The popular revolution in Kyrgyzstan that ousted the regime of President ushers in a new era of Central Asian politics, writes Shohdy Naguib Kyrgyz President was the darling of the West and a popular personality in regional and international forums. Openhearted and intelligent, he had talent in creating the impression that his country was enjoying stability after 14 years of his wise rule. In his book, Thinking of the Future with Optimism, issued only last year, he tackles a wide range of foreign policy and world power structure issues with the positive thought quite becoming of the physicist-theorist that in fact he is. Once dubbed the "Vaclav Havel of Central Asia", was generally regarded abroad as a popular liberal reformer standing out favourably on the democracy record. Kyrgyzstan has always had a political life free of repression and abuse that are commonplace elsewhere in the region. Unlike its neighbours, Kyrgyzstan was cordial with international agencies that are advancing democracy and promoting the ideas of an "open society". It was also largely spared of the influence of radical Islam, and the tensions between the Kyrgyz majority and the Russian, Ukrainian and Uzbek minorities have been successfully contained. The political rift that divides Kyrgyzstan went along the lines of economic imbalance between the industrial north and the rural south, where high unemployment and the pauperisation of peasants is coupled with feuds over the domination of the northern clans. That the Akaev family is in control of the majority of businesses in the country is the main cause of widespread discontent. It was well expected that the opposition would dispute the results of the parliamentary elections and attempt to bring about a "velvet" or "popular" revolution, following the pattern that proved successful first in Georgia and then in Ukraine. Mikheil Saakashvili and Viktor Yushchenko, victorious in Georgia and Ukraine respectively, expressed solidarity with the Kyrgyz opposition and were willing to share their experience. However, the opposition in Kyrgyzstan is divided and does not enjoy the benefit of having such charismatic leaders to rally behind. All the prominent figures of the opposition are former allies of Akaev. Apparently disillusioned with the way he accumulated power within his own and his family's hands, they eventually turned into his fiercest critics. Some people just never know when enough is enough. The successful election of Akaev's son and daughter to the new parliament was the last straw that broke the camel's back. Jalalabad and Osh in the south responded in revolt. People stormed governmental buildings, freed prisoners from police custody and burned governmental cars. The capital Bishkek remained relatively calm with protesters being isolated by riot police. Then news spread that more people were heading there from the southern regions to join the protests. In his last televised speech, Akaev put blame for the disturbances on the opposition, saying it is "financed from the outside and is seeking to bring about the collapse of our society". He insisted that the parliamentary poll was free from political interference, but promised to investigate allegations of vote rigging. It was already too late. A full-fledged dialogue with the opposition should have taken place much earlier. The next day, 24 March, saw Akar Akaev fleeing to a US airbase, narrowly escaping an angry mob that stormed and vandalised his residence and effectively paralysed the government. By the time the ousted president was in the air on his way to Moscow, the capital of Kyrgyzstan was already falling to a looting frenzy. Shopping malls that allegedly belong to the Akaev family were ransacked, but the marauders did not stop at that. Widespread damage has been inflicted to Bishkek. "This happened because some people were eating caviar while others had to eat stones," a shop owner told a Russian TV crew the morning after. Order could only be fully restored in the capital at the weekend with active participation from local communities that put up defence units to protect what was left untouched. In an attempt to contain the spread of popular revolt, neighbouring Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan sealed their borders with Kyrgyzstan. The idea of "velvet revolution" is a contagious one and post-Soviet plutocracies are limited in their resources to combat it. It is noteworthy that Uzbek state-controlled media did all it could to conceal the truth about what took place in neighbouring Kyrgyzstan. Now that the information blockade has finally been lifted, everyone in Uzbekistan, save for the authorities, seems to be asking the same question: When are we going to have the same thing happen here? The leaders of the Kyrgyz opposition admit they never expected such a violent and speedy showdown. By all appearances, a third force, unknown and uncompromising, suddenly came into action wiping away what was until recently regarded as one of the most stable regimes in the region. A joint statement from the presidents of Georgia and Ukraine laid blame for the violent turn on "the powers that wish to take a bloody revenge after having been defeated by their people". Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin set a different tone for the official interpretation of what happened in Kyrgyzstan: "It's the weakness of power", he said. President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbaev echoed this apparent oxymoron. Likely the mantra will be repeated at all levels from this point on, though it remains unclear just what it was meant to invoke. How can a scorned and corrupt regime defend itself from its own people without bloodshed? One way, which is currently being probed in Russia, is to put together a counter- revolutionary force of heckler youths that would serve as a "civil baseball bat" to be used against revolutionaries at a time of confrontation. According to reports from Bishkek, it was actually the violent attack of "pro-Akaev" youths, identifiable by their uniform white caps, on demonstrators in front of the presidential residence that provoked subsequent events. It remains unclear why decided to leave under such humiliating circumstances. The obvious reason is that he is not the kind of man who could have ordered the use of force against his people. Akaev is now "temporarily" in Moscow, insisting that he fell victim to a coup staged by the opposition. He also denies having signed his resignation, something that was previously announced by Interim President Kurmanbek Bakiyev. This leaves Kyrgyzstan with two presidents and two parliaments until the conflict is resolved. The situation is calm in Bishkek and in the south of the country. The old and new parliaments are convening separate sessions. International mediators are offering their assistance in resolving the crisis. A new epoch has begun. Thinking of the future with optimism is actually a part of Kyrgyz national character.
