By Kim Stern

The past presidential elections in Kyrgyzstan had every chance to remain in history, like a vote that will bring the line under the epoch of instability and signify the first full-fledged, peaceful transit of power in the republic. From the acting president to the end of his term, he is legally elected head of state. These elections will remain in history. But in a completely different capacity. As the most ambiguous in the annals of the whole region.

The question of the legitimacy of the presidential elections in Kyrgyzstan was acute already at the height of the election campaign. Throughout the republic, the facts of illegal agitation were documented. In connection with what the members of the movement "For Fair Elections", consisting of politicians, state and public figures, repeatedly appealed to the president of Kyrgyzstan, the chairman of the CEC and the prime minister with a request to take action. But no one has ever taken steps.

The highest Kyrgyz officials themselves have been repeatedly seen lobbying for the interests of a particular candidate. And most often quite certain. President Almazbek Atambayev, considering his post, obliging to remain as impartial as possible to all candidates, openly supported the candidate from his Social Democratic Party, former Prime Minister Sooranbai Jeenbekov. Which, of course, is a gross violation of the electoral legislation. Following the president, agitators also signed up to maintain equal treatment of candidates by government members and religious leaders.

Under the strict supervision of the still acting head of the republic, local authorities of Kyrgyzstan also became an instrument of agitation. At the session of the Jogorku Kenesh ( parliament) several times alarming reports were voiced that in some regions, banners with political slogans are being removed on orders of the authorities, they have broken meetings with voters and closed the staffs of candidates disliked by the same authorities, apparently by chance - the main rivals of the above-mentioned Sooranbai Jeenbekov.

Another scandalous moment of these elections was the detention of the deputy of the Jogorku Kenesh (parliament) on suspicion of preparing a coup d'état. The detained Kanat Isayev is the closest associate of the Republic Party leader Omurbek Babanov, the main rival of the pro-government S.Zhenenbekov. Another coincidence that does not seem random. The charges were brought to him without any clear evidence. And what interestingly put forward at the time of the electoral campaign, when the ratings of Jeenbekov, according to the results of opinion polls, began to fall precipitously and hopelessly.

In addition to all these facts, there were hundreds of others, including a mass mailing of messages with inaccurate information about the withdrawal of candidates from the race, or the unification of political forces. There were threats of candidates against each other, harassment of journalists who tried to sort out all this election bacchanalia and bring infringers to clean water, and massive embroilments of compromising materials. The media did not hesitate to publish clearly subjective, and often even false, materials about the contenders for the presidency. Especially the state television and radio channels were stupefied. It happened, too, obviously, not without the participation of official authorities. Logical in this context, the culmination of this process was the refusal of one of the delegations of observers to participate in the elections.

But, as it turned out later, all this was just a training before the main action. The voting process was unprecedented in terms of the number of violations. Emissions of ballots, banned on election day, agitation and voting on other people's documents. Given all this, the presidential elections in Kyrgyzstan, objectively, cannot be recognized as legitimate. It seems that it is the duty of the international community to demand, as a minimum, their revision, as much as possible, of a re-holding, in completely different conditions, under the close supervision of international observers, with the removal of the administrative resources of the current leadership of the republic from leverage.

Everybody should remember that Kyrgyzstan has gone too long and painfully to become a truly democratic country, so that, like a momentary will or even a caprice of individuals, it is time to plunge into lawlessness and chaos again.

Meanwhile, the world is watching the strange, illogical behavior of Atambaev, who in the last days of his reign, it seems, intends to quarrel the country with all its neighbors. And at the same time finally to drop the image of your country in international politics.

It should be recalled that A. Atambayev himself expressed extremely harsh terms about Kazakhstan's domestic policy. As a result, at the end of his presidency, he, in fact, destroyed friendly relations with Astana. First, the Kazakh MFA, and then the Prime Minister of Kazakhstan, expressed dissatisfaction with such, quite undiplomatic behavior of the outgoing president. Moreover, the assessment was given to the neighbor by the president of Kazakhstan, hinting at his "nervous state".

