Qishloq Ovozi (Archive)

The Kremlin could not be much clearer on its position about the big change in power in Kyrgyzstan in early October and that must worry the new leadership of the Central Asian country.

New Kyrgyz Prime Minister and acting President Sadyr Japarov appears a bit rattled by Moscow's reaction thus far and seemingly took the rash step of sending an unannounced envoy to Russia for talks with its Foreign Ministry.

Former Kyrgyz Foreign Minister Chingiz Aidarbekov, who is now Japarov's foreign-affairs adviser, arrived in Moscow for talks -- except no one in Moscow seemed to be expecting him, according to reports on October 29.

The chief editor of Kyrgyzstan's 24.kg information website, Asel Otorbaeva, wrote on her Facebook page the same day that Aidarbekov "wanted meetings in the Kremlin" with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, members of the Russian government, and State Duma leaders but was "rejected by absolutely everyone."

The state information agency Kabar tried to water that down later the same day, reporting that Aidarbekov "held talks with the leadership of Russia's Foreign Ministry and Finance Ministry," without mentioning any specific Russian official.

If, as was reported, Japarov did send Aidarbekov to Moscow unannounced, it is difficult to understand what the new leader thought might be accomplished.

From Prison To Power

The sudden emergence of Japarov -- a former nationalist politician freshly sprung from prison who was somehow nominated and finally approved as prime minister on October 14 after at least two attempts -- has startled many.

On October 15, Sooronbai Jeenbekov formally resigned as president and that same day, Russian presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov announced a "pause" in sending a previously promised $100 million in financial assistance to Kyrgyzstan.

Kyrgyzstan's new foreign minister, Ruslan Kazakbaev, who took Aidarbekov's place on October 14, was in Moscow on October 23 and met with Lavrov. Kazakbaev was trying to assure Lavrov and the Kremlin that the situation in Kyrgyzstan was returning to normal.

But it was not a good meeting.

At a press conference after their meeting, Lavrov indicated the new Kyrgyz government would not receive the $100 million in assistance that had been pledged to the previous government under Jeenbekov anytime soon.

Worse, during the press conference a Kyrgyz journalist asked Kazakbaev questions in the Kyrgyz language.

According to Kommersant.ru, "When the journalist turned to clarifying the fifth question in Kyrgyz, the Russian minister's patience ran out. 'Excuse me,' [Lavrov said] indignantly, 'You still have to respect the host, OK?' And for some reason added, 'In every sense.'"

Kyrgyzstan is part of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) as well as a couple of Russian-led organizations within the CIS framework, where the lingua franca is Russian.

Still, when the Chinese, French, or German foreign ministers, for example, visit Moscow, journalists from their countries regularly ask questions of their officials in their own language and it does not illicit such a response from Lavrov.

The day before Kazakbaev met with Lavrov, Russian President Vladimir Putin called the situation in Kyrgyzstan a "tragedy" and said Russia had been watching with "pity and concern."

Russian Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan Nikolai Udovichenko met with Kazakbaev on October 15 and with Japarov on October 21, with neither meeting going very far toward convincing Moscow's man in Bishkek that the new government was deserving of being in the Kremlin's good graces.

The heavily manipulated October 4 parliamentary elections in Kyrgyzstan led to unrest in Bishkek that quickly brought down the government. Protesters briefly occupied the government building, officials vanished, and for a few days it seemed no one was in charge before Japarov's surprise emergence.

The Kremlin was not a staunch supporter of Jeenbekov. Putin mistakenly called him Shariman when the two met in Sochi on September 28, even though Jeenbekov had been Kyrgyzstan's president since 2017 and met with Putin several times.

It could be that the Russian government has no objections to Japarov being in power.

But the Russian government does not like revolutions in CIS countries and three separate times now mass protests have ousted Kyrgyz leaders.

Putin said when he met with Jeenbekov in Sochi that "The Russian side is interested in stability in [Kyrgyzstan] and particularly in the postelection period."

The postelection period in Kyrgyzstan has been anything but stable.

The Kremlin has already shown in the past that it can add fuel to fires in Kyrgyzstan and sway the course of events.

Japarov was a supporter of President Kurmanbek Bakiev when he was in office.

So Japarov will surely remember the Kremlin's soft-power campaign against Bakiev in the Russian media -- which is widely available in Kyrgyzstan -- particularly in the northern part of the country -- that, in the end, played a significant role in helping chase Bakiev from power in April 2010.

For the third time in a bit more than 15 years, large protests in Kyrgyzstan have forced a president from power.

But these latest demonstrations that started the day after the October 4 parliamentary elections have led to a rare situation in which a change of power in post-Soviet Central Asia is not providing optimism for the future.

That might sound like an overly broad statement, but consider the changes of power in Central Asia since Kyrgyzstan's People's Revolution in March 2005 that chased President Askar Akaev from office. Excluding Tajikistan's first 15 months of independence in the early 1990s, the ousting of Akaev was the first leadership change in the region since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Relief In Turkmenistan

Turkmen President Saparmurat Niyazov, who preferred to be called Turkmenbashi ("the head of the Turkmen"), died in late December 2006. He had been the country's president since independence in 1991 and for some six years before that the Soviet leader of the republic of Turkmenia.

