Since Kyrgyzstan’s October 2020 revolution, two men have been credibly accused of establishing an authoritarian regime in the country: President Sadyr Japarov and his associate Kamchybek Tashiev, who is currently chairman of the State Committee for National Security Committee (GKNB), the local successor to the KGB.
The two men came to power in 2020 by skillfully taking advantage of the revolutionary fervor that dominated that year, and that raised so many hopes among the people. To realize their goals, they made quick decisions, competently distributed resources, and capitalized on short-lived alliances with criminal networks and corrupt officials.
Since then, to consolidate power, they have made significant changes to Kyrgyzstan’s constitution, shifting the country from a parliamentary to a presidential republic, and enacted several repressive laws. Japarov, for example, recently signed a law labeling NGOs in Kyrgyzstan that accept foreign funding as “foreign representatives,” a move that recalls similar laws passed in Russia under President Vladimir Putin.
Since 2020 there have been persistent crackdowns on dissent, including the arrest of opposition figures, and considerable pressure exerted on the rights of assembly and speech, through the continued banning of rallies and closures (or attempted closures) of independent media outlets.
The powerful duopoly that Japarov and Tashiev have built for themselves has allowed them to effectively dismantle opposition voices, weaken civil society, and to assert government control over mainstream media. The Japarov-Tashiev tandem has sunk real roots into Kyrgyzstan’s society, and those roots are deeper and stronger than they might seem on the surface.
Some argue that this “rule by tandem” cannot continue forever, or even for very long. When discussing the political future of Kyrgyzstan, it is frequently argued that the country’s small size and limited resources will continue to hinder its political stability. Many experts speculate that the current government is at risk of being overthrown by revolution again in the near future due to these factors.
This, however, ignores one crucial strength of the Japarov-Tashiev tandem: its ability to accumulate money and use that money to secure power, and not just by simple bribery. This accumulation of money often involves what is known in Kyrgyzstan as “kusturizatsia” and “cooperation.”