I posted the other day an interview by RFE/RL with Kyrgyz interim president Bakiev who said he wants separation of powers and a stronger presidency. I argued, in short, for a stronger legislature. The Constitutional Council, which is supposed to debate the reforms necessary before the July 10 election, convened for the first time and thinks that a stronger legislature is absolutely pertinent.

Kyrgyzstan’s new Constitutional Council today held its first meeting to discuss constitutional reforms expected to be implemented before presidential elections scheduled for 10 July. Proponents of amending the constitution say the reforms will give more authority to parliament and prevent the president from gaining absolute power. But analysts say it won’t be easy to forge a balanced political system in a country traditionally divided among clans and regions.

Prague, 28 April 2005 (RFE/RL) — The debate about dividing power among the president, government, and parliament is not new for Kyrgyzstan.

But it has taken on new urgency after the 24 March revolution. That’s because many are concerned that existing legislation does not prevent the new president from gaining absolute power — and becoming as authoritarian as ousted President Askar Akaev.

Seeking to take advantage of the current window of opportunity, the new Kyrgyz leadership established the Constitutional Council on 25 April. The council, holding its first session today, is an ad hoc advisory body due to be dissolved after the constitutional amendments are made.

However, the country’s new leaders are already locked in dispute. They appear to have no consensus on what amendments should be made or how much authority to accord to each branch of government.

Many say the parliament must be given more authority. But not everyone supports the idea of changing from a presidential to a parliamentary system of governance.

Interim President Kurmanbek Bakiev, a favorite in June’s presidential polls, supports constitutional reform. But he says the constitution must give broader powers and at the same time more clearly defined responsibilities to the president:

“The authority of a nationally elected president has to be greater because he is elected by the whole Kyrgyzstan nation,” Bakiev told RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz Service. “At the same time, a nationally elected president should have his ÄproperÅ responsibilities as well. For instance, the existing constitution does not design Äthe responsibilities of the presidentÅ.”

However, Bakiev’s main rival Feliks Kulov, the leader of the Ar-Namys (Dignity) party, says the legislature must be given more power.

Iskhak Masaliev, a Communist parliamentarian, says he supports this idea: “Our party’s position has always been that Kyrgyzstan should be a parliamentary republic. We’ve had a presidential republic for 15 years. But we must not continue this way. I believe parliamentary form of governance suits us better.”
…
Still others note that even a perfectly democratic constitution cannot on its own ensure that all branches of government will follow it. Many Central Asian countries, after all, have constitutions that meet international standards yet are often violated or amended by those in power.

Analyst David Lewis, director of Central Asia project of the International Crisis Group, says he believes Kyrgyzstan needs to try to better balance its governmental system.

“The idea is to produce more checks and balances within the system,” Lewis tells RFE/RL by telephone. “The existing system does give a huge amount of power to the presidency, particularly in the area of appointments and in terms of things like control of the judicial system. So, I think the constitutional reform will also look at the judicial system, which has never been independent, and try to make it stronger and more independent in a new system, which will provide another check or another balance on the executive power. There is a very difficult equation and certainly constitutional reform is not a panacea. It’s one step in a wider process.”

Bakiev’s soundbite argument is a weak one, given that presidential votes tend to be much more divisive than parliamentary ones. Putting together many representatives elected by local interests all together in a national parliament will move the country in a way much like the free market works — closer to the will of the people. As Nathan notes, ” the presidential system pretty much guarantees corruption and mild authoritarianism.” That’s because one person simply can’t or will not codify the interests of people he does not wish to represent. More than anything, the president should be a national figurehead who gives guidance to his country, but should never control it with the degree that Akayev did.

UPDATE: I wrote a long analysis piece regarding my thoughts on the Tulip Revolution after it unfolded. In the comments section, it was brought up that the Islamic extremist movement is present there, as I had not brought it up in my post. This was my response:

I didn????????t even want to get into that though. I????????m hoping any kind of Islamic extremism will be quelled if good governance is put into place. And if any kind of Al Qaeda type camps did spring up, we do have a military base. Overall though, I think Russia will be more scared of that happening.

Well, this just in: Banned Hizb ut-Tahrir Faces Dwindling Appeal, Internal Divisions.