“When we dared to bring about the 'thaw', we, including ourselves, felt some fear: would it lead to a flood that would drown us and create difficulties” (N.S. Khrushchev).
The history of the Khrushchev thaw, which spanned the Soviet Union from the death of Stalin to the rise of Brezhnev (1954-1964), is well known. What will be the Kyrgyz equivalent of this thaw?
The term "Khrushchev thaw" refers to the course towards the democratization of social and political life in the USSR. Key moments of the transformations included the dismantling of the cult of personality and the weakening of the ideological system that had been established since the 1930s. Signs of this thaw included the flourishing of culture and public life, a reduction in censorship, and the rehabilitation of the victims of repression. Those who were executed under Stalin were posthumously exonerated, and others were released from prisons and granted freedom.
After Stalin's death, society was filled with many conflicting feelings. He was a symbol of victory over fascism and the restoration of the country, which made him an object of respect and love. However, millions of people had experienced repression and yearned for freedom, so the rise of Nikita Khrushchev to power sparked hope and optimism. People began to discuss politics more freely, without fearing arrest.
The XX Congress of the CPSU in February 1956 marked the official beginning of the thaw, when Khrushchev delivered a speech criticizing Stalinism...
Interestingly, the Kyrgyz thaw, initiated by Sadyr Japarov, begins exactly 70 years later—in February 2026.
At the congress, Khrushchev cited examples of the cruelty of the old regime, when innocent people were arrested, tortured, and executed. After the resignation of Kamchybek Tashiev from the head of the GKNB, Sadyr Japarov also noted instances of abuse of power at the local level: “The GKNB fulfilled its task, and in some aspects even exceeded expectations.” Khrushchev acknowledged that in certain conditions, harshness could be justified. Japarov, in turn, believes that the situation has changed, and state institutions must adapt and develop.
In his 1956 report, Khrushchev criticized Lavrentiy Beria—the former head of the NKVD, who was associated with repression. Society feared Beria, viewing him as an enemy of the people. However, modern historians assess his contribution to Soviet statehood differently.
Kamchybek Tashiev was evaluated by the people immediately, without waiting for “new interpretations” of his activities. He was respected and honored among Kyrgyzstani citizens.
If a less strict person had been in Tashiev's place, Kyrgyzstan would have continued to face border issues, and corruption and crime would have remained unpunished.
Politician Felix Kulov recalls the president's speech at the kurultai, where Japarov mentioned abuses by some security personnel in the fight against banditry and corruption.
“Some of these employees began to see themselves not as enforcers of the law, but as defenders of order, overstepping their authority and creating an atmosphere of fear in society,” commented Deputy Prime Minister Edil Baisalov on the situation.
The era of harshness has ended. It is time to strengthen the rule of law and stability in the presidential republic.
“Power must be clear and focused. The highest duty of President Sadyr Japarov is to maintain the unity of the state, guarantee the supremacy of the Constitution, and prevent the usurpation of power. Unlawful powers must remain in the past. We are moving towards a mature rule of law where each authority acts within its functions,” added Edil Baisalov.
Thus, the President of the Kyrgyz Republic, Sadyr Nurgozhoevich Japarov, takes on all power, becoming a full-fledged head of state, which should lead to greater stability and consistency. He also seeks to soften the harshness of the regime and bring a “thaw” to the country. Khrushchev, by the way, did not like this word, associating it with dirt, but that was his personal opinion.
What is most important in a thaw? The main thing is to avoid the “flood” that Nikita Khrushchev feared.
In the 1950s, many who were sent to camps by the Stalinist regime received long-awaited freedom, but along with them, criminal elements were also released, leading to an increase in crime.
Society became so liberal that the new generation of free-thinking individuals ultimately overthrew the power and the entire system, offering nothing more or less acceptable...
Will something similar begin in Kyrgyzstan? Will the country become overwhelmed with released “prisoners of conscience,” among whom will be ordinary criminals? Will the courts cope with the influx of reviewed cases and be able to separate those who could have been released from those who deserve strict punishment? Will the “free and independent” rise up, ready to undermine the foundations of our state under foreign funding?...
In any case, there will be no return to the past. Kyrgyzstan is entering a new phase of its development. “Sometimes you think that everything is over, but in reality, this is just the beginning. The beginning of a new chapter” (Ilya Ehrenburg, novella “Thaw,” 1954).