As a result, Kazakhstan went to unpopular, but quite logical measures, introduced an enhanced regime on its own borders, fearing a repetition of the unrest seven years ago. Then a flood of refugees flooded the border, along with some radical extremists, including some of them.

And if we take into account that during the reign of A. Atambayev, Islamic extremism blossomed under the guise of the "peaceful current" of Tablighi Jamaat (which, by the way, is banned throughout the CIS, except Kyrgyzstan), it is reasonable that Kyrgyzstan's neighbors want to protect themselves from penetration into the country of all kinds of preachers.

But the government of A. Atambayev fanned this scandal from this. Moreover, it tried to raise its own importance on it.

And the main hero of the play called "how Bishkek pressed Astana" was the story that Prime Minister Sapar Isakov said on his Facebook page.

According to him, on October 11, during the summit of the Eurasian Economic Council, he talked with Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev about the situation on the Kyrgyz-Kazakh border. After the talks, the Kazakh leader instructed the Kazakh government to resolve all issues that arose at the border, he wrote.

In Astana they were surprised by the "great mission" and the role that S.Isakov played in international politics. And they said that the message of the Prime Minister of Kyrgyzstan is nothing more than an ordinary lie.

In Astana, they do not deny that S.Isakov came up to greet N.Nazarbayev. But "the information that" the president of Kazakhstan has given the task to the government to solve the border issue "is not true. "On this occasion, an order was given to hold an intergovernmental meeting."

And here is another "outstanding" idea of ​​the Kyrgyz prime minister. He advised Russia to increase its military presence in Kyrgyzstan and deploy a Russian military base in the south of the republic. At the same time, he did not even discuss this issue with his Russian counterpart - Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.

It seems that S.Isakov suffers megalomania - he wants, at least, to rule all international politics in the region, dictating to the countries what and how to do them. Given his previous actions, it is possible that he is simply incapable of thoughtful actions. A young and ambitious 40-year-old S.Isakov became premier solely due to the progress of the outgoing president.

With the arrival of A. Atambayev for the presidency, S. Isakov headed the Foreign Policy Department of the Presidential Administration, and a year later jumped directly to the Chief's Office. But, apparently, badly S. Isakov learned diplomatic etiquette, if such nonsense at the premier's post says. Although, I must say that he did not differ in intelligence on other posts. However, perhaps it was for this purpose that he was brought closer to him by Atambaev, so that he would simply carry out the assignment, like a sort of a run-of-the-mill boy, a clever mind, but devoted as a dog.

Here, for example, is the brightest failure of unreasonable state thinking.

S. Isakov actively lobbied the interests of the Czech company "Liglass Trading CZ sro", which was to invest in the construction and commissioning of the Verkhne-Narynsky cascade of hydroelectric power plants and small hydroelectric power stations of almost 400 million euros. For his lobby, he received $ 37 million. More precisely, the money had to be transferred to the country's budget as an initial contribution from the company. But they fell into S.Isakov's pocket. He then also instructed to break the contract with the Czechs.

And here is another example of a business failure of the state level S. Isakov, but with a financial benefit for him - an attempt to sell 100 percent of the state-owned stake in CJSC Alfa Telecom.

13.5 billion soms for the company of the country's largest mobile operator, agreed to pay Russian citizen Elena Nagornaya. It would seem - here it is, a new billionaire, about which no one has ever heard. But it turned out that they did not hear because there was no billionaire. There is a proprietress of street stalls in Moscow and a saleswoman of African food products on the Russian market.

Only at the cost of the incredible efforts of the opponents of the sale, it was possible to declare the tender invalid. But again, the interests of the African spice trade were promoted by S.Isakov himself. He also acted almost as a defender of the reputation of this businesswoman unknown to anyone (neither in Bishkek, nor in Russia). S.Isakov does not have a single successful project for the country. But the mass of failures. It is obvious that such an official can only become an object of ridicule of the entire world community.



Bookmark/Search this post with