CC BY
21
"Amrakhbank", the leadership of the IIB made public the plan of its transformation into a valuable Islamic bank proposing a full list of Islamic banking products. However, these intensions were not realized due to the same uncertainty of the legal status of the future Islamic bank.
To the author's mind, one should not appraise the future of the Islamic banking affairs and Islamic financing in a very pessimistic way in Azerbaijan. Taking into account the interest to Islamic financial services in the republic, given the guarded position of the authorities, it is possible to make a prognosis that the development of Islamic banking will go on according to the same scenario as in Turkey: from non-recognition as valuable banks to giving them the special status (partner banks).
"Islamskaya ekonomicheskaya model i sovremennost", M., 2010, p. 277-28.
Askar Akayev,
first president of the Kyrgyz Republic (1990-2005)
KYRGYZSTAN: DISTURBING PREMONITIONS
The people's revolt in Kyrgyzstan in April 2010 instantly liquidated the regime of Bakiyev and set a new stage in the post-Soviet history of the republic. A group of politicians headed by R. Otunbayeva in a self-styled way proclaimed itself as the Provisional government. Being aware of the danger, they, nevertheless, did not take measures to prevent bloody inter-ethnic clashes in the south of the republic. The conflict resulted in several thousand victims and caused vast material damage. The members of the provisional rule in a way of voluntarism in the state of emergency imposed to the country the referendum and hastily adopted new constitution, which proclaimed Kyrgyzstan a
parliamentary republic, although it was unprepared for it. The elections to the parliament took place on 10 October 2010. The contradictory results of the elections raise great doubts in ability of the present power to ensure fulfillment of promises for the better future. The destiny of the country, the preservation of its territorial integrity and national survival are at stake.
For the last five years, Kyrgyzstan as a result of consecutive internal political troubles became a kind of fright. Meanwhile, the experts watching the situation in the Central Asia know well that for almost fifteen years the republic at the first stage of the post-Soviet development was regarded as a model of sustainable development and "an island of democracy" in the region. The small country in the Central Asia, which was situated far away from the world centers of force and was relatively weak in terms of economy, was becoming more significant in the world community. The situation changed on 24 March 2005, when in Bishkek the coup d'etat took place under the cover of the "tulip" revolution, the third one in the series of "color" revolutions, which were arranged beforehand in Georgia and Ukraine.
The author, being the president of Kyrgyzstan, knew it but still did not believe that the hostile Trans-Atlantic wave would cover the republic with such force. The adventure of Washington seemed to make Kyrgyzstan a testing area for promotion of democracy according to the American scenarios on the territory of the Central Asia. At that time, the experts of the USA "brain centers" did not foresee a significant moral damage to American interests in the world. At present, under the influence of events in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, the external attempts to incorporate democracy are understood as a direct threat to stability and prosperity of the countries being subject to American pressure. However, the "revolutionary lull" is not a prediction of
Washington's refusal from subversive activities in the post-Soviet world.
For a short period after the popular uprising in April, the provisional government prepared a draft of the new constitution and arranged its approval on 27 July by the national referendum. Two months later the parliamentary elections took place. Why the presidential republic was transformed into a parliamentary republic for such short time? The analysis of the events in 2005 gives the answer.
R. Otunbayeva and the majority of "new rulers" were active participants of the coup d'etat on 24 March 2005. The opposition succeeded to take power not thanks to attractiveness of its program aims. Its ideas were reduced to the appeal "Down!" The main reason of the opposition's success consisted, probably, in refusal of the author as the president of the state to respond by force and to use arms against the crowd, gathered on the capital's main square and instigated by the opposition's leaders, to storm the government's building. The president issued the order "do not shoot". R. Otunbayeva was the main ideologist of "tulip" revolution, and the easy victory in March 2005 raised her self-estimation. It conditioned her further reason to break relations with Bakiyev. In April R. Otunbayeva used the chance to become the leader of the opposition and to oust her former boss from the political arena.
Bakiyev, unlike Akayev, did not intend to step down without fighting. He ordered to shoot at demonstrators. Over 80 people were shot to death. The political fire in Bishkek provoked the bloody inter-ethnic conflict in the south of the republic, which resulted in 2 thousand new victims. The change of the leader of Kyrgyzstan was accompanied by huge material demolitions, economic and social disturbances, loss of democratic and humanistic orientations. It was the price paid by the people for R. Otunbayeva coming to power.
