19 January 2021. PenzaNews. The Central Election Commission of Kyrgyzstan has summed up the results of the manual count of votes in the early presidential elections of the republic, held on January 10. According to the CEC data, over 1.1 million people, or 79.2% of voters that visited the polling stations voted for Sadyr Japarov, who took office last year after October protests against the results of the parliamentary elections, which evolved into riots and led to the voluntary resignation of Sooronbay Jeenbekov.

Photo: Sultan Dosaliev, President.kg

The turnout was 39.3%. More than 1.4 million people took part in the presidential elections. The total number of voters was about 3.6 million people.

Adakhan Madumarov, who received 95,000 or 6.8% of the vote, became the second in the presidential race.

In total, 17 candidates ran for the post of head of state.

By January 24, the Central Election Commission must announce the official results of the vote, after which the inauguration ceremony of the new president will take place. Candidates who disagree with the results have the right to dispute them within 14 days after voting day.

Together with the early elections of the head of state, a referendum on the form of government was held in Kyrgyzstan. More than 84.1% of voters opted for the presidential republic, about 11.3% – for the parliamentary, and more than 4.6% – against all.

The current constitution of Kyrgyzstan, adopted by a referendum in 2010, does not mention the form of government. Official sources indicate that Kyrgyzstan is a parliamentary republic, but the country actually has a mixed form of government which is presidential-parliamentary.

Analyzing the voting results, Baktybek Beshimov, former member of the Kyrgyz parliament, Professor, College of Professional Studies, Northeastern University in Boston, expressed the opinion that Sadyr Japarov enjoys widespread support of the citizens nowadays.

“The results are real, despite some critical shortcomings related to the use of the administrative resources and the uneven opportunity for the candidates […]. Today there are no viable alternatives to Sadyr Japarov,” he said.

At the same time, according to him, this election and referendum continue a series of coups when the regime changes were instigated and organized by the wealthy elites who used the angry mob as their weapon.

“The majority of the Kyrgyz electorate has been frustrated hugely by the political regimes of Almazbek Atambayev and Sooronbay Jeenbekov, which were established after the coup in April 2010. They didn’t keep promises and failed to satisfy the expectations of ordinary people. Most of the people have been fed up with flawed parliamentarian governance. On the other side, most people are getting more religious and conservative and prefer the ‘strongman rule’ in the presidency,” the ex-deputy said.

“Sadyr Japarov, fresh off prison, has risen suddenly as the anti-establishment movement leader and radical transformative political changes. Kyrgyzstan didn’t see the populist and demagogue of such scale. He became the symbol of ordinary people’s grievances and their only hope. He rises from the failure of old mainstream politics, and today inventing the new mainstream politics at the center of his phenomenon,” Baktybek Beshimov added.

In his opinion, to maximize his power, “he will strive to establish a modern authoritarian police state.”

“In that sense, politically, he is close to leaders like Trump, Erdogan, and Orban,” Baktybek Beshimov stressed.

Speaking about how long Sadyr Japarov will be able to remain in power, the ex-deputy noted that the new leader “inherited the burden of misdevelopment and an unstable economy” and “has raised the expectations of its supporters to a level that will be impossible to sustain,” while there are “no serious signs he understands the complexity of problems.”

According to him, “the probability is high that this regime will suffer systemic failure” and will “fail to achieve viability in the tasks of reforms, especially in economic development.”

Colleen Wood, PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science, Columbia University, shared the view that the elected president could quickly lose his popularity among citizens.

“There is widespread support for Sadyr Japarov across the country, which his team has fostered through in-person rallies and social media. A norm of holding the president accountable through mass protests and forced leadership change has emerged in Kyrgyzstan, and […] if he cannot follow through on his populist promises, that support may dwindle quickly,” Colleen Wood suggested.

She also drew attention to the percentage of citizens attending the polling stations.

“Less than 40 percent of eligible voters turned out to vote on January 10. Reasons for the low turnout include a lack of large-scale vote buying, apathy about politics, and cold weather; but nevertheless, it is difficult to ascertain how the high support for the presidential system maps onto overall support for it in Kyrgyzstan’s population,” the American expert said.

When asked about the potential change in the political situation in Kyrgyzstan after the referendum, Colleen Wood pointed to the lack of specific information on future transformations.

