Changes to Kyrgyz Assembly “Muzzle” Deputies

The government says it only wants to streamline parliament’s work, but the opposition says the real aim is to silence debate.

By Yrys Kadykeev in Bishkek (RCA No. 529, 01-Feb-08)

Legislative amendments affecting the new parliament of Kyrgyzstan have curbed its members’ democratic rights to speak, critics say.

After parliament approved changes to legislation governing the way parliament works on January 24, President Kurmanbek Bakiev signed the bill into law the next day. The assembly had passed the amendments by 63 of the 90 votes.

The need for a rule change came about because a new electoral system was introduced in October under which all 90 seats in an expanded legislature are filled by proportional representation, drawing on party candidate lists, rather than the first-past-the-post system used in past ballots.

The proportional method was applied in the December election, in which the pro-presidential Ak Jol party won an outright majority, despite being set up only two months beforehand.

The new regulations contain a controversial stipulation that the number of members of parliament allowed to speak in any legislative debate is predetermined by the amount of seats each party holds.

The parliamentary leader of each of the three parties represented will get to address the chamber on new pieces of legislation, and then Ak Jol will be able to field a further nine speakers, as it holds 71 seats. However, the Social Democrats, who have 11 seats, will only be able to put forward three speakers, and the Communists just two, on behalf of their eight seats.

In previous incarnations of the Kyrgyz parliament, all members had the right to make their views felt when bills were under discussion.

Alisher Sabirov, who chairs the parliamentary committee for ethics and regulations which drafted the amendments, said they reflected suggestions made by several parliamentary groups, and also the practical experience of other legislatures in Russia, Kazakstan, Moldova and Ukraine.

Sabirov accepted that the restrictions might appear to curb members’ rights to speak freely, but he insisted the point was that political parties count, not individual members. He envisions that the parties’ parliamentary groups will meet separately and discuss draft legislation, come to a common view on it, and then have this articulated by however many speakers they are allotted.

“The voters did not pick individual candidates, but parties and programmes,” he said. “The effectiveness and success of parliament’s work won’t be shaped by brilliant orators but by the professional decisions that it makes.”

Unsurprisingly, pro-government deputies agree with him. Zainiddin Kurmanov of Ak Jol said the regulations would help parliament exercise its legislative and supervisory powers more effectively.

“The majoritarian parliament we had before only discussed problems, but there was no action and no results,” he said. “The point is for members to discuss an issue in a professional manner, propose what do to, and get a real outcome.”

Miroslav Niazov, formerly secretary of the Security Council of Kyrgyzstan, agreed that this was no more than an attempt to “streamline” legislators’ work.

“The previous parliament had a low efficiency ratio but it made a lot of noise,” he said.

Opposition deputies disagree, saying the real aim is to silence dissenting voices to make life easier for the executive.

The Social Democrats have complained the loudest, with one member, Damira Niazalieva, warning that members of parliament were being robbed of their right to express an opinion.

“Deputies are being turned into voting machines,” she concluded.

Murat Juraev, also from the Social Democrats, insists that thorough discussion is a prerequisite for good law-making, and that each of the 90 members should have the right to make their views felt.

There have also been expressions of concern at other changes that have become law, not least a rule that members deemed to be misbehaving and disturbing the session will find that their microphones are switched off and they face disciplinary measures.

Furthermore, the rules have been changed so that a mere simple majority of 46 people is needed for a quorum, unlike earlier times when parliament could only hold sessions when two-thirds of its members were present.

Some deputies are insisting that the real goal of all these changes is to ensure that even unpopular bills get passed without any fuss.

Rahat Irsaliev, a Social Democrat deputy, told IWPR he believed the regulations were changed specifically with a view to rushing through the privatisation of energy facilities.

After years of discussion and half-measures, the privatisation process is now slated for completion this year. The old parliament – which had a difficult relationship with President Bakiev from his election in July 2005 to its own dissolution last year – repeatedly questioned the denationalisation of Kyrgyz power companies, arguing that the process was flawed and lacked transparency.

“Now, deputies who don’t agree with these laws will not even be able to express their views at a session,” complained Irsaliev. “People will remain unaware of laws that are adopted and how they will impact on their lives.”

Azimbek Beknazarov, a leading politician who was a member of the last parliament, said the new body had already revealed itself to be “tame” and subservient to the president. Now it has become “even more manageable and obedient”, he said.

Independent observers of the political scene in Kyrgyzstan have some sympathy with opposition complaints about the changes to the way parliament works.

Political scientist Nur Omarov says although the government claims the new rules will increase parliament’s efficiency, there is a danger that the restrictions will make it increasingly redundant.

“It is the only large public forum where important political and economic processes can be discussed,” he said. “Restrictions of this kind are unlikely to encourage more effective work; on the contrary, they just make parliament more dependent on decisions made by the president.”

Erkin Alymbekov, who was deputy speaker in the last parliament, echoes Omarov’s view.

“Limiting the deputies’ right of free expression will reduce the authority of parliament,” he maintained. “It will become possible to push anything through without any public discussion, simply by arranging it with the speaker of parliament, who represents the dominant party.”

Yrys Kadykeev is an IWPR contributor in Bishkek.