Revolutions in Kyrgyzstan

Yevgeny Ivanov analyses all the three of the Kyrgyz revolutions. He investigates events preceding these revolutions, their external and internal causes, course, and outcomes. The author tries to show why this country cannot stop its revolutionary processes and become stable. Kyrgyzstan is unique among the former republics of the Soviet Union. Kyrgyzstan is—so far—the only post-Soviet nation that underwent three revolutions that culminated in the replacement of the ruling elites, in 2005, 2010 and 2020. Ivanov concludes that while the Tulip Revolution was an example of a typical color revolution, seeking the democratic replacement of a long-standing ruler, the two subsequent revolutions were the fruit of the unstable and fragile system that emerged after the first. The 2005 March Revolution, or Tulip Revolution, was the third in a series of color revolutions in the post-Soviet region, after the Rose revolution in Georgia in 2003 and the Orange revolution in Ukraine in 2004–2005. The Tulip Revolution led to the collapse of President Askar Akayev’s regime, which had lasted more than 14 years. The 2010 rebellion became known as the April Revolution, or Melon Revolution. It was accompanied by great violence and ended with the overthrow of Kurmanbek Bakiyev. Unlike Akayev, Bakiyev, his opponent, comes from the south of the country. The Melon Revolution brought to power Roza Otunbayeva and Almazbek Atambayev. The former was an interim president and the latter ruled the country for 6 years juggling between the northern and the southern clans. Subsequently, Atambayev clashed with Sooronbai Jeenbekov, his comrade and potential successor in the presidency. Their confrontation seemed to have ended with Jeenbekov’s election victory and Atambayev imprisonment, but Jeenbekov, the southerner, lost the office when challenged by another revolution in October of 2020 mostly supported by northerners. Ivanov maintains that revolutions in Kyrgyzstan are always expected yet never predicted. This is because the nature of the Kyrgyz revolutions remains unclear. Scholars agree on the innate instability of post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan, referring to tribalism and its nature as a “divided nation”. However, each uprising is surprising because it depends on a fresh combination of various factors and conditions. The author argues that these revolutions were based on demographic, socio-economic and domestic political factors. To a lesser extent, geopolitical context should be considered too.