“The referendum only asked citizens whether they wanted a parliamentary or presidential system, but now the government must do the work of coming up with the details of institutional design. […] According to Kyrgyzstan’s current constitution, parliament is responsible for writing amendments; but the 6th convocation of parliament, which is still in power after the Electoral Commission nullified results from the October 4th election, lost its mandate on October 15. The government is stuck in a catch-22 of legitimacy as a result. Japarov has hinted at the possibility of another referendum for voters to decide on the details of the new constitutional order, but a timeline and what exactly the distribution of power within Kyrgyzstan’s various organs of government will look like remain unclear,” she said.

In turn, Andrea Schmitz, Senior Associate, Eastern Europe and Eurasia Division, German Institute for International and Security Affairs, called the results of the presidential elections and the referendum quite expected.

“The result of both elections and referendum were expectable, no surprise. The low voter turnout, however, might testify to political indifference among large parts of the population as well as a lack of trust in the political process – a feeling that their voice doesn’t make much of a difference anyways,” the analyst noted.

According to her, the majority of those who went to the polls obviously were followers of Sadyr Japarov and his political visions.

“This means that the referendum result – the vote for a presidential system instead of a parliamentary one – demonstrates a desire of many Kyrgyz to be ruled by a strongman who they hope will solve the country’s problems,” Andrea Schmitz said.

“The expectations are high, Mr. Japarov is under pressure to deliver results, but the overall situation in Kyrgyzstan has not changed and it is uncertain how long the patience of the people will last. In order to keep the country stable, the new president might be tempted to turn to repressive methods in order to push programs through, as well as to suppress criticism and identify scapegoats – his critics in society and politics, ethnic minorities, ‘Western agents,’ ‘third forces’ and other fictions – who can be made responsible for failure,” the German expert added.

Meanwhile, Eugene Huskey, Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies, Stetson University, reminded that although Sadyr Japarov had a large lead over his competitors, the turnout in these elections was the lowest in the entire modern history of Kyrgyzstan.

“Put another way, Japarov won fewer votes than President Atambaev, even though the country’s population has increased. So, Japarov’s popular mandate is less impressive than it seems,” he explained.

“But despite some irregularities at the polls, as well as the use of administrative resources by state officials, Japarov appears justified in claiming that the formal requirements of a democratic election were met. However, the election was not really competitive, in part because Japarov raised and spent more money than all of the other candidates combined. More worryingly, the election served to launder power that had been gained illegimately three months earlier in a coup, when Japarov used unconstitutional means to push out the prime minister and president and claim those positions for himself,” Eugene Huskey stressed.

At the same time, according to him, Kyrgyz voters had a number of reasons why they decided to support Sadyr Japarov.

“They were deeply disillusioned by the absence of forceful and effective leadership from the former president, Sooronbai Jeenbekov. So, the Kyrgyzstani electorate was charisma-hungry, and Japarov’s dynamic persona and bold promises, wrapped seductively in nationalist symbols and rituals, spoke forcefully to the country’s rural and economically marginalized majority, who swept him to power. The election marked the revenge of the countryside, as Japarov won 83% of the votes in the provinces and only 52% of Bishkek residents,” the expert explained.

He also stressed that the referendum on presidentialism passed by such a large margin because the population followed Japarov’s recommendation to change the system of government.

“However, the voters did not really know what they were voting for because the details about the institutional changes were not laid out, and it is still not clear what kind of presidentialism Japarov will introduce. The reality is that Kyrgyzstan has never had a presidential system and is unlikely to in the future: it has had and probably will have a form of semi-presidentialism, though certainly forthcoming changes will increase the power of the president and reduce those of parliament,” Eugene Huskey said.

He suggested that this vote would “mark the end of Kyrgyzstan’s special position as the most open and politically competitive country in Central Asia.”

“We can expect Kyrgyzstani politics to look more and more like that of its neighbors. The economic and social challenges that Japarov and Kyrgyzstan face are enormous, and it is unclear whether Japarov’s brand of cultural populism, which generates support through the manipulation of popular concerns about Kyrgyz identity, will allow him to retain his popularity with a nation that seems to be in permanent crisis,” the expert concluded.