Reviews

The author remarks that if on paper Kyrgyzstan’s leaders have created institutions consistent with international conceptions of modern statehood, the main challenge as far as this country is concerned remains ― one would be tempted to say especially after the summer 2010 events . . . ― to identify the real nature of the political power system in the country. With special attention for a comparison between the Akaev and Bakiev eras, J. Engvall concludes that the predatory élite control of resources has changed from more hierarchical to vertical. At the same time, short-term predation of resources has been a permanent feature under both regimes. One of the explanations proposed by the author for this continuity, in spite of Akaev’s relative political longevity and opportunities for constructing a stable administration, is his sense of insecurity derived from the fact that he was appointed president as a compromise acceptable to powerful informal leaders.

The Redaction
CER: II-7.4.D-653