Document #2038004
Freedom House (Author)
Democracy Percentage | 16.07 / 100 |
Democracy Score | 1.96 / 7 |
Despite early encouraging signs from the new government, the quality of democracy in Kyrgyzstan did not improve in 2019. The cautious optimism of 2018, ushered in by newly elected President Sooronbay Jeenbekov and his reversal of the heavy-handed treatment of the opposition and independent media under his predecessor, largely subsided in 2019. The new leadership’s pledges to strengthen parliamentary democracy and reform the justice system produced little impact on the ground, while recent political developments exposed the continuing dependence of the legislature and judiciary on the ruling regime of the day. Meanwhile, investigative reporting on a years-long money-laundering and smuggling scheme laid bare the extent to which corruption had spread within the government and customs service.
Confrontations between President Jeenbekov and former president Almazbek Atambayev dominated the country’s politics during the year. Emerging tension between the two former allies in the aftermath of the 2017 elections dispelled concerns that the new president would be a mere puppet figure. However, their conflict took a more extreme form in 2019 as Atambayev was stripped of his legal immunity by Parliament and arrested on corruption charges. While the former president drew little sympathy in the country, the synchronized way in which Parliament, law enforcement agencies, and the courts moved to arrest Atambayev revealed not strength but weaknesses in Kyrgyzstan’s rule of law.
The intra-elite political conflict also underscored the continued centrality of the presidency in the country’s system of governance. Much of the political rhetoric by officials as well as international donors revolves around building and supporting a parliamentary democracy in Kyrgyzstan. However, the political dynamics on the ground suggest little progress towards such a system. First, the constitution establishes a mixed, rather than a parliamentary, system. Both Parliament and the president are elected by popular vote. Second, the Kyrgyz legislature has de facto surrendered its constitutionally granted power to form and control the executive branch. Instead, it rubber-stamps the president’s choices, merely paying lip service to the declared goal of building a parliamentary democracy.
Several amendments to the electoral law were adopted in 2019 that should improve representation for national and local assemblies, including the introduction of a 30-percent quota for women in local council elections. A proposal to lower the electoral threshold from 9 to 5 percent for parliamentary races was pushed by party leaders and civil society activists, who argued that the excessively high threshold leaves significant portions of the electorate without representation. This proposed change also called for lowering the electoral deposit required for parties to compete from 5 million soms ($72,000) to 1 million soms ($15,000).
Reforming the judiciary was a high priority of President Jeenbekov, who called repeatedly for the reform process to be sped up. However, genuinely beneficial reforms were scarce; in fact, developments in 2019 demonstrated that the justice system remained heavily politicized. Courts continued to freely apply harsh preventive measures in criminal cases involving political opponents. Several politicians jailed in past years on ostensibly political grounds were released in 2019. None of these proceedings, however, publicly acknowledged the political nature of the cases. Instead, the high-level rhetoric calling for judicial reform focused more on technical aspects, such as improving access to court premises or installing video recording, and much less on the critical issue of judicial independence.
Freedom of expression remained precarious in Kyrgyzstan during the year. While top political leaders ceased to file lawsuits against critical media outlets, many other politicians took up the tactic and continued to silence the media with defamation charges. Media agencies affiliated with the opposition faced pressure, as in the court-ordered seizure of the assets of Aprel TV, a company owned by former president Atambayev. Furthermore, media organizations investigating corruption faced growing pressure, including physical assaults and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks online.
Civil society continues to be Kyrgyzstan’s healthiest democratic institution. However, the government has struggled thus far to ensure and protect a diverse civic sector. Illiberal groups, supported by nationalist-minded political actors, have actively targeted foreign workers, human rights defenders, and LGBT+ activists. Proposals continually arise to expand official controls over not-for-profit organizations, including calls from high-ranking national security officers. Thus, while the practice of demonizing civic activists by top leaders may have subsided, a government-wide commitment to foster and safeguard a pluralist civil society has yet to be established.
Tackling corruption remains a prominent political slogan in Kyrgyzstan, reflecting the popular demand for tangible progress. The results on the ground, however, are not promising. Bombshell investigative reporting in 2019 revealed the deep-rooted nature of corruption within the government and society at large. The shady business dealings of Raimbek Matraimov, a former customs official, showed the monetary impact of corruption in Kyrgyzstan. In addition, numerous high-level cases were brought against former president Atambayev and his allies, demonstrating the political tension within the fight against corruption, which remains selective and punitive.
The parliamentary elections, scheduled for October 2020, will dominate the country’s politics in the coming months. Thus far, President Jeenbekov has distanced himself from political parties, and whether his team will pick up a party, or parties, to ride into Parliament remains a pertinent question. Combatting corruption and reforming the judiciary will certainly remain high on the agenda, though tangible progress is less likely.
Considers the democratic character of the governmental system; and the independence, effectiveness, and accountability of the legislative and executive branches. | 1.50 / 7.00 |
Examines national executive and legislative elections, the electoral framework, the functioning of multiparty systems, and popular participation in the political process. | 2.25 / 7.00 |
Assesses the organizational capacity and financial sustainability of the civic sector; the legal and political environment in which it operates; the functioning of trade unions; interest group participation in the policy process; and the threat posed by antidemocratic extremist groups. | 3.25 / 7.00 |
Examines the current state of press freedom, including libel laws, harassment of journalists, and editorial independence; the operation of a financially viable and independent private press; and the functioning of the public media. | 2.00 / 7.00 |
Considers the decentralization of power; the responsibilities, election, and capacity of local governmental bodies; and the transparency and accountability of local authorities. | 1.75 / 7.00 |
Assesses constitutional and human rights protections, judicial independence, the status of ethnic minority rights, guarantees of equality before the law, treatment of suspects and prisoners, and compliance with judicial decisions. | 1.50 / 7.00 |
Looks at public perceptions of corruption, the business interests of top policymakers, laws on financial disclosure and conflict of interest, and the efficacy of anticorruption initiatives. | 1.50 / 7.00 |
The ratings reflect the consensus of Freedom House, its academic advisers, and the author(s) of this report. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s). The ratings are based on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 representing the highest level of democratic progress and 1 the lowest. The Democracy Score is an average of ratings for the categories tracked in a given year. The Democracy Percentage, introduced in 2020, is a translation of the Democracy Score to the 0–100 scale, where 0 equals least democratic and 100 equals most democratic.
dated August 17, 2017 No. 490, http://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/act/view/ru-ru/100223?cl=ru-ru