South, someone was arrested for sending SMS messages saying that if the Uzbeks didn’t vote for one party, then their houses would be burnt down two days later. There have been claims of “administrative resources” being used by some of the parties – for example workers in state bodies and enterprises being urged to campaign or vote for one party or another. To try and avoid students from being manipulated like this – and to allow them to travel home in order to vote – all institutes of Higher Education have been granted a ten day holiday. This hasn’t stopped schools from becoming embroiled in similar controversial activities. Towards the end of the week, a car was stopped at the border and inside there were USD700,000 – supposedly from Bakiev and his entourage and intended for one of the parties. There have allegations – some upheld – of party members bribing voters.
Potentially, the worst incident happened on Wednesday and threatened to throw the whole process into question. In an interview earlier in the week, one of leaders of one of the parties was apparently asked why they hadn’t been able to keep Bakiev – and he is said to have responded that there was nothing they could do at that time, but “we are the only people who can bring him back.” The party deny that he actually said this. They claim that it was a “put up job” and that his comments have been manipulated and misquoted. Some people took offence at these remarks and stormed the parties offices in Bishkek on Wednesday, setting fire to papers. This led to questions about who was being investigated by the police – the party leader or the “vandals” and whether the situation in the country was stable enough to enable the election to go ahead.
Whether all of these alleged or actual violations will be seen as being crucial, sufficient to alter the outcome of the election, is yet to be seen. If they are considered to have had a crucial impact on the election by certain groups within the population, whether it is true or not, then we could have a number of disgruntled voters.
Here, we seem to have a history of a disgruntled population taking to the streets.
The election is being hailed as an important milestone – and preparations are well underway to try and ensure that the election will pass peacefully and successfully. There are patrols of volunteers who join the police and other security bodies in trying to maintain order. Check posts are being placed on important highways, but it is promised that they will remain open, (presumably in the absence of major incidents). Fax machines have been distributed to polling stations in order to send the results direct to the electoral commission and thus avoid manipulation or falsification of the figures. Hot lines are being manned to consider reports of any electoral violations. Most people seem to want order restored and to be able to get on with their lives.
Tomorrow, (Sunday), is D-Day, Decision Day. Today, (Saturday), is a day of silence – no campaigning. Posters and flags can stay up, but there will be no party political broadcasts. Even websites have to, technically, remove campaign material from their pages … which raises an interesting question: who decided if something is “campaign material” or simply “informative material”? There are no loudspeaker vans touring the streets urging people to vote this way or that. Last night, late into the night the air was alive with the sound of music from rallies and concerts, presumably aimed at eliciting the youth vote. But, today all is quiet. I think it is likely that election day, itself, will go well.
As with that other D-Day, however, it’s not the end of the end of the story. From June 6th ,1944, to May 8th, 1945, there was still a lot at stake and there was no guarantee of success. That’s how it is here. Even if election day does proceed successfully and peacefully, even if the votes are counted, announced and the results accepted as valid, (as being both free and fair), even if it is accepted there were no, (or minimal), violations of the law and electoral process, then there are still potential hurdles to overcome.
For example, several of the parties are regional in nature – they draw their support from one region or another. There is nothing new or specifically Kyrgyz about this. For example, look at an election map of the United States – swathes of territory coloured blue or red rather than in any randomly scattered form to show uniform support across the country. In the UK, the Conservatives were virtually eliminated – and had difficulty in finding a from Scotland for many years while Labour fought the challenge of the Scottish National Party, (SNP). We also have regional parties in Wales and Northern Ireland. For some time, the Liberal Party was known as the “Celtic Fringe” because their stronghold was always in the remote regions at the extreme limits of the Kingdom: Shetland or Orkney, Devon and Cornwall.
In the UK, this question of the geographical distribution of support for different sometimes leads to discussion about the breakup of the Union – (the United Kingdom being a number of ancient countries united under one crown, as the name implies) – but we have managed, so far, to avoid this by delegating powers and responsibilities to regional and national assemblies.
Here, however, the situation is more complicated, despite the fact that Kyrgyzstan is just a single country, (as enunciated in the constitution that was recently approved by a vote of over 90%,) but it contains people of many different ethnic groups, and even the Kyrgyz, themselves, seem to be divided into distinct groups. So much so that for some time there has been talk of the two “nations”: North and South (more properly, the North East and the South West) and speculation, (both locally and in the international media), about the potential division of the country.
What’s more, there is a catch. In order to obtain any seats in the parliaments, a party must gain votes from at least 5% of the electorate nationally AND at least 0.5%, half a percent, of the votes cast in each of the regions, (the seven oblasts, in Bishkek and Osh). If they don’t make both of those two thresholds – then no seats. I can’t imagine the SNP being able to obtain 0.5% of the votes in Wales, England, or Northern Ireland … but here the requirement means that each party has to campaign in all regions across the country. Imagine if one party records a sizeable vote – over the national 5% threshold – but fails in just one region to breach the local threshold then they will be deprived of any seats and there will be a lot of disgruntled voters.
Here, we seem to have a history of a disgruntled population taking to the streets.
Even if the elections are deemed free and fair and the results accepted as representing the will of the people with parties achieving a representation in the parliament proportional to the votes that they gained in the plebiscite, there is still the question of who will actually take the seats in the new parliament. It’s still possible that the parliament will not represent the population of the country.
Each party was required to submit a list of 120 candidates, which had to meat certain quotas for the number of women and contain a certain proportion drawn from different ethnic groups. That sounds good in theory – and might be thought to be inclusive. However, the most that any party may hope to achieve is 65 seats in the parliament – there’s an upper limit to avoid any single party being able to dominate proceedings. The result is that, although all 29 parties have managed to meet the quotas, only a few have put people from different ethnic groups into winnable places on their party lists. In other words, the parliament could well be homogeneous – so different ethnic groups could be left unrepresented, raising the possibility of another group of disgruntled voters.
Here, we seem to have a history of a disgruntled population taking to the streets.
Assuming, however, that we are able to avoid that particular pitfall there are still more hurdles waiting to be overcome. There are no obvious front runners, so it doesn’t look likely that there will be any party gaining an overall majority in the new parliament. This means that there will have to be negotiations to produce a coalition. We saw in Britain, earlier this year, that these negotiations can be a protracted and difficult process.
The largest party in the new parliament has two weeks to try and reach a deal with potential coalition partners, and if they fail then the next largest party is given a period to do so. If they fail, then we start the whole election process again.
Negotiation is a difficult process, requiring give and take, requiring compromise. Who knows what compromises might have to be reached? Who knows what precious objectives might have to be given up? Who knows what section of the population might feel betrayed by the arrangements that are reached – enough to be disgruntled?
Here, we seem to have a history of a disgruntled population taking to the streets.
Of course, each of these scenarios is only a possibility. They might come about, but then again we might be successful in avoiding them. The interesting thing is that although I sense tension, anxiety and uncertainty in the atmosphere; a sense of dislike for politics and a distrust of politicians – which is also commonly found in other societies; confusion over the myriad of choices presented before them – 29 parties, 29 lists of personalities, over 3000 candidates, an information overload of 29 programmes and sets of policies; all the same, I also sense something positive. The people have been given a choice – a chance to participating in deciding the way in which their society is going to develop. They seem to have embraced the opportunity that it has presented. It’s as if everyone seems to be hoping for the first part of Dickens’s couplets – that it is the best of times, an age of wisdom, an epoch of belief, the season of Light, the spring of hope, with everything before us, that we enter a new paradise – will prove to describe the situation, rather than the second part of each pair.
Bishkek
Thanks for all thje postcards Ian