• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
    • Supporting economic development
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Poverty & wellbeing
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»Political economy of conflicts in Kyrgyzstan since the 2000s

Political economy of conflicts in Kyrgyzstan since the 2000s

Helpdesk Report
  • Emilie Combaz
March 2016

Question

Identify literature on the political economy of conflicts in Kyrgyzstan. Focus on the March 2005 and April 2010 conflicts and their implications for the way the country is governed today.

Summary

A fundamental finding, widely shared among authors, is that it is not only the national level that matters, but also regional and local ones, in violent and non-violent conflicts. In recent and older history, local conflicts sometime develop into national ones.

Other key findings of the literature review include:

  • The root causes of both conflicts are largely similar and form a structural system of “institutionalized instability” in politics, economy and society, which generates both popular and elite discontent (Gullette 2010). Contributing factors are: high levels of inequality, poverty and unemployment; neo-patrimonial rule and competition among elites; and repression and violence by those in power against opposing parties, the media, NGOs and protesters.
  • Some of the proximate causes of both conflicts centre on the growing involvement of the presidents’ families in politics and the economy, to the detriment of ordinary citizens and former allies.
  • Additional indications on the proximate causes of the April 2010 conflict include economic policies that were particularly poor and made worse by economic crisis in Kyrgyzstan, Russia and globally. In particular, rising prices for food, water, gas, electricity, heating and telecommunications are often identified as important factors in discontent.
  • The main trigger for the 2005 mobilisation was the rigging of parliamentary elections and the accompanying repression of opposition. In April 2010, it was the shooting to death of ordinary people in Bishkek by the police.
  • The main players who have been contesting Kyrgyzstan’s political economy since 2010 have largely been drawn from the same elite circles who come in and out of power and state institutions since at least the early 2000s.
  • Two actors that the literature identifies as likely to cause conflict in the future are the state itself, and Kyrgyz ruling elites. Both have failed to address economic and political problems, still risk the mobilisation of geographic and ethnic identities for violence, and do not necessarily have control over the police and military.

 

file type icon See Full Report [PDF - 994 KB]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Suggested citation

Combaz, E. (2016). Political economy of conflicts in Kyrgyzstan since the 2000s (GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report 1339). Birmingham, UK: GSDRC, University of Birmingham.

Related Content

Gender, countering violent extremism and women, peace and security in Kenya
Helpdesk Report
2020
Border Disputes and Micro-Conflicts in South and Southeast Asia
Helpdesk Report
2020
Gender and countering violent extremism (CVE) in the Kenya Mozambique region
Helpdesk Report
2020
Lessons for coherent and integrated conflict analysis from multilateral actors
Helpdesk Report
2020
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".OkRead more