Are there persons, who have been convicted if not by court but by public opinion for the anti-constitutional coup d'etat in March 2005 in Kyrgyzstan? Nobody was mentioned. On the contrary, the initiators and organizers of the coup d'etat occupied the highest state posts posing as national heroes. What is the aim of the present key leaders with their doubtful democratic convictions, if morally they are engendered by the coup d'etat? The concern of the first president is caused by the maintained ties of the present leadership of the republic with the foreign organizations, which pursue their own aims and are ready to use the methods of coup d'etat and to introduce into national life elements of chaos. At present, such phenomena are used to be called "guiding chaos". This chaos seems to be guided by the TransAtlantic bosses.
The speech of R. Otunbayeva as a new president on 10 November 2010 at the first session of the new parliament should be mentioned. Side by side the intension to join the number of developed countries of the world, she said that life itself would make appraisal, whether the parliamentarian rule would be acceptable for society. It means that R. Otunbayeva herself is not sure of this. When will life give its answer to this question: in five, ten or twenty years? The imposed parliamentarian regime seems to be an adventure.
Another detail is significant. The key line in the speech of R. Otunbayeva is the thought about Great Kyrgyz Roaming from place to place. She declared that the Great Kyrgyz Roaming "opened in its history a new page". Actually, the roaming period is a remarkable historic period of the Kyrgyz people. However, at present, keeping memory of history, one should orient himself to the modern foundation created for the years of sovereign development. Underestimation of significance and firmness of this foundation built in the republic by collective efforts of the multinational community would be nothing else
but a crime in face of the civil great deed of the people. Movement forward with the head turned backwards will hardly lead to a grand purpose.
In politics it is equally dangerous both running ahead and moving backwards - there is small choice in rotten apples, as they say. The Bakiyev course aimed at fixing in the country of the family-clanish system of governance of the medieval khanate type turned out the popular uprising with destructive consequences. The first stage of Otunbayeva period is connected with the activities of the provisional government, which resulted in blood, victims, many state and political failures.
R. Otunbayeva regards the passage of the republic to the parliamentarian power system as a main result of governance. The successful examples of parliamentarian governance mainly in developed countries are connected with the century-old system of state governance. In this respect, it is worth recalling election of the new deputies corps, elected on 10 October 2010. Out of 29 political parties participated in the elections only five of them succeeded to overcome 5% barrier: Ata-Zhurt, Social-Democratic Party, Ar-Namys, Republic and Ata-Meken. As a whole, they collected 36.3% of votes, while the share of the rest parties made 63.7% of votes. For the sake of comparison, it should be stressed: on 22 November 2010 of parliamentary elections in Moldova the four parties, which took the upper hand, collected 91.4% of votes. The election barrier prevented election of the four parties' deputies, who colleted only 8.6% of votes.
In Kyrgyzstan after October elections there shaped an illogical correlation of one third to two thirds between the victor-parties and parties-outsiders. As a result, the new composition of the parliament may not be considered as a parliament based on the will of voters, i.e. as a representative organ in general meaning of this term. Almost two
thirds of voters are deprived of the right to have their candidates as members in the new parliament. This configuration of the parliament and the state system based on it foresee instability from the beginning. The people in Kyrgyzstan itself, suffered by a row of political troubles and social-economic difficulties, as well as in the international community tired of incomprehensible change of power in Kyrgyzstan seem to perceive these events as fait accompli and have to reconcile with it. But the forced calmness is very deceptive.
It seems that the greatest danger for the present political life in the republic represents the following circumstance: at present, the main political force able to assume liability for the country's destiny has not formed. There is no all-national leader enjoying wide public confidence. The votes among the victors were divided in diapason from 8.5% (Ata-Zhurt) to 5.5% (Ata-Meken). Probably, there is in the world no country with the parliamentarian system where among the victors were no party, which received at least a half of votes, while in total the elected parties would not enjoy the support of the majority of electorate.
