The OSCE has been monitoring the electoral process and situation in Kyrgyzstan since the Tulip Revolution and has said that the polls have led to “tangible progress” for democracy and have made the country more stable.

18 July 2005 (RFE/RL) — An official from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe said today that this month’s presidential election in Kyrgyzstan has helped stabilize the country.

Alojz Peterle, special envoy for the OSCE, spoke during a visit to Bishkek.
“I see that the ÄKyrgyzÅ government is determined to continue its work and that they are preparing themselves to do what is necessary to be done for the benefit of the country” — Peterle

He said the security situation was much better now than just after former president Askar Akaev was ousted from power in March.

Peterle said the “political legitimacy” of the leadership was also much stronger after the presidential election.

Peterle was speaking to the press after talks with Feliks Kulov, whom President-elect Kurmanbek Bakiev has said he will appoint as prime minister following his inauguration in August.

The OSCE earlier endorsed Kyrgyzstan’s polls as providing “tangible progress” on democracy.

Alan Cordova has some acute thoughts on the election, and why it was more of a referendum on Bakiev than anything.

That said, speaking with other people in Bishkek (I????????m keeping interviewees anonymous on this blog, but suffice it to say, if Kyrgyzstan had pundits, they would be them), I mentioned my previously outlined observations about the Kyrgyz presidential elections, and they noted that choice was never an expectation for the election – it was basically a referendum on Bakiev????????s administration. While referendums have a shady history in Kyrgyzstan (and Central Asia for that matter) – they have been employed to push through all types of nasty ???????reforms???????? that consolidate power or expand term limits. However, it seemed that this one might turn out well because it delivered the stability that Kyrgyz citizens valued above all else. It seems that while the March Revolution attracted a great deal of attention from American media and donor organizations, it scared a lot of people here in Kyrgyzstan. People just want to live their own lives without a lot of upheaval. ???????Stability???????? has been used by many people for many purposes, but it seems that the main outcome of the elections is that people are currently happy with the system and they have hope for the future, neither of which existed half a year ago.

The Bakiev-Kulov alliance was relatively unbeatable in the context of the Kyrgyz political atmosphere, so this indeed seems to be the story on the street; that is, that people voted based on whether they liked Bakiev-Kulov, not based on ideological leanings. This being the case, it was in Bakiev’s interest to secure a free, fair, and transparent election.

Kyrgyzstan doesn’t have a well-developed civil society and modern economy, so the platform for change is going to be based upon the broad consensus for economic development and, as that progresses, the building of a vibrant political culture. Everything else will be hard to come by if the former stagnates as has been the case in the past, often directly by the government itself. With growth comes legal reform, and with legal reform comes democratic institutions.