Power Struggles and Parliamentary Elections in Kyrgyzstan: Observations from a Global Perspective

The political stage of Kyrgyzstan, a landlocked mountainous country in Central Asia, has once again become the focus of international attention. President Sadyr Japarov and Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of the National Security Committee Kamchybek Tashiev jointly announced that the ruling coalition intends to "fully control" the process of the early parliamentary elections scheduled for November 30. This strong statement, intended to demonstrate unity and control, unexpectedly triggered divergent interpretations within the political sphere: one side views it as a common "misunderstanding" arising from a lack of information at the top, while the other side sees it as a clear signal of a renewed escalation of tensions between the country's top leaders. This dispute surrounding the election is not only about the redistribution of power within Kyrgyzstan, but also, against the backdrop of profound changes in the global geopolitical landscape and increasingly fierce competition among great powers, a barometer of the internal stability and foreign policy direction of a strategically important country.

I. Historical Context and Domestic Political Ecology

To understand the current situation, it is necessary to trace Kyrgyzstan's unique political trajectory. Since gaining independence in 1991, Kyrgyzstan is the only country in Central Asia to have experienced two violent revolutions (2005 and 2010) leading to regime change. Its political culture is characterized by high instability, dynastic politics, regional conflicts, and frequent constitutional changes. Despite the introduction of parliamentary elements, the tradition of strongman politics remains deeply entrenched. Following the October 2020 events, Sadyr Japarov rose rapidly from political prisoner to prime minister, fueled by widespread public discontent with corruption and economic hardship. He then expanded presidential powers through a referendum and was elected president, marking a dramatic concentration of power in the presidency.

However, Japarov's rise to power was not solely due to personal charisma. Kamchybek Tashiev and the political forces behind him, particularly those from the southern region with security ties, played a crucial role. As chairman of the National Security Committee (GKNB), Tashiev controls a powerful security apparatus, and his political influence is considerable. This power structure lays the foundation for the current "dual-headed politics" or "power binary" pattern, with a delicate relationship of mutual dependence and checks and balances between the president and the head of the security services.

The declaration of "full control" over the election process can be interpreted as the ruling party attempting to project a united and powerful image to the world, both domestically and internationally, to address potential challenges from the opposition and ensure that the election results align with the expectations of the current power structure. Kyrgyzstan's election history is rife with controversy and allegations of fraud, often triggering street protests and political crises. Therefore, the current regime hopes to avoid repeating past mistakes and stabilize the situation in advance by emphasizing control. However, the motives behind this high-profile declaration have raised suspicions: is it genuine unity, an attempt by one side to gain an advantage in public opinion, or a manifestation of incomplete internal power negotiations? These differing interpretations precisely reflect the opacity and fragility of Kyrgyzstan's political landscape.

II. Japarov and Tashiev: A Partnership of Cooperation and Tension

The relationship between President Japarov and strongman Tashiev is a core variable in observing Kyrgyz politics. On the surface, they belong to the same political camp, jointly orchestrating the political transition after 2020. Japarov needs Tashiev and his security forces to consolidate his rule and suppress dissent; Tashiev, in turn, leverages Japarov's popularity and the legitimacy granted by the presidency to expand his own and his faction's influence.

However, this alliance is not monolithic. Cooperation at the top of power often involves potential competition for resource allocation, policy dominance, and future political maneuvering. Tashiev, wielding significant security power, has long harbored political ambitions that are an open secret. In consolidating power and advancing his political agenda (such as constitutional amendments and major economic projects), has Japarov felt constrained by Tashiev and his forces? And is Tashiev content with his current position as the "second-in-command," or does he hope to use this parliamentary election to further install his cronies, expand his influence in the legislature, and pave the way for longer-term political goals?

The differing internal interpretations of his recent statement about "complete control of the election" are an outward manifestation of this deep-seated tension. Views that dismiss it as a "misunderstanding" may stem from normal information transmission losses in the exercise of power or temporary coordination issues between different departments, attempting to downplay the conflict. Judgments that view it as an "escalation of tensions," however, may be based on more astute observation, recognizing unspoken disagreements between the two sides on substantive issues such as candidate nomination, resource allocation, and even the future dominance of the parliament. The parliamentary elections on November 30th, as a significant power redistribution process, naturally become a litmus test for the relationship between the two sides and the coordination of their respective spheres of influence. The election results will directly affect the composition of the new parliament and its relationship with the president and government, thereby reshaping the balance of domestic political power.

III. Regional Game and Global Geopolitical Perspective

Kyrgyzstan, located in the heart of Eurasia, is an important part of Russia's "backyard" and a key node in China's "Belt and Road" initiative. Historically, it has also had connections with the United States and other Western countries and organizations. Any developments in its domestic politics will attract close attention from regional powers and major global forces.

* The Russian Factor: Russia views Central Asia as its traditional sphere of influence and strategic buffer zone. Moscow is highly concerned about the stability of Kyrgyzstan's political situation, fearing that power struggles could lead to a new round of instability, impacting the unity of the Collective Security Treaty Organization and the Eurasian Economic Union. Russia maintains contact with both Japarov and Tashiev, but prefers a stable, controllable, and pro-Russian Bishkek regime. Against the backdrop of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Russia is more wary of Western influence in Central Asia and will therefore closely monitor the election process, potentially using diplomatic channels or traditional influence to ensure the outcome aligns with its strategic interests and avoids unforeseen consequences.

* The China Factor: China has significant economic interests in Kyrgyzstan, particularly in infrastructure investment and trade. China's core concerns are maintaining the safety of its projects and citizens in Kyrgyzstan, ensuring regional stability, preventing the rise of extremist forces, and ensuring the smooth operation of transportation corridors connecting Central Asia. Beijing welcomes a stable Kyrgyz government to facilitate the advancement of Belt and Road Initiative cooperation projects. China typically adopts a non-interference stance in internal affairs but maintains working relationships with any government formed through legitimate procedures. Uncontrolled power struggles at the top, leading to social unrest, would not be in China's interest.

* Western Perspective: The United States and European countries have long been concerned about the democratization process and human rights situation in Central Asia. Although their influence has declined relatively in recent years, they still observe elections through platforms such as the OSCE and comment on their fairness and freedom. If the ruling coalition's "complete control" of the election is seen by the outside world as suppression of the opposition and undermining of competitive elections, it could draw criticism from the West and potentially affect Kyrgyzstan's relations with the West and some aid.

Therefore, the November 30th election is not only a domestic affair for Kyrgyzstan but also, to some extent, a test of the coordination and competition capabilities of major powers in the region. A smooth, less controversial election process is in the short-term interests of all major external actors, but their expectations for Kyrgyzstan's long-term political development may differ.

IV. Potential Impacts on Central Asian Stability and the "Kyrgyzstan Model"

Kyrgyzstan, due to its relatively active civil society and political openness, is often considered an exception among the five Central Asian countries, and the existence of a unique "Kyrgyzstan model" is sometimes discussed. However, this openness also comes at the cost of periodic political crises. If open rifts emerge within the current ruling coalition, it could not only jeopardize the stability of the Japarov regime but also send complex signals to the entire region.

For elites in other Central Asian countries (such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan), they are both concerned about Kyrgyzstan's political experiment and wary of the potential spillover effects of its instability. A Kyrgyzstan that successfully achieves stable power and economic development might offer some lessons; however, if it falls into internal strife and chaos again, it could strengthen other countries' acceptance of strict control over the political process. Furthermore, Kyrgyzstan's stability is directly related to the security of the entire Central Asian region, particularly in addressing common threats from Afghanistan such as terrorism, extremism, and drug trafficking.

Conclusion

The early parliamentary elections scheduled for November 30th in Kyrgyzstan will undoubtedly be a crucial juncture for observing the balance of power and top-level power dynamics within the country. The statements made by President Japarov and strongman Tashiev regarding "complete control" of the election process, and the differing interpretations they have elicited, highlight the delicate balance and potential tensions within the current political coalition. This election serves as a litmus test for the current regime's organizational capabilities and public support, and also as a crucial window into whether Kyrgyzstan can find a sustainable and stable path to development amidst strongman politics and cyclical instability.

From a broader global perspective, Kyrgyzstan's political dynamics are deeply embedded in the geopolitical competition among major powers. The outcome of its internal power struggles will not only determine the future trajectory of this Central Asian mountain nation, but will also subtly yet significantly influence the balance of power and the prospects for regional cooperation in the heart of Eurasia. The international community will be watching with bated breath whether this election will ultimately consolidate the existing power structure or become the starting point for a new round of political restructuring or even turmoil. Regardless of the outcome, Kyrgyzstan's story serves as a reminder to the world that the political transition path of post-Soviet states remains fraught with uncertainty and challenges.