The party, which received only 8.5% of votes, occupied the first place. And the other circumstance causes concern. The first place among "victors" occupies the party, which is regarded nearly as a representative of interests of ex-president Bakiyev, overthrown by popular revolt; the lesser number of votes was received by the party headed by O. Tekebayev, who claimed for the role of ideologue of parliamentarian system and was the president of the commission, which drafted the constitution. R. Otunbayeva as a president for the provisional period turned out to be in an enviable position. In these circumstances she had to grin and bear. The results of the parliamentary elections may not be considered as a full fiasco for her. They showed that the provisional rulers were to blame for the situation when the
country turned out to be politically split and lost the orientation of sustainable movement forward. R. Otunbayeva lost the credit of confidence after bloody events in the south of the country. The course for the parliamentarian republic turned out to be separated from realities of life and creates more problems than solves them. The author does not doubts good intentions of R. Otunbayeva, but mentions that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Is there a way out? As is known, there are no situations without a way out of them when the question is solving problems subject to human will. At present, in contemporary Kyrgyzstan even most "terrible" general F. Kulov will hardly assume the role of dictator. After the coup d'etat in 2005 the Bakiyev team was more occupied not with care for the people but with internal group struggle and with distribution and re-distribution of the national wealth for the benefit of this team's members. The provisional government did the same, and the country turned out to be on the eve of economic collapse. The country fully depends on international assistance. According to experts of World Bank, the budget's deficit accounted for $ 335 million in 2010; the local experts estimated it twice large. At present, the urgent national needs make up $ 1 billion, while the external debt accounts for $ 2.6 billion. Since 2005, due to the permanent political crisis economy of Kyrgyzstan was characterized by sustainable stagnation raising significant problems in the social sphere. Over 40% of the population lives under the line of poverty, which tends to grow.
The "provisional rulers" demonstrated their incompetence in economic management and state governance. They were responsible for the explosion of inter-ethnic violence in the south of the republic in June 2010 resulting in gigantic number of victims and material damages. R. Otunbayeva turned out to be incapable to carry out efficient policy aimed at reconsolidation and consolidation of two
southern communities. The remained metastases predict repetition of inter-ethnic conflicts in the future.
The outflow from the republic not only of Uzbeks and Russians but also of Kyrgyz was raised due to the growth of inter-national tension and the fall of level of living, particularly comparing with the first fourteen years of sovereign development of Kyrgyzstan. The present tension in inter-national relations equals the social-economic troubles emerged after 2005.
The internal stability of the countries going on through the transitory period of their development may be based on three main factors: sustainable development to democracy; significant social-economic progress, particularly with due account of interests of ordinary people; achievement and maintenance of inter-national peace and consent.
The present power in Kyrgyzstan has not succeeded to get results for the better in either of these spheres. The rapid passage to the parliamentarian rule was imposed to society. The shortcomings in the parliamentary elections predict new troubles. The economic regress inflicts a direct blow to the interests of the majority of the population, but patience of people has its limits. The growing outflow from the republic of the most active part of the population is fraught with national troubles.
At present, in the republic there is no all-national leader, who would combine all trends of state and public life and would direct the country to a clear aim, would inspire the youth and other strata of the population. The public figures possessing not only state wisdom, prescience and other personal good qualities but also the constitutional prerogatives are needed for fulfillment of such aims. The parliamentarian system, imposed on the country, due to its peculiarities prevents appearance of the leaders capable to accomplish the key
reforms and changes. The role of the president under the new constitution is rather virtual than real. The new constitutional changes are imminent. They will be painful. The present power will try to prevent them. But they are the must, and this is a key variant of exit of the country out of the deadlock.
The "weather-wane" Bakiyev diplomacy was characterized by Kyrgyz political scientists A. Knyazev as "to have it both ways". Regretfully, the concerns appeared that the present leaders of Kyrgyzstan may follow Bakiyev way in foreign policy. At the first session of the new parliament R. Otunbayeva spoke about certain external destructive forces, which provoked the conflict in the south of the country, about external threats and an attempt to arrange a coup d'etat with external support... The hints and semi-hints create the basis for different questions: what kind of forces and what objectives they pursue? R. Otunbayeva keeps silent.
