Kyrgyzstan Chaos

In many ways there is a direct link between the failures of the Tulip Revolution and the recent coup and continuing chaos in Kyrgyzstan. Last April, President Kurmanek Bakiyev was overthrown in a coup. Since the coup, ethnic violent has persisted between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks.

In 2005, a movement arose to overthrow the longtime leader of Kyrgyzstan, Askar Akiyev. Akiyev, a former Communist party leader when Kyrgyzstan was under Soviet authority, ruled in an autocratic and corrupt manner. Bakiyev, a former prime minister under Akiyev, was the beneficiary of the desire to oust the only leader the young country had ever known.

Initially, much enthusiasm greeted Bakiyev’s rise to power. But quickly it was realized that Bakiyev wasn't able to implement the requested reforms that spearheaded the Tulip Revolution. Roza Otunbayeva was one of Bakiyev's backers who soon left his side. At that point it was generally accepted that Bakiyev was becoming an undemocratic leader. This was partly foreshadowed in Bakiyev's undemocratic grab of power during the Tulip Revolution.

Bakiyev's rule was defined by his desire to maintain his position. In April, 2010, Bakiyev was overthrown in a similar (albeit bloody) fashion as his predecessor. Otunbayeva assumed power in a near parallel occurrence to the events of the Tulip Revolution. Otunbayeva has already had to delay promised elections as ethnic violence grips the country.

Uzbek's are roughly equal with Kyrgyz in terms of population in the south of Kygyzstan, the country's borders having been carelessly created by Joseph Stalin. It is in the south, particularly in Osh, that violence between the two groups has exploded. Otunbayeva has limited control in the south. Kyrgyzstan's political and culture divisions have divided the north and the south. Bakiyev's powerbase is in the south and the government has accused him of fanning the flames of violence from exile in order to cause the government considerable trouble. Uzbeks, who have been the majority victims of the violence, tend to support the new government.

In Kyrgyzstan's case, it has been a lack of legitimacy for its leaders that is at the root of the current crisis. The Tulip Revolution produced a brief moment of optimism, but its legacy is in propping up leaders who do not have to answer to their constituency. In Kyrgyzstan's case, a functioning democracy was essential in avoiding this predicament. The problem now is that democracy would only serve to solidify the divisions in the country, whether ethnic or regional.

What You Do Comes Back To You

As the presidential runoff in Zimbabwe nears, one is surprised by how little the race resembles an election. ZANU-PF's campaign looks more like a low-intensity war than a bid to secure the larger coalition of voters.

ZANU-PF's tactics are war-like because, many experts argue, they have never finished fighting the war of liberation that granted Zimbabwe its independence in 1980. Two organizations, ZANU and ZAPU were responsible for delivering the country from white rule. Robert Mugabe and his party won the 1980 election, handily defeating ZAPU, led by Joshua Nkomo. Over the next 7 years, Mugabe treated ZAPU and its allies as enemies of the state. The result was genocide. The state-sponsored Fifth Brigade swept through the Matabelelands. Shona massacred Ndebele. Nkomo was threatened and humiliated.

ZAPU was finally forced to merge with Mugabe's party in 1987. No serious opposition surfaced until the MDC in 2000, although some small parties prevented ZANU-PF from turning Zimbabwe into a one-party state. Regardless of the lack of threat these small opposition parties presented, Mugabe always ordered pre-election violence to destroy his challengers.

This puts into context some of Mugabe's seemingly absurd charges: 1) The MDC wants to re-colonize Zimbabwe, 2) The MDC are enemies of Zimbabwe, 3) The MDC are the ones committing the violence. All are lies. Mugabe vows the MDC will never rule Zimbabwe. The war still goes on in his mind.

It is essential for the MDC to quest for power through legitimate means. Easier said than done. The way a group comes to power will dictate how they rule the country. In Kyrgyzstan, people revolted against a corrupt parliamentary election in 2005. An unintended consequence of their Tulip Revolution was the overthrow of President Askar Akayev. The two most popular politicians formed a coalition and became the President (Kurmanbek Bakiyev) and Prime Minister (Felix Kulov) but their rise to power was technically illegal. They held a presidential election 4 months later, but the results of the parliamentary election, the true impetus for the revolution, weren't thrown out. Only a few contested seats were rerun. As a result, Kyrgyzstan has had a difficult time throwing off the corrupt legacy of Akayev. One illegal action, no matter how noble, begets another and another.