The Tulip Revolution – 24th March, 2005
As an ex-pat living in Bishkek during the “Tulip Revolution” and witnessing the events of 24th March, 2005, Iwrote a series of messages to friends and relatives to reassure them that he was safe … and describe some of his experiences and reactions.
These messages are reproduced here.
I haven’t edited them … they are “as sent”. They are not a comprehensive or accurate historical account of the events – but a series of observations of one person who witnessed the events unfolding and tell part of his story. As such, they reflect the ambiguity and lack of certainty of the times, as well as the mass of rumours which circulated and the changing opinions as more and more information became available.
I am often asked how the revolution affected us … and if I was scared. Frankly, in terms of attracting tourists it was a bit of a mixed blessing … in terms of the effect on doing business – it is probably still too early to say, one year later – although the uncertainty that followed and the need to concentrate more attention onto questions of security certainly haven’t helped – but then much of life continues as before. When it comes to the question about being scared … the answer is really “not really” … it was unpleasant and disconcerting … but it was basically a riot, and riot happen all over the world … and some are much more serious than this was. True, on this occasion it led to the downfall of a government, and some people did lose their lives as the events unfolded … but the events in Paris during the early part of 2006 look just as serious on CNN, BBC and so forth – lasted longer and did as much, if not more damage (in monetary terms and the image of the country).
___________________________
Background:
In the disputed elections for the new post of President of the Kyrgyz SSR – Askar Akaev emerged as a compromise candidate and was elected. During the abortive Moscow coup of August 1991 he came out strongly against the conspirators appearing on television and announcing to the people what was happening. He resigned from the Communist Party that was soon afterwards dissolved. On August 31st the Kyrgyz Supreme Soviet voted to declare Kyrgyzstan’s independence – the first Central Asian Republic to do so. Six weeks later he was re-elected President, having turned down an invitation from Mikhail Gorbachov to become Vice President of the USSR.
He established a reputation as a democrat and reformer – and a huge majority in a referendum backed his reforms in 1994. He was re-elected President in 1996 and 2000 with overwhelming majorities.
The election in 2000 was, however, controversial. The constitution limited a President to holding two terms of office. It took a decision by the Supreme Court to declare that his first election as President of the Kyrgyz SSR and was under the auspices of the Soviet Union, not under the constitution, and so did not count.
His reputation suffered further as he was seen as “moving away” from the democratic path and adopting a more authoritarian approach to government. There were also complaints about corruption and claims about the Akaev family amassing personal wealth. Members of the opposition were arrested and imprisoned … others debarred from standing for election to the parliament on various pretexts … large sections of the mass media were either under control or the influence of members of the Akaev family limiting access to members of the opposition to press coverage …
Although he announced that he had no intention of seeking yet another term as President – there were concerns that a situation was being engineered so that he could do exactly that … or at least put into power a protégé (for example his eldest daughter, Bermet).
Matters came to a head in March after Parliamentary elections, which the opposition claimed were “rigged” – and many of the international observers reported were below internationally accepted standards. The opposition gained only a few of the seventy five seats. Protests in the South called for the cancellation of the results, a re-run of the elections and the resignation of Akaev. Government buildings in Osh and Djalal Abad were seized by the protesters. Many officials declared themselves for the opposition … and eventually Batken also went over to the opposition. To all effect, the whole of the South was no longer under government control.
The opposition called for a protest meeting in Bishkek. The protest started calmly, but scuffles broke out and the crowd then pushed toward the White House. The police turned aside and melted away. The Government House was stormed, and effectively the government fell. President Akaev was nowhere to be seen … he had fled the country. He later claimed that he had been in the White House almost up to the moment when it was stormed – and that he left to prevent a civil war breaking out.
Some of the protesting crowd went to a prison and demanded the release Feliks Kulov – “The People’s General” who had been one of ‘the leaders of the opposition and had been imprisoned during Akaev’s rule on corruption charges – which he consistently denied.
The parliament met and appointed Kurmanbek Bakiev, (a former Prime Minister, who had been one of the leading members of the opposition), as acting President. Technically, Akaev was still president – he refused to resign.
Bakiyev appointed an interim government – Kulov, so recently released from prison, became responsible for Security – which was to be a crucial role, because in the chaos that followed the overthrow of the government there was a night of serious civil unrest, rioting and looting. The atmosphere continued to be tense as the next unfolded – but rain, and later snow, aided the police and civilian militias to restore order.
In the meantime, however, the events had thrust the Kyrgyz Republic into the forefront of news coverage in the world’s media.
There were many problems ahead, as the opposition to Akaev had not been a unified body – and divisions continued. Different politicians announced that they would stand in the presidential elections that were announced for June.
These divisions are reflected in the fact that the “Tulip Revolution” was also sometimes referred to as the “Daffodil Revolution”- and even as the “Lemon Revolution”. There were many comparisons made to earlier “revolutions” in the former Soviet Republics of Georgian and the Ukraine: the “Orange” and “Rose” revolutions and sometimes collectively referred to as the “velvet revolutions”, although there were many differences between them. The reason for the name “Tulip Revolution” lies in the fact that the “Kyrgyz opposition had adopted the use of colours as banners from the examples set in the earlier revolutions. One party favoured yellow – another favoured pink. When the crowds amassed in the Ala Too Square, many of the participants carried Tulips (mainly pink ones) as a sign of their peaceful intentions – others carried yellow daffodils.
Amongst the similarities between the various revolutions were the fact that they all occurred in former Soviet Republics – and that the opposition forces which eventually replaced the established governments had received, (to one degree of another), support from the United States. There, however, differences begin to emerge. The motivating forces behind the Tulip Revolution were mainly internal – dissatisfaction about the long established existing government; about the lack of economic progress; about the level of corruption and nepotism. There was no real external focus to the movement. This is reflected by the fact that the new government announced that they intended to follow the same foreign policy; the status of the American (Coalition) and Russian air bases would remain as before; international agreements would be maintained.
Bishkek