Whatever qualities he may have possessed that led the Kremlin to select him to head Turkmenia, after he was left to his own devices following independence it was difficult to see them.

Niyazov oversaw the creation of a bizarre government with the person of the president playing a central part in every aspect of life in the country. Turkmenistan became the most repressive state among the former Soviet republics.

Upon his death, the country's little-known health minister, Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov, came to power.

At the time, the means of Berdymukhammedov's ascendance to the presidency did not make much difference to the people of Turkmenistan. Most were simply glad to see the end of Niyazov's rule.

Berdymukhammedov talked about reforms, and in February 2007 ran in a presidential election -- only Turkmenistan's second since independence -- and unlike the October 1992 election, when Niyazov ran unopposed, Berdymukhammedov faced two challengers.

The international community was cautiously encouraged.

The younger and seemingly more coherent Berdymukhammedov made official visits to the East and the West and was even invited to the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008.

Berdymukhammedov eventually dashed any hopes of democratic change and has quite possibly become an even worse leader than his predecessor.

Still Hopeful In Uzbekistan

Uzbek President Islam Karimov died in the late summer of 2016, but not before spending 25 years presiding over a dictatorship that left the people of Uzbekistan without basic freedoms and no means to seek change.

His replacement was his prime minister of 13 years, Shavkat Mirziyoev, which inspired little optimism that the country's future would be much different than its recent past.

But Mirziyoev quickly spoke about implementing reforms, several older political prisoners were freed, the government began a campaign to eradicate forced labor in the cotton fields, and Uzbekistan opened itself up to tourists.

Uzbekistan had a new feel to it and people gained hope that things would change for the better.

The international community noticed these changes and -- before the coronavirus pandemic broke out -- trade and investment in Uzbekistan reached new heights. Many still hold hope that Mirziyoev can bring more improvements to Uzbek society.

Change In Kazakhstan?

Kazakhstan's longtime leader, Nursultan Nazarbaev, stepped down as president in March 2019 and essentially handed the post to Qasym-Zhomart Toqaev, a loyal technocrat.

Many believe Nazarbaev is still in charge, and the manner in which power was transferred troubled many. Renaming the capital after Nazarbaev also did not help Toqaev's image.

But Nazarbaev's official departure awoke some sections of society, particularly among the country's youth, that were waiting for a change in power and wanted that to translate into change for their own lives.

There have been many protests in Kazakhstan since March 2019, sometimes only involving a single person, and the authorities have forcibly broken up almost all of them.

But there is a new energy in civic activism in Kazakhstan that has not been seen for many years and shows no signs of dissipating any time soon.

Stolen Revolution

When Akaev was ousted in Kyrgyzstan in March 2005, there was a sense that the people had rallied to rid the country of a leader who had stayed too long, had increasingly tried to gain more power, and was bringing family members into government to establish a sort of dynasty.

Unfortunately, the expectations that followed the 2005 revolution were dashed by Akaev's successor, Kurmanbek Bakiev, who fell into a familiar pattern but proved more avaricious than Akaev. Bakiev was chased from power in 2010.

Once again, hopes were raised. The constitution was rewritten to move Kyrgyzstan toward a parliamentary form of government, the presidential term was limited to one six-year stint in office (which was honored by President Almazbek Atambaev), and both the 2010 and 2015 parliamentary elections were marked by improvements over previous elections and given a seal of approval by Western observers.

The response to the tainted October 4 parliamentary elections seemed to be a victory for the Kyrgyz people.

Once again, the people had risen up when the authorities had gone too far and another president was about to be forced from office.

But the appearance of Sadyr Japarov -- a former nationalist politician freshly sprung from prison who was somehow nominated and approved as prime minister -- quickly muted any celebrations.

There does not seem to be any sense of victory or cause for celebration in Kyrgyzstan yet, except for the supporters of the populist Japarov.

The rules are being changed and there are plans to change some laws -- even the constitution -- but all the modifications seem designed to suit one person -- Japarov.

There are suspicions that organized-crime groups are supporting Japarov, which could help explain his rapid rise from prison to prime minister and simultaneously acting president in less than three weeks.

The so-called supporters of Japarov who have regularly gathered outside the government building more closely resemble soccer hooligans than political activists.

Some parliament members and opposition parties say they have received threats and believe the source of those threats is Japarov's supporters.

Foreign Friends Not On Board

The Kremlin has shown it is not keen on the change of leadership in Kyrgyzstan.

Russian President Vladimir Putin described the change of power in Bishkek as a tragedy and Moscow has suspended $100 million in financial aid to Kyrgyzstan.

The United States released a statement saying Kyrgyz "citizens and their leaders must continue to fight against the influence of organized crime and corruption in politics."

After two unsuccessful attempts to name Japarov prime minister, both of which were hastily arranged and failed to gather a quorum, the European Union issued a statement that noted "the concerns raised by Kyrgyz citizens and the international community about possible procedural flaws during the designation of the new prime minister."

The protests against the October 4 parliamentary elections that led to the results being annulled and repeat elections being called should have been a major triumph for the country.

But the subsequent events with Japarov in full power doused any feelings of euphoria over this victory and in its place is a sense of foreboding and unfinished business.