Dropping off the map (figuratively) for awhile is Kyrgyzstan, the site of March 2005’s Tulip Revolution in which a few thousand people chased former President Akaev from office. The protestors are now back to the streets, in ever greater numbers than before, and they are demanding the reforms that were promised and since stalled by the newly elected President Bakiev. The center of the reform debate is the approval of a new constitution; either one which favors a strong executive or another which favors a strong parliament. Judging from all that I’ve read of the situation, it appears that Bakiev is in a weaker position .

Here’s the story from RFE/RL:

BISHKEK/PRAGUE, November 2, 2006 (RFE/RL) — Protesters have set up roughly 200 small tents near government headquarters in the Kyrgyz capital, signaling opposition plans to maintain public pressure in the absence of any breakthrough over stalled constitutional reforms.

But most of the estimated 15,000 or more protesters appeared to have vacated the square by evening.

President Kurmanbek Bakiev told Russian state television after the protest was well under way that he saw “no reason” to worry for his government’s stability.

Bakiev said he had enough “forces” at his disposal to cope with any potential unrest. He also suggested he had the support of the armed forces and of the majority of the population, “who wants to live and work normally.”

While the number of protestors is several thousand more than during the Tulip Revolution, their purpose seems to be much more for the purpose of symbolic street force than actual street force. I don’t see much of a chance for riots, so those national guard troops that Bakiev has on hand are pretty meaningless (not to mention that if he employed them, it’s guaranteed that the agitation it would cause would likely lead to those riots he fears). What really matters here is how the negotiations go behind the scenes; whether or not Bakiev caves.

There are certainly some signs that he is in a relatively weak position. It seems that the general desire among political parties is a parliamentary system, not the presidential one that Bakiev favors. Just yesterday 1/3 of the MPs called on Bakiev to implement this reform or resign, and Bakiev even gave into the demands for some of these reforms. While he has stopped short, I think its a sign that he can be broken. In the past year and a half, civil society has grown rapidly. Akaev never had to deal with all the new pro-reform NGOs and former ministers going at his throat. Bakiev didn’t squash them like his predecessor did. Now he has to deal with the challenge.

While he has done a pretty good job respecting civil society thusfar, Bakiev’s desire for a strong executive reeks of the typical CIS strongman. Whether it is born of a genuine wish to reform or something much more malevolent, such power is often used for bad. The evidence to date, however, shows that newly emerging democracies fair much, much better with parliamentary systems due to their plural and inclusive nature. Fighting for one spot with all the power is divisive in society, whereas a parliament tends to have much more legitimacy with the people, therefore making the government much more stable. If I was asked which draft constitution I support, I would definitely go with the parliamentary system for Kyrgyzstan.

There has been a lot of criticism for Kyrgyzstan because its Tulip Revolution has not produced very many hard results in terms of reform. But this goes to that the fire is not dead. We may yet see the revoution realized.