By Ruta Nimkar

In ordinary circumstances, Kyrgyz elections are not the subject of international news. The tiny Central Asian country has little economic power and even less political presence. It has no oil, no natural resources and no protracted conflict – it has nothing that attracts the attention of the world.

2010, however, was not an ordinary year for Kyrgyzstan. In April, a revolution took place against President Kurmanbek Bakiyev. Violent conflicts between ethnic Kyrgyz and Uzbek broke out in June. Later in the same month, the new Kyrgyz constitution created a parliamentary democracy, significantly increasing the powers of parliament at the expense of the president. Between June and October, Kyrgyzstan has established an uneasy peace, interrupted occasionally by demonstrations and riots.

The results of the October election are pivotal for two reasons: they represent a resolution to the unstable situation in Kyrgyzstan, and, more importantly, they will test the flexibility Kyrgyzstan's new democracy.

***

Kyrgyzstan’s experience with democracy has been short but tumultuous. The republic gained independence during the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. In the early 1990s, Askar Akayev, Kyrgyzstan’s first president, was praised for his performance, and for the country’s liberal principles. As the decade wore on, however, Akayev tightened his hold on power and signs of corruption appeared. In 2004, Akayev was overthrown and a new president, Kurmanbek Bakyiev, came to power. Bakiyev soon proved to be more corrupt and less liberal than his predecessor. Frustration mounted and, in April, the second Kyrgyz revolution took place.

Following the April 2010 revolution, three paths were open to Kyrgyzstan: a strongman could take power and establish a quasi-dictatorship, the country could descend into chaos and war, or Kyrgyzstan could try to adapt democracy to suit the country’s unique requirements.

The ‘strongman’ approach to leadership is common in Central Asia. The leaders of both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have been in power since 1991, and they show no intention of giving up power soon. This governance structure has both strengths and weaknesses. Strongmen can bring stability, peace and economic growth, as demonstrated by Lee Kuan Yew, who ruled Singapore between 1965 and 1990, and Paul Kagame, who stabilized Rwanda following the genocide. They can also, however, perpetrate gross crimes against their citizens and violate the rights of their citizens, as demonstrated by, among others, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.

Central Asia also has experience with chaos: Tajikistan was mired in civil war between 1991 and 1997, as Emomalii Rahmon, the government leader, fought against the United Tajik Opposition. The war caused general devastation: it is estimated that over 100,000 people died and another 1.2 million fled the country. Following the war, Rahmon adopted a quasi-dictatorial stance. Tajikistan is currently a one-party state and the OSCE stated that the last elections “failed to meet many democratic standards.”

Kyrgyzstan is the first Central Asian country to experiment with different forms of democracy. The country’s new constitution, passed in June, states that no single party can hold more than 65 of the parliament’s 120 seats and it states that no party can be formed on ethnic or religious grounds. The powers of the president are limited – he or she can only serve one six-year term – but not eliminated – he or she still has the right to veto legislation and to appoint certain leaders.

This new constitution has been created specifically to limit conflict. Previous conflicts in Kyrgyzstan have been caused by differences between the north and the south, as well as tensions between ethnic Kyrgyz and ethnic Uzbek populations. In a parliamentary system with limited presidential powers, all of these interests can be represented. The parties can, in theory, express their views and fight their battles in parliament, rather than in the streets.

The October elections are the first test of Kyrgyzstan’s experiments with democracy.

***

Kyrgyzstan’s elections have serious consequences for American foreign policy – specifically, for the concept of democracy promotion, which has been tainted in recent years.

Democracy promotion provided one justification for America’s interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Costly military operations dragged on for years in these countries. The newly established Iraqi and Afghani democratic governments appeared, in the press, to be unstable and corrupt. Some commentators questioned whether democracy was better than the alternative; whether the United States would have done better to leave Iraq and Afghanistan alone.

Dictatorships, or quasi-dictatorships, grew in strength and legitimacy. Over the last ten years, undemocratic China has become one of the world’s greatest powers and Russia has thrown away its democracy in favor of Vladimir Putin’s autocratic leadership. These dictatorships do not necessarily support democracy. Medvedev, for instance, criticized Kyrgyzstan's plans for a parliamentary democracy, commenting that the experiment would be a "catastrophe" and that Kyrgyzstan needed strong, authoritarian leadership. A foreign policy of democracy promotion would, according to critics, damage America's relationships with Russia and China, and provide little benefit to the US.

Today, democracy promotion is a risky tool which has lost credibility. The American public often wonders whether the pursuit of democracy abroad is worth the cost at home; equally, the public abroad wonders whether a strong hand may be better than a democracy in guiding a country to success.

Kyrgyzstan’s elections may support the principle of democracy promotion in two ways. First, if a new government is established peacefully, then the country may provide an example of successful democracy promotion. Second, Kyrgyzstan may demonstrate that democracy promotion is not a one-size-fits-all policy prescription. Instead, it is a nuanced concept, and it can be altered and adjusted to fit the specific needs of a given country.

Peace in Kyrgyzstan represents a step forward, not only for the country, but also for the principle of democracy.