As the interim leadership of Kyrgyzstan scrambles to find its legs amidst the anarchy following the early April protests that drove former president Kurmanbek Bakiyev from office, one of the burning questions is what these events mean for the country’s future as a democratic state and what the priorities of U.S. policy should be in light of these dramatic events.

On April 21 Senator John Kerry, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stated what many in the democracy-promotion world have been suggesting for some time: the “Tulip Revolution of 2005 failed to fulfill its democratization potential.” The Senator went on to advocate a stronger show of American resolve to support democracy in the country, to counter the perception that U.S. policy in the country has been more tinted to security concerns involving Afghanistan. Indeed, on the surface the present (though still highly volatile) situation in Kyrgyzstan offers innumerable opportunities to “put things right” as it were.

While president Bakiyev resigned his post, left the country, and subsequently renounced his own resignation within the last several days, a loosely-aligned opposition coalition has taken control, stating that free and fair elections will be implemented within the year. To accomplish this, a constitution and election law needs to be drafted and ratified so that the legal basis for the election is in place.

The stated timeline of six months within which to hold a constitutional referendum as well as presidential and parliamentary elections is, in a word, ambitious. In addition to the myriad legal and structural reform initiatives to be completed in short order, there is the matter of convincing a weary and divided populace that the latest interim administration represents real change in the country once referred to glowingly as an “island of democracy” in the otherwise autocratic political landscape of Central Asia. With a high distrust of government motivated in no small part by the effects of successively corrupt (and ousted) regimes amidst a dire economic crisis, the goodwill felt by the majority of citizens toward the interim government may be very short-lived unless it can demonstrate that the “third time’s the charm” in terms of regime change.

One may well recall the hope and ardor felt five years ago in the country during the dramatic events that swept the government of Askar Akayev aside. The lack of political will to follow through with real democratic change subsequently doomed the Bakiev regime, much as it will doom the new administration unless it can overcome the twin plagues of corruption and entitlement that appear to permeate the governing elites of all five Central Asian republics.

Should Kyrgyzstan have any hope to reinvigorate itself as an independent, democratically-inclined nation-state and break the prevailing Central Asian model of autocracy it will need leaders who are willing to forego the traditional fruits of power and focus on the difficult, messy job of building a democratic state, nearly from the ground up, in record time. If this is to be successful, the country will need a serious and honest commitment from established democracies such as the United States, as Senator Kerry suggests, who are willing to look in the mirror and recognize that a democratic Kyrgyzstan is a more reliable and stable partner, and demonstrate its own policy resolve to help make it so.