During its independent existence Kyrgyzstan has sustained severe economic downturns, regional upheavals, two revolutions and high ethnic tensions. Moscow News interviewed Kyrgyz President Roza Otunbayeva about the past and future under its joint project with RIA Novosti and the magazine Russia in Global Affairs “Twenty Years without the Soviet Union.”
What did you feel when you realized that the Soviet Union will no longer exist? Were you afraid, relieved, or happy?
It was in 1990 that I realized the Soviet Union will collapse. Everything was boiling on the surface, but people seemed to be quiet waiting for events with baited breath. I worked in Moscow and saw how leaders of the union republics were rushing, conflicts were flaring up, and separatist speeches were being made. The Soviet Union’s disintegration thwarted my plans – the presidential decree on my appointment as the Soviet ambassador to Malaysia and Brunei was about to be signed. All embassies started replacing Soviet flags with Russian tricolors. New people and new ideas started actively coming out from the wreckage of Soviet blazonry; “We” gave way to the new “I”.
If I were to generalize our feelings, I’d say we were confused and perplexed, afraid of the unknown. We had grown up in the Soviet Union and the Soviet identity was part and parcel of our souls… I wouldn’t say that we had dissidents in Kyrgyzstan, people who were dreaming of an independent country… Those who claim this today are distorting the truth. Our country, our common home was in shambles. We had no path to follow and saw only darkness ahead.
What role did the Soviet period play in Kyrgyz history? Was the foundation of Kyrgyz statehood laid during Soviet times?
Now that we have become an independent state and began scrutinizing our history, historians find evidence that we had statehood in the hoary past that was then interrupted and so on. But it was only during the Soviet period that Kyrgyzstan had acquired real statehood. French enlighteners used to say that every state must have its academy of sciences, university, and encyclopedia. We got all of them in Soviet years. I would even say that for us the Soviet period was comparable to the Renaissance. Our modern arts and culture were born at that time. Our people’s literary and cultural achievements were put into books, printed music, and films. The ballet, opera, painting, theater, and cinema had become essential parts of our culture. All people in Kyrgyzstan could read and write – this is what the Soviet Union gave us!
Did you feel like you belong to the “new historical, social, and international community – the Soviet people”?
Absolutely! I was a very Soviet product. I went to the Artek summer pioneer camp twice and worked as a team leader when I was still in school. I finished high school with excellent marks and entered the philosophy department at Moscow State University (MSU). I finished post-graduate courses there and joined the party. My life was a good example of how the social ladder worked in Soviet time – I, a girl from a family with many children from the Osha province, managed to join MSU, the nation’s best university and studied there on par with children of professors… After defending my thesis I came back to Kyrgyzstan and headed a faculty at the local university. Later on, I worked in the regional and city party committees… We were brought up as the vanguard of the big Soviet country.
When did you begin to feel your Kyrgyz identity?
I’ve always felt it.
Did you feel any discrimination?
Yes, I did. I was a good student and an activist at MSU. But whenever they selected students to go abroad, or take part in city or national events, Russians were always chosen. Asians were not treated even as Armenians or Georgians. It is easy to see who worked in Soviet central institutions, especially in top positions. The realization that the image of the government should reflect the face of the nation came much later, in the era of glasnost and perestroika. I was one of the few who were invited from the republics to work in union bodies. I was offered a job in Soviet Foreign Ministry.
You represented the Soviet elite and it was natural for you to feel part of the united Soviet nation. Did rank-and-file Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, and Dungans who lived in Kyrgyzstan during the Soviet years feel the same?
I think that when this carpet named “the Soviet people, a single historical community” was woven, the authorities interpreted it superficially and created national elite class which would go on to influence people’s views. I don’t think rank-and-file people felt the sense of the so-called “single community.” The authorities didn’t have time to create it – they set the task but it required more time and better developed economy to achieve it. Peasants did not even have passports – they were forced to stay in villages, but they were employed there. Going abroad for a provincial was like taking a trip to the Moon! Our society is now developing with such convulsions because in Soviet years it was spasmodic. Its development was inflated out of all proportion in some respects and artificially restrained in others. The powerful drive for urbanization started as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed – people rushed to the cities.
