On June 27, 2010 Kyrgyzstan adopted a new constitution via nationwide referendum. Introducing a new or revised governing charter has been nothing new for the Central Asian republic—it has seen several since its independence in 1991. This new constitution, however, appears to be ushering in a new era for the country, as it provides for a first-ever parliamentary system that would allow power to be decentralized and shared among different political parties. 

 Like all constitutions, it is the commitment to the principles set forth therein that will ultimately be judged. Today, the five political parties that passed the 5% electoral threshold from the October 10 elections and who gained seats in the parliament are currently working to develop coalitions that will define the county’s leadership and political orientation. It remains to be seen whether these disparate parties will be able to come together and work as a united front or if personal politics and past histories will contribute to possible gridlock.

There are other challenges facing the Kyrgyz Republic as it embarks upon this democratic experiment. Perhaps the most glaring challenge is the fact that this system is untried and untested. A parliamentary republic is not the norm of operation in Kyrgyzstan. Since independence, the nation has been ruled through a model inherited from its Soviet past: a highly centralized government with strong authoritarian proclivities.

Another common trait of post-Soviet governance in Kyrgyzstan, and in Central Asia as a whole, has been tribal or clan politics, in which the president and his immediate family were direct beneficiaries. Kyrgyzstan has had two elected presidents prior to the events of April 2010, Askar Akayev and Kurmanbek Bakiyev. While neither can be considered “old guard” relics of the Soviet period, both fell into a pattern of graft, corruption and mismanagement, with the power of the office of president having strengthened significantly during their respective tenures. The so-called “Tulip Revolution” shifted the power base from the north (Both Akayev and his wife were northerners) to the south (Bakiyev is originally from Jalal-Abad), but it didn’t solve the fundamental problem of abuse of power that seems to accompany the office of president. While the system of governance in Kyrgyzstan has seemingly shifted, the temptation for the country’s new leaders to slip back into something more familiar if the current system does not reap results is a real possibility. Until these temptations are eliminated and the country accepts rule of law, it will be difficult for any political system to provide its citizens the stability and prosperity they deserve.

Yet, as Kyrgyzstan grapples with these issues, it must at least be recognized that it is the first country in the region to hold an election for which the outcome could not be predicted in advance. As a result, Kyrgyzstan has a newly-elected parliament of 120 persons representing five competing political parties, and a system bestowing significant political authority on the parliament and prime minister at the expense of the president.  What happens in the next 32 days leading up to the deadline by which to establish a government (December 25) or face parliamentary dissolution and new elections, is a vital portend of both the ability of political forces in the republic to move the country forward as it is a key indicator of the overall national reconciliation process.