Just as was the case in 2005 and 2010, what is happening now in Kyrgyzstan is extremely complex. However, I think it is important to note one commonality running through all three events - the prevalence of corruption
In 2005, the reaction against Akayev was first and foremost about what citizens viewed as the growing corruption in Akayev's family, and the ways that the family was entrenching itself in the country's economy and politics.
In 2010, the reaction to Bakiev was even more related to the ways that the Bakiev family had entrenched itself in the country's economy and politics
This is not to say that the demonstrators on the streets now are all enraged citizens. They also likely include, as was the case in 2005 and 2010, the members of other patron-client networks in the country who want to emulate their predecessors through state capture
But, that does not devalue the ways that the Kyrgyz people feel about the ways that corruption have invaded their lives and livelihoods. That is a very real feeling that inevitably brings more people onto the streets.
I did an evaluation of a development program supporting human rights defenders in Kyrgyzstan in 2012. For that evaluation I did a series of focus groups with different segments of the citizenry about their attitudes to human rights and its protection in the country.
My most marked finding was that everybody felt their human rights were violated on a regular basis, but all of their examples were about corruption, nepotism, and being forced to give bribes.
This is to say that the Kyrgyz people are not first and foremost looking for civil liberties now or in the past when they have challenged their government. They are looking for an end to a corrupt system. That is what brings people onto the streets.
You can follow @robertsreport.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: