Translated material
Kulov went to the front
For Kyrgyzstan without Bakiyev
Yesterday, a new opposition organization appeared in Kyrgyzstan - the “United Front “For a Decent Future of Kyrgyzstan.” Its creation did not come as a surprise after ex-Prime Minister Felix Kulov announced his transition to the opposition on February 14. It is not difficult to assume that it is Mr. Kulov who will become one of the leaders of the front .The “United Front” is proclaimed as a supra-party structure, which can include organizations from the civil and political sectors, as well as individuals. According to Vremya Novostei, among those who signed the political statement of the opposition alliance are Felix Kulov, ex-speaker of parliament Omurbek Tekebaev, deputy Melis Eshimkanov and a number of his colleagues.
The authors of the statement made a disappointing diagnosis of the situation developing in Kyrgyzstan - “there is a restoration of the vicious system of family governance.” They passed the corresponding sentence: “With this approach, the country has no future. It is doomed to move in a vicious circle, when one ruling “family” is periodically replaced by another. And this circumstance will constantly be the main destabilizing factor threatening the integrity of the Kyrgyz statehood.”
“Urgent reform of the system must begin from the head, that is, from the presidential power,” the statement said. The name of the head of state is not mentioned in the text. However, the statement argues that the president's actions in adopting a "revenge constitution" in late 2006 - just a month after the adoption of the "reasonable and progressive November Constitution" - made the country a laughing stock in the eyes of the international community."
The United Front considers its main task to be “carrying out genuine constitutional reform.” Its essence, in particular, is to “prevent the usurpation of power by one person.” It is argued that “the initiator and guarantor of such a reform should be the early elected President of the Kyrgyz Republic in the near future.” This means early holding of presidential elections, only after which is meant holding early parliamentary elections. But on what basis can early elections be held within the framework of the existing constitution? This is not stated in the statement.
If we are talking about impeachment, then with the current pro-presidential parliament, the implementation of this procedure is unrealistic. It would be more logical to imagine a different sequence of actions: first early parliamentary elections, and only then presidential ones. But such an order would hardly suit some parliamentarians who consider themselves oppositionists, and would push them away from joining the front - because in this case they would risk losing their parliamentary mandate.