Abstract

The collapse of the USSR provided Kyrgyzstan with the opportunity to move towards democracy. Meanwhile, it also brought the challenges of political and economic reforms. Askar Akayev expected to build Kyrgyzstan as Switzerland of the Central Asia through its reconstruction and lead Kyrgyzstan transform into a market orientated democracy. Akayev quickly conducted the important large political and economic reforms after the independence of his country. Being a newly independent country, Kyrgyzstan proceeded to democratic politics, economic reforms policies and large-scale privatization. Affected by the wave of democratization, color revolution also occurred in Kyrgyzstan. Kurmanbek Bakiyev at this time got the chance to start his political career after Tulip revolution. However, after nearly two decades of reform, Kyrgyzstan seems to go backward to the past. The political power became more centralized and economic stagnation became more obvious. The uprising in 2010 once again caught the global attention. Why did this small country confront with two political power shifts in a such short time? Obviously, Bakiyev repeated the mistakes that were done by Akayev. The thesis aims at examining the pros and the cons of the reforms in Kyrgyzstan and to explore the factors which gave rise to power shift. Furthermore, it also explains why the reforms in Kyrgyzstan did not bring positive results and significant benefits. The research leads to the conclusion that despite ethnic conflicts, political interference, anti-power activities, anti-corruption campaigns; the internal instability within the country was result of the slack in the economy.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call