The external capacity as alpha and omega of the state policy was the basis of the first president's policy of Kyrgyzstan. Neither state in the contemporary world may carry out its policy without support on the part of allies and friends. One may cite the example of the USA, which participate in NATO and maintain cooperation within the framework of international organizations in Asia and in the Pacific. Without support given by Russia Kyrgyzstan would hardly emerge as a sovereign state, which through fault of Bakiyev and his "tulip" supporters confronts a national catastrophe.
The centuries-old history of relations between Russia and Kyrgyzstan lacked "black" pages. In 1785, the wise decision was taken by the ancestors, who appealed to Empress Great Catherine to give to the Kyrgyz Russian citizenship. Irakly II as the tsar of Georgia expressed the same appeal to Russia two years beforehand. The Kyrgyz and the Georgians were kept as the nations thanks to Russia. The
orientation to Russia as the most reliable friend and ally is firmly fixed in Kyrgyz national sense.
If at present a referendum on the republic's entry into the RF or on formation an allied federation (confederation) with Russia were held, the majority of the Kyrgyz would vote for such idea. And what is more, the success at the elections of such parties as Ar-Namys (Kulov) and Republica (Babanov) to a large extent was conditioned by their open pro-Russian orientation. The voters supported friendship with Russia and extension and intensification of allied relations with Moscow. The failure of Ata-Meken at the elections seemed to be related to the unfriendly anti-Russian speeches of its leader O. Tekebayev.
The foreign policy, as is known, concerns the all-national interests. All political parties have to come to a consensus. The personal sympathies and antipathies of individual politicians to some countries should step behind the all-national interests. The author is concerned about position of R. Otunbayeva in relation to Russia. The meaning of the public opinion on her pro-American feelings is hardly accidental. The situation should be considered abnormal, if the majority of the population oriented to Russia shares the opinion, which does not coincide with the state's head views related to her selfish or unselfish aims.
The concern about pro-American position of some members of the present government of Kyrgyzstan does not imply appeal for liquidation of American base "Manas" on the republican territory. This base is a significant part of the global infrastructure created for the struggle against the main source of terrorism kept in Afghanistan up to the present time. The coming exit of Americans from this country should mean the simultaneous closer of base "Manas". It is more significant to ensure the departure of Americans from internal life in
Kyrgyzstan. It is sufficient to say that they had their impact on it by their active participation in coup d'etat in 2005 and that Kyrgyz society will experience its hard consequences for a long time. According to the obtained information, American experts played an important role in elaboration of the new constitution proclaiming creation of parliamentarian republic, which was disapproved by the people at the elections. Is it to be not a new coup d'etat? One should repeat: "Be afraid of Americans, who bring misfortune".
It seems that under present conditions the imperative in foreign policy of Kyrgyzstan should become the return to the principles formed as a result of wide public discussion at the first stage of contemporary statehood. Russia, neighbors of Kyrgyzstan in the region, other friendly states in the post-Soviet space should further remain the priority policy direction. Kyrgyzstan is connected with them by historic destiny and long-term living in Common Home - the Soviet Union. The Kyrgyz people will remain for ever "society of common destiny", in words of known political scientist N. Vert.
The mighty social-economic and cultural rise of most Soviet Union Republics, being now independent states, in those times to a large extent was ensured at the expense of Russia, where the tempos of development sometime essentially lagged behind the tempos of development of distant republics, including Kyrgyzstan. It would be Pharisaism to speak about colonization by Russia of Eurasian lands in the west and the east. The attempts to bury CIS and other inter-state organizations created after disintegration of the USSR contradict the key interests of the peoples. And in this case again the roots are hidden on the Trans-Atlantic territory. To the author's mind, the many-centuries historic route shows that Russia was given to Kyrgyzstan by God and history. Orientation to Russia is a key guarantee of
overcoming the present crisis, the way of the republic out of the approaching historic deadlock.
One should remember Lev Gumilev's appeal to unite in order not to disappear. It was proclaimed in summer 1991, i.e. in time of reconstruction in the Union, when great social-economic troubles emerged and country started to disintegrate. L. Gumilev saw well the threat to the Soviet multi-national state. The putsch in August 1991 was a fatal event for destiny of the Union. The failure to ensure unity and to arrange resistance to destructive forces resulted in the loss of common country.
The present events in Kyrgyzstan may give an analogy with the events, which took place twenty years ago. The parliamentary elections, although arranged on the seemed democratic basis, still keep the concern. They only revealed the level of the existing threat, of the internal political separation as a environment of parasitic forces preparing Herostratos plans. The coalition of the parties-victors at the elections in Kyrgyzstan, given majority in the parliament, according to the constitution, got the right to elect the speaker and the prime-minister. The first coalition was created in November 2010 on the basis of three allegedly close to each other parties in terms of their ideology: Social-Democratic Party, party "Republic" and "Ata-Meken". However, due to inter-party disputes the coalition existed only for three days. The deadly blow was inflicted to it by failure of O. Tekebayev, the leader of "Ata-Meken" to be elected to the post of the speaker of the parliament.
The negotiations lasted for two weeks with active participation of R. Otunbayeva terminated in election to the post of the speaker of A. Keldibekov, the leader of "Ata-Zhur", which resolutely demanded the re-consideration of the constitution for the benefit of the presidential-parliamentarian form of governance. Actually, against the
background of other probable candidates he seems to be the most promising politician.
As was expected, social-democrat A. Atambayev, supported by R. Otunbayeva, became the prime-minister. He will have to wash away his guilt for collaboration with Bakiyev (he was the prime-minister in his time). By December 2010, the new power was formed according to the parliamentarian type. But the question remains: for how long time? The main doubts are connected with the following: the country will be governed by the coalition, which was based on only one fourth of votes! It would be an illusion to expect the longevity of the three parties' coalition due to disputes and differences among the leaders. The inevitable struggle between the three parties of the government and the two opposition parties will grow. The opposition is not inclined to compromise, and the most favorable behavior of the political class in Kyrgyzstan became the search for probable combinations of three parties for the nearest future. At the same time, many politicians forget about principles in case of getting power.
The present political situation in the republic resembles the picture described in the well-known fable, written by I. Krylov, on a swan, a crawfish and a pike. As is known, they tried to move a loaded cart, but the swan pulled it up, the crawfish was moving backwards, while the pike dived in water. Many Kyrgyz politicians behave in the same way. The exaggerated power ambitions, opposing interests of the main participants of the political process in the republic is difficult to combine. The correlation of ambitions and interests is possible only on the basis of firm democratic convictions. However, they will hardly be possessed by the people, who built their political carrier by means of coup d'etat and other anti-constitutional acts covered by false revolutionary slogans. The exit from this impasse is possible only in case of emergence in the republic of new political leaders free of the
past dubious burden, who have proved by their deeds the devotion to democratic order of national life. The present political elite will create obstacles to this process, but the situation will be changed.
The government in parliamentary republic usually is headed by a politician. But under the present conditions in the republic this practice should not lead to the complete politicization of the government's composition. It should be formed primarily by professionals marked by the highest expert potential from representatives of all parties and public movements. The creation of the "national and united" government may save the country, given the change of the structure of the parliamentarian majority resulting usually in radical restructure of the government.
It is high time to throw away the revolutionary demagogy and to start a normal state construction and to restore economy. The "street democracy", which promoted many present party and state leaders in Kyrgyzstan, should step down, if the country wants to survive. R. Otunbayeva and other republican leaders should finally demonstrate their ability to solve key problems of state and political life, of daily life of people using civilized acceptable forms of work in society, parliament and local communities via the system of territorial self-government and by use of potential of civil society's institutions etc. It is high time for opposition arties and movements to refute to apply primitive actions based on slogans of "Ketsin!" type and to be engaged in practical deeds.
If the present rulers in Kyrgyzstan regard the people as a mighty force able to take actions thoughtfully and collectively and not as a illiterate human masse following like zombie their leaders in time of street demonstrations, they should propose society the all-national consolidating program aimed at overcoming the national crisis, the intensification of national life in all its aspects, the enter of the country
into the flow of international life, like it at the dawn of independence. The elaboration and adoption of such program under the present existing conditions is not less important than the adoption of the constitution. Why not to implement this all-national project on the basis of wide discussion of the program's draft and by referendum? The achieved result would be generously repaid.
