Президенциализация формы правления в Кыргызстане как фактор политического процесса: причины и перспективы

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to analyze the main changes in the system of government in Kyrgyzstan after the 2020 coup, including the form of government and the electoral system in the context of the factors of these changes and their potential impact on the political process in the republic in terms of its stability. As a research methodology, the interval method of M.S. Shugart and J. Carey (assessment of legislative and non-legislative powers of the president, followed by the distribution of cases by clusters) and the methodology of A. Crowel with additions by O.I. Zaznaev (assessment of the presidential and parliamentary index of the form of government, followed by the determination of the degree of presidentialization or parliamentarization) are used.
 The next changes in Kyrgyzstan’s form of government were caused by the political elite change as a result of the 2020 coup. The parliamentary form of government was replaced by a presidentialized semi-presidential form of government, in which the main powers are concentrated in the hands of the president, who heads the executive branch. To ensure political stability, the new elites found the simplest and most obvious way out – a return to presidentialism. The proportional electoral system was replaced by a mixed, unrelated system. However, a “strong” president by himself is not capable of becoming the main factor of stability. In the absence of a parliamentary majority supporting the president, acute political crises may arise, but the procedure for resolving them is absent in the constitution. On the other hand, the high role of informal institutions and clan-regional ties can not only hinder, but also contribute to political stability especially due to the preservation of the “northern” and “southern” elites’ consensus. The formalization of a “strong” president in this sense creates more foundations for stabilizing the situation. The parliamentary and presidential elections will once again be the next test for countering these threats. The theoretical significance of the work lies in the fact that the conclusions drawn from the Kyrgyzstan case will clarify the political consequences of the use of certain forms of government and their impact on the political process in a comparative perspective.