This period is difficult to fit into traditional frameworks of "democracy - authoritarianism" or "populism - reforms," as Japarov's rule represents a new reality, marking the end of the post-revolutionary survival era, when Kyrgyzstan is either recovering or disintegrating.
Sadyr Japarov came to power not through the usual mechanism, but as a result of a systemic collapse that occurred in October 2020. These events cannot be called a revolution in the classical sense; rather, it was a turning point when the outdated system had completely exhausted itself. This circumstance defines the main features of his rule.
Main Achievement
One of the most significant, albeit not obvious, achievements of Japarov's presidency is the restoration of the state's ability to act.Before October 2020, Kyrgyzstan was in a state of chronic managerial weakness, one could say "more dead than alive," as in Alexei Tolstoy's fairy tale. Decisions were made spontaneously, the elites were fragmented, and the economy was in survival mode, which was particularly evident during the pandemic.
Japarov changed this model by creating a new vertical of power.
In this new system, the center makes decisions, regions understand their roles, law enforcement agencies receive clear mandates, and businesses are aware of the rules of the game, albeit harsh, but clear. This is a restoration of sovereignty, which is more important for weak states than any institutional improvements.
Political Alliance of Japarov and Tashiev
Rumors about a possible breakup of the Japarov-Tashiev tandem, based on the belief that "two heads do not boil in one pot," have not materialized over the past five years, as this viewpoint is fundamentally flawed.
In reality, the connection between Japarov and Tashiev represents not a friendly alliance, but a structural model of power that aligns with the global trend of strengthening the state and law enforcement institutions in various countries around the world.
In this model, Kamchybek Tashiev is an equal figure, not just an assistant. He acts as the guardian of the tools of sovereignty, ensuring control over resources and borders, while neutralizing alternative centers of power. Japarov sets the political vector, while Tashiev ensures its implementation.
The advantage of this model lies in its high manageability and operational decision-making speed.
At the same time, Kyrgyz society and international partners perceive the current situation as adequate to reality.
Discipline Instead of Reforms
The economic growth of recent years is often attributed to external factors such as re-export and logistics; however, this is only part of the truth. The most important factor is the sharp reduction of internal chaos, which allowed for an increase in tax revenues not through raising rates, but by legalizing businesses and eliminating the shadow economy.
These are not classic liberal reforms, but rather a mobilization economy, where the state first restores order and then creates incentives. Although there are risks of this model dragging on, Japarov has managed to balance between rigidity and pragmatism over the five-year period.
The fight against corruption is also conducted within this logic. Critics point to the absence of independent anti-corruption institutions, but they miss an important point.
Japarov and Tashiev have chosen a demonstrative model of fighting corruption.
That is why we see high-profile arrests and asset recoveries, which may be controversial from the perspective of Western standards, but are effective for a society tired of elite impunity. Today, everyone understands that risking and stealing has become too dangerous.
Foreign Policy Realism
One of the most underrated aspects of Sadyr Japarov is his realistic approach to foreign policy. He does not make loud statements about "multi-vectorism," but at the same time does not quarrel with Russia, strengthens ties with China, and maintains working relationships with the West.In conditions of geopolitical instability, Kyrgyzstan under Japarov has become not an object for external experiments, but a subject of cautious maneuvering.
Sadyr Japarov is not an accident for Kyrgyzstan; he reflects our time when small developing countries learn to survive, and order is valued more than bureaucratic procedures.
Japarov's rule is not an ideal state, but a return of the instinct for self-preservation.
The question is not whether this model will disappear, but whether it can evolve. The answer to this question will determine whether his presidency will be remembered in history as a time of stabilization or as a temporary respite before a new crisis.
