The parliamentary elections in Kyrgyzstan in October 2015 garnered widespread approval from commentators for the level of fairness and freedom maintained throughout the campaign. However, the results of the vote do not provide a clear indication of the current state of affairs of parliamentarism in the republic. Focusing on the commercialization of party lists, we argue that neither identity politics nor the logic of neopatrimonialism adequately explain the dynamics of political competition in Kyrgyzstan. Instead, we see perpetual uncertainty emerging from contradicting yet increasing attempts to harness the capital of privatized party lists and to impose discipline. Eventually, and beyond short-term threats of an emerging super-presidentialism, Kyrgyzstan risks suffering from hollow parliamentarism, with political parties persistently failing to supply legislative initiatives with substantial agendas and adequate professionals. The weakly institutionalized political parties and their short-sighted electoral strategies undermine both the parliamentary system and its political pluralism.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Meena Singh Roy, “Future of Parliamentary Democracy in Kyrgyzstan,” Strategic Analysis, 35, no. 2 (2011), 199–206; Johan Engvall, “Kyrgyzstan and the Trials of Independence,” in Marlene Laruelle and Johan Engvall (eds), Kyrgyzstan beyond “Democracy Island” and “Failing State”: Social and Political Changes in a Post-Soviet Society (Lanham, md: Lexington Books, 2015), 17.
Haluk Alkan, “Post-Soviet Politics in Kyrgyzstan: Between Centralism and Localism?” Contemporary Politics, 15, no. 3 (2009), 355–375; on the concept of localism in the context of Kyrgyzstan, see Scott Radnitz, Weapons of the Wealthy: Predatory Regimes and Elite-led Protests in Central Asia (Ithaca, ny: Cornell University Press, 2010).
See Maxim Ryabkov, “The North–South Cleavage and Political Support in Kyrgyzstan,” Central Asian Survey, 27, nos. 3–4 (2008): 301–316.
Rostislav Turovsky, “Party Systems in Post-Soviet States: The Shaping of Political Competition,” Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 12, no. 2 (2011), 197–213; Hans Oversloot and Ruben Verheul, “Managing Democracy: Political Parties and the State in Russia,” Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 22, no. 3 (2006): 383–405.
See, for example, Ryan Shirah, “Electoral Authoritarianism and Political Unrest,” International Political Science Review, (June 2015): 1–15.
Erica Marat, “Kyrgyzstan: A parliamentary system based on inter-elite consensus,” Demokratizatsiya 20, no. 4 (2012): 325–344, here 326.
Juraev, “The Evolving Role of Political Parties in Kyrgyz Politics,” 33.
Marat (2012), 343.
Juraev, “The Evolving Role of Political Parties in Kyrgyz Politics,” 29.
Doolotkeldieva, “Vybory 2015.”
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 1239 | 228 | 59 |
Full Text Views | 261 | 8 | 3 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 96 | 20 | 7 |
The parliamentary elections in Kyrgyzstan in October 2015 garnered widespread approval from commentators for the level of fairness and freedom maintained throughout the campaign. However, the results of the vote do not provide a clear indication of the current state of affairs of parliamentarism in the republic. Focusing on the commercialization of party lists, we argue that neither identity politics nor the logic of neopatrimonialism adequately explain the dynamics of political competition in Kyrgyzstan. Instead, we see perpetual uncertainty emerging from contradicting yet increasing attempts to harness the capital of privatized party lists and to impose discipline. Eventually, and beyond short-term threats of an emerging super-presidentialism, Kyrgyzstan risks suffering from hollow parliamentarism, with political parties persistently failing to supply legislative initiatives with substantial agendas and adequate professionals. The weakly institutionalized political parties and their short-sighted electoral strategies undermine both the parliamentary system and its political pluralism.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 1239 | 228 | 59 |
Full Text Views | 261 | 8 | 3 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 96 | 20 | 7 |