The present situation in Kyrgyzstan one can not help regarding as critical. The "tulip" revolutionaries violated the country in the most perverted form, destructed the results achieved for the first fourteen post-Soviet years. For the period after April 2010, R. Otunbayeva and the group of leaders coming from the "tulip" past took desperate attempts to lead the country out of the chaos, which they themselves were to blame. The declarations, made by the president on 30 November at the OSCE summit, held in Astana about the achieved stability in the country do not correspond to reality; they were made either due to the feeling of self-deceit or for the sake of exaggerating some positive aspects of national life and for leading the OSCE partners astray. Despite the self-glorification by the present rulers of their actions in the sphere of installation of the parliamentary system in the country, there are great doubts relating to the chance itself to fix this system in political life of Kyrgyzstan. To the author's mind, this system will be rejected by the people. The construction of the renewed system demands a thorough and full account of the centuries-long complicated historical experience, including unnecessary expenses of the postSoviet period.
The wording "Great Kyrgyz Roaming" repeated by R. Otunbayeva, on the one hand, deserves attention, since she tries to prove radical decisions taken by "the provisional rulers", by references to historic realities. Both Great Roaming and nomads' democracy existed in Kyrgyzstan. The nomads lived in hard conditions, and those,
who think that there existed unlimited free community of nomads, are wrong. The critical living conditions of nomads forced them to stick to rigid discipline. And in case of external military threat the regime of community life was characterized by the slogan "each Kyrgyz is a warrior". The power hierarchy existed, and the will of the leader was the law. The principles of nomadic democracy conditioned by demands for survival of people under hard natural conditions were put into life in a rigid way by wise and authoritative leaders. The heroic epos "Manas" clearly proves it for the attentive reader. The pastoral illusions of nomads' life, expressed by R. Otunbayeva, have nothing to do with reality.
Given the analysis of the key role of the parliament, one can not help seeing that under conditions of internal unstable situation in the republic the characteristic of this role shows that the prolonged collective decisions create inevitably the situation of ambiguous state power, its separation from current events in the country. The personal responsibility of the president is the necessary attribute of state power in most countries of the world. Hence, the conclusion: the review of the present option of the constitution of Kyrgyzstan is unavoidable. The only condition for this review is as follows: it should be made without revolutionary Sabbath and social troubles, which became an image of the country for the last five years.
The author experiences sharp pain, when it is needed to write and to speak about hard situation in the native republic, where he worked for almost 40 years as a scientist and state leader. However, the bitter truth is more useful for society than a sickly-sweet demagogic deception. Some other thing gives hope for belief in a better future. The history of Kyrgyz statehood numbers twenty two centuries. There were catastrophic downs and rapid ups. The Kyrgyz people will go through the present downfall engendered by the "tulip" revolution. The people
will go through it primarily thanks to the due account of the five years of infamous Bakiyev period of contemporary republic's history. The people will stand the unnecessary expenses of the "provisional" politicians. The people of Kyrgyzstan will sustain, since nearby there were and is the Russian people, who regard the destiny of the Kyrgyz as their own one. The rulers come and go, but the people rest. This is the hope.
"Svobodnaya mysl", M., 2011, N 2, p. 5-20.
Arkady Dubnov,
political observer
TAJIKISTAN: THE NEW OPPOSITION TO THE OLD PRESIDENT
The president of Tajikistan, Emomali Rakhmon, was the first leader of the post-soviet state with the Islamic population who has tried to change a style of the relations with the people after a succession of the upheavals along the "Arabic arc". No wonder that just 58-years old Rakhmon retaining the power in the country during 19 years is permanently inside the top ten of the leader lists taking the chances to be overthrown being regularly renewed by the different world mass media. As early as in February Emomali Rakhmon agreed to receive three inhabitants of the kishlak near Dushanbe where the local authorities began demolishing the houses. The president reacted in such a way to a protest rally; nothing of the kind has happened before. In two weeks the Tajik ombudsman Zarif Alizoda presented the report on observance of human rights also for the first time. He informed that about fifteen thousand of the persons registered a complaint on occasion of disseisin, illegal acre allocation and the other injustices from the party of the local authorities.
