Only lazy doesn't scold deputies on the "island of democracy". Often you can hear that the recent history of Kyrgyzstan didn't see anything worse than this convocation, that the budget funds, which come in the form of our taxes, are spent on the deputies. Exactly this convocation is breaking all records for dull and useless initiatives and its members constantly have a fist fights and using coarse language, teaching the journalists how to write and how to dress.
But the president of the country, appeared to think differently. Almazbek Atambayev said that "in general, the convocation worked well." 24.kg news agency decided to ask its respondents whether they agree with this statement.
Azamat Attokurov, executive director of the Institute of Management Consultants:
- No. I don't believe that the convocation worked satisfactorily. Parliament has rolled us in the zero years, and maybe even further. Indeed, all records beaten by the most absurd bills. They were in favor of the recognition of NGOs as foreign agents, and then it was decided to ban gay propaganda. In my opinion, a member of Ar-Namys faction Tursunbai Bakir uulu was remarkable for offering the most absurd ideas, including making Friday a day off. This insatiable desire of deputies to change the flag, emblem, anthem words. In short, the worst convocation, in my opinion.
Zulfiya Marat, an expert:
- Our parliament - poor excuