Kyrgyzstan Too?

The worldwide democratic revolution seems to be continuing, now in Central Asia. In Bishkek a popular uprising sweeping opposition mobs into the presidential palace, some are getting excited at the prospects for a new government in Kyrgyzstan. The BBC has a prescient article entitled Why Kyrgyzstan Matters.

One of the questions that emerges from that article and others is whether this revolution deserves to be called "democratic", at least in the positive, modern sense. It certainly reflects hope, but in a country considered reasonably democratic, semi-violent revolution is not usually the desired mode of change.

Can democracy happen suddenly and succeed? Yes - Poland, Slovakia, et al are great examples of that. But most strong democracies developed gradually and with relative stability. Thus, I do not have high hopes for Kyrgyzstan. None of its neighbors are democratic, and all of them are more powerful than the little republic. Furthermore, the opposition does not have strong, well-trained leadership or a unified purpose.

People-power is great, but only when it serves a constructive purpose. There is little virtue in violently throwing out one corrupt semi-democratic regime to replace it with another corrupt semi-democratic regime. A government following the will of the people alone is not enough to qualify as a democracy; the transfers of power must also be regular and peaceful.