Today, common people miss the Soviet times, saying that then they had pensions and salaries… Some are creating myths about the Soviet past. I recently heard one lady saying over the radio that as a school teacher she could go for vacation on Lake Issyk-Kul for 12 rubles and bought a fur coat on her first salary. But this is simply untrue.
During the Soviet years, the life was better organized and gave the feeling of social security. I remember how we had disputes and some insisted that alcoholics and social parasites should not be paid salaries. During all these 20 years we have been going through this market economy chopper, as if we are being dragged through the windfall. But every society had similar periods, and now it is our time to turn down this unavoidable path…
Central Asian republics did not fight for their independence. After the signing of the Belovezh Accords, they were faced with a sheer fact: all of a sudden they were free. If the Russian government had acted differently, would it have been possible to retain a single state with Central Asian republics?
We were simply thrown out of that big country to “live as we want”. I think it would have been possible to preserve the country but our Akayev followed the West’s wishes and wanted to raze everything to the ground. He wasn’t sorry at all – destroying is easier than building, and he came to power when everything had already been built. Contrary to Islam Karimov and Nursultan Nazarbayev, he did not build anything himself.
We all saw how Nazarbayev was trying to prevent the collapse of the Soviet Union to the very last moment. At that time we felt and thought the same as him. Being the prime minister and then the first secretary of the Kazakh Communist Party, he was very well aware what Kazakhstan was all about and what resources it had but at the same time he could hardly imagine being without the Soviet Union and without Russia. The same can be said about Kyrgyzstan.
So, was it without the Union or without Russia?
Without the Union. Russia was not perceived as an independent entity. Each of us, including the small republics, had its own voice and looked quite independent. This did not apply to Russia. The Russian Federation was simply a big land, a group of regions on which everything else was piled up.
Looking back, I can only speak about the feelings of those who lived in the city and used Moscow as a yardstick for everything. They thought it’s important to be dressed as people dress in Moscow and to think like those in Moscow. When we were small kids, we watched Soviet movies. Klara Luchko, Elina Bystritskaya and Zhanna Prokhorenko were our beauty idols, and we collected their photos. We did not live our own life; we had no other books or movies; we were absorbing Russian culture. Russian history was our history – Ivan the Terrible, Mikhail Kutuzov and Alexander Suvorov…
And what about Chinghiz Aitmatov?
Of course, we read his books, and Kyrgyz schools, especially rural ones, had Kyrgyz literature. They staged wonderful movies, but the Kyrgyz language was immediately toned down. They were translated into Russian for the national audience, given that we had to reach a wider audience to recoup our expenses. Our language was always downplayed. This is a very serious problem up to this day.
During the 20 years of independence Kyrgyz has failed to become the leading language in society and economic life. Though it obviously prevails in politics. Many Russians and Germans have left, but Russian still remains the language of higher education, the elite and the government.
We have 47 higher educational institutions in Kyrgyzstan, and at the absolute majority of them Kyrgyz is not the language of instruction. When the Soviet Union collapsed, there were a little over 60 schools in Bishkek, out of which only one had instruction in Kyrgyz. Twenty years have passed, but even now we have less than a dozen schools with instruction in Kyrgyz. All Russian speakers from all regions have moved to Bishkek. There are many new micro-districts around the city. Hundreds of thousands of rural dwellers have come to live there. Nevertheless, parents prefer their children to study in Russian schools or in schools with instruction in English, if they can afford this.
But our countryside has remained Kyrgyz and children continue to be taught in this language. This linguistic issue is very important because it may lead to social stratification. Even more important is the consolidation of society on the road towards the country’s political stabilization.
Is it possible to say that a nation has been formed in Kyrgyzstan during the past 20 years?
No, not at all. We haven’t formed a nation yet.
Does it make sense to form the Kyrgyz nation now, if national feelings are so sensitive, and not only among the Kyrgyz people but also national minorities? Maybe, the formation of a single nation will only aggravate ethnic problems like “the new community – the Soviet people” that eventually generated ethnic conflicts and the Soviet Union’s disintegration?
This is not an easy question. We have watched how post-Soviet Ukraine and Kazakhstan were trying to form political nations on the basis of the indigenous people. It doesn’t matter whether you are Russian, Kazakh or German. What matters is that you are a citizen of Kazakhstan. But this policy encounters strong protests on behalf of the nationalists and is destroying the structures of multi-cultural society that the West has been building so thoroughly.
I am often asked, especially after the June 2010 conflict in the south, all kinds of sensitive questions on ethnic relations in Kyrgyzstan. I have only one answer to all of them: We need time to calm down and leave our quarrels behind, to digest all the ethnic processes that are going on in the country with an economy in transition and a tumultuous political life.
We must find a formula of cohabitation, a system of coordinates where everyone would feel comfortable and find his or her place. The more time passes by the better we understand that people of other nationalities could have long left our country and gone to the places where life is easier. On the one hand, there is something invisible and intangible – the feeling of the homeland, the remains of the ancestors, love for one’s own home, and memories of the past life that closely link people to our country. On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of Kyrgyz migrants see how people are establishing their life in neighboring countries. Let them ponder over this and make conclusions at home.
Only recently we have drafted and adopted a national concept of society’s ethnic development and political consolidation – we haven’t had such a roadmap before.
We Kyrgyz people must settle accounts with one another, and this requires time. During the Soviet years, we were interwoven in the Moscow-created network of public and political relations. The central government regulated who would rule the country – people from the north or the south; it prevented discontent and smoothed contradictions, keeping us in the rigid net of coordinates with the words “harmony” and “accord” at each axis.
And now we have found ourselves alone, in our new skin. We have been uncomfortable in it for 20 years now! We are trying to make our home comfortable, to lead a more or less normal life, but we still don’t have the common will, and we fail to march forward in stride. Some forces outside and inside the country are attempting to split the north and the south and continue to divide resources – specifically power, because we don’t have many other resources. However, we have one language, one culture, and one religion and we are divided only geographically. In the south people were under the rule of the Kokand Khanate and in the north they were more Russified. But here our differences end. If we straightened our relations and removed the causes of inter-regional conflict, everyone around would find it much easier to live here.
Now many in Kyrgyzstan are returning to the Manas epos as a foundation for Kyrgyz spiritual revival. But won’t a potential renaming of Bishkek into Manas work against this? Where is the borderline between national revival and nationalism?
Many often blow Manas all out of proportion. In the Soviet years the name “Manas” was used for everything – the airport, matches, and all kinds of mass consumer goods. Even at that time some people sneered at this, while others were indignant and suggested stopping it all. As for Bishkek, we have all been pulled by the gravitational force of potentially renaming the country. This virus has infected many heads. At one time Frunze was renamed Bishkek after a large battle, and everyone was also talking about Mankurtism…
Is Manas really a basic Kyrgyz myth that may become a national idea?
Yes, it is. It is literally embedded in our brains. In all times the Manas epos has been a symbol of the idea of unification and it is still topical as a national idea. We link with Manas our eternal legend about peace between clans and nations, the legend of the golden time when the best sons of the fatherland would not fight against each other but will unite to parry the common threats to humanity. Isn’t it about today?
People in all parts of the country cherish Manas. It is the focus of our spirit that has gone through centuries by the power of its will, its limitless generosity, courage, sacrifice, self-neglect, and love of the people and homeland. The challenges facing the nation yesterday and especially today are appealing to the spirit of Manas. It will always remain the center of our history and destiny, the core of our cultural life and statehood.
But for all that, it is turning national minorities into foreigners, the fifth column…
Not at all! One of Manas’ the hero of the epos) closest associates was a Chinese, his loyal armor-bearer was a Kalmyk, and his wife was a Tajik. His environment, relations with neighbors, and military campaigns all attest to the multi-ethnic world of this remote past. Greek myths, William Shakespeare’s dramas, high-profile literature of Leo Tolstoy, Alexander Pushkin, and Anton Chekhov are the alpha and omega of civilization for all of us. But why don’t citizens of the country that link their life with this land perceive the unifying theme of Manas?
Today, our Manas epos requires a new interpretation! We must rethink it and adopt a new strategy. Every generation must add a bit of its soul and brain to such a collective production as Manas.
Why do you think Kyrgyzstan is always in the zone of turbulence? Maybe, it has more democracy than it needs, or maybe it doesn’t have enough of it?
There are many reasons for this. I could mention for starters out national character, our history and even our traditions, if you will. We are a nomadic nation – open, dynamic and mobile. We are not tied up to our property and are quick off the mark, although we do have an inclination towards sharing, of course… I think democracy is in our blood, in our way of life, in the way we see the world. We believe everything must be fair and all opinions considered…
There is one more specific feature of Kyrgyz democracy – the victory will belong to those who bring more relatives to the square.
This will pass. When the government is weak, laws do not work and corruption is all-embracing, the state stops paying attention to rank-and-file people. In order to be heard they go out into the streets, become very loud and sometimes impudent, stage rallies, and yell about their demands. Sometimes they begin to violate law and order… Freedom of speech and assembly make it possible to listen to those who are discontent and promptly bring the culprits to task.
Rallies of relatives seem to have become a form of participation in political life, a means of exerting pressure on the government. Is this Kyrgyz style democracy?
Yes, you are right. For centuries our state has been a big melting pot. Our institutions of government have no opportunity to sit out, develop gradually and react to complaints lazily. The people set rigid and open requirements to them. We have established observation councils at every ministry, including the Ministry of the Interior and the State Committee of National Security. However, even subjected to such strong pressure, government institutions contrive to cut corners, steal and ignore the needs of the people.
We are striving for respect of the law: a disciplined sense of order. We must gradually teach people to have the right customs, rules, and understanding of the order in their homes, districts, cities, and the country as a whole. People from all strata – from tribal clans to ultra liberals – must build the order around us. Respect for law must prevail in the construction of our state. People will calm down when laws begin working.
Since the end of the past year Kyrgyzstan has been conducting a political experiment on the Asian post-Soviet space by making the transition from authoritarian to parliamentary rule. Many representatives of the political elite both in the country and abroad are confident that Kyrgyzstan is not ready for parliamentary rule and that this experiment will end in failure. That being said, we see that different government branches in Kyrgyzstan are now conducting independent policies. You are one of the main actors and architects of this system of power. Do you see prospects for it in Kyrgyzstan? Many aspiring presidential candidates openly say they are attempting to return Kyrgyzstan to presidential rule.
It is difficult to answer this question. You are just making assumptions – someone will come and change something… Yes, there are different forces that would like this, but it was not off the top of our heads that we turned to parliamentary rule last summer. Two of our presidents had to flee the country. What prevented them from leading a normal life here? The people, including those who favor strong presidential power, demanded that this power must be weakened. Our experience under all former presidents showed that we cannot have a demon that would force everyone to bend to his will and the will of his family or clan.
Now some people are again complaining that the presidential powers are restricted… But didn’t you want such a president? We are talking not about the design of some suit or the building of a cottage – we have changed the form of government rule!
Why do you say that every government branch pursues its own policy? They don’t! They are trying to play their roles in line with the new Constitution. We need time. People in CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States] countries are lashing out at us all the time, telling us that we will go nowhere.
The people have paid a high price for choosing their way of development and they live as they see fit. Why do foreign authors interpret our miscalculations so actively, as if they know everything and often from one and the same pulpit? At the same time, they keep silent on the obviously objectionable aspects of life in neighboring countries. Kyrgyzstan has freedom of speech and the press and open democratic rule. We have a strong civil society, growing political parties, and open democratic rule. We are a transparent country, and this allows various specialists to write whatever they want about us and express lop-sided, biased opinions.
But do you know what is strange? Kazakhstan also has political forces that are considering parliamentary rule that will make it possible to achieve the balance of forces, resources, and regions in the future. When someone says that parliamentary rule is not for Russia because it is a hierarchy-based monarchy, this is simply self-induced hypnotism.
Parliamentary Europe has lived in conditions of peace and prosperity for many years and is more stable than any authoritarian countries. Parliamentary rule is failsafe in our close neighbor India, which has hundreds of ethnic groups, languages, castes, and religions!
I believe in this formula – we must go through normal parliamentary elections two or three times for everything right itself out. Nobody will live our life for us or search for the most rational strategies. We must be smart, consistent, and patient enough to follow the chosen path.
You are already called “a lame duck,” that is, a president who is not going to run for another term. This is unprecedented in the post-Soviet expanse. Do you consider this status an achievement because you want to start a new tradition of peaceful departure from the presidential post? What would you like to see on the list of results of your presidency?
One well-wisher told me: “There is one little house in the nearest city of the neighboring country… I pray to God that you never visit it!” (Both Askar Akayev and Kurbambek Bakiyev spent some time in this house after fleeing the country).
If the power is transferred peacefully, I will consider this a major achievement. Both my associates and staunch opponents fully agree on this. I happened to be the president after the April revolution. I have done all I could and I want to leave with the feeling of having accomplished my mission. I keep my word. I’m still being asked: where is it registered that you won’t take part in the elections? Nowhere – it’s just my promise.
Many people, including representatives of the Russian political establishment, do not believe that you will simply renounce your presidential powers and will not participate in the elections…
These doubts are unjustified. The election process is in full swing. The registration of applications from presidential nominees is over. I’m not among them. It is very important to hand over power on one’s own free will, peacefully, and with dignity. People must see this, have this experience, and demand that successors follow suit.
I have a second task that is no less important – I must complete judicial reforms and establish a worthy judicial body. Before, judges were appointed to top positions by the presidential signature alone, but this time we have set up a council on selecting judges. It was supposed to choose the best judges, but as they say, “practice makes perfect” – we received a list of the “sought-for people” who were selected in a corporate way and were on a brink of forming a “party court” that would be led by the interested parliamentary parties. Judges appointed by the president singlehandedly, even if he were a dictator, turned out to be better professionals than those selected by the council. The same is true of the post-Soviet parliaments in the elections to which money, the number of relatives, and birth place play the critical role…
Democracy requires such patience…
Winston Churchill used to say that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter… Central Asia is turning into a center of world politics. It is enough to mention Afghanistan, an expanding China with not altogether predictable consequences, the Indo-Pakistani conflict, and Russia’s vague strategy. All this is taking place against the background of domestic instability and the growth of different forms of extremism. What are the chances of small states ridden with many problems of simply surviving in this climate?
You are quite right. My country is located in a high-risk zone. We are close to one of the world’s hottest spots. I’m talking about the Afghan hotbed. Serious challenges are coming from western China. The Indo-Pakistani conflict is far from us; we are more influenced by Pakistani-Afghan relations… It is obvious today that in future China may have serious influence on the consolidation of regional security. China is interested in ensuring regional stability, preserving its integrity and having peaceful neighbors.
Today, Kyrgyzstan is viewed as a kind of toy in the hands of two major actors – Russia and the US. Do you think China will introduce an element of stability into this rivalry and become a third player?
There are too many assumptions here and far-fetched analytical theories that enable so-called pundits to keep afloat and stick labels on it… Do Zatulins, Migranyans and Ivashovs represent the whole of Russian politics? Certainly not. Yet, they are coming up with stories, highlighting what they consider to be the key points, and end up exaggerating everything… Quite often I heard that China is against the American Manas base or against the entry of neighbors to the Customs Union.
China is not at all so nervous about this base. The Manas transit center pales into insignificance in comparison with the amount of cargo that is now shipped to Afghanistan via the Northern Sea Route through Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan! There is hardly any truth to such claims, but as you can see many people are using them quite skillfully.
I’d like to quote the following figures – the CIS share in China’s overall trade is a mere 3.2%; the Customs Union’s share is even smaller – 2.5%. Apparently, our movement towards the Customs Union will in no way impinge on China’s interests.
And now the last question: do you believe in any form of re-integration in the post-Soviet space?
I’d like to see the restoration of spiritual ties with Russia across the board, including education. Maybe, economically we will be oriented towards China, but spiritually to Russia. I simply do not see any other options here. We have already looked at the world. We’ve seen how other countries live. We prefer permanent ties with Russia. Russia is Europe for us.
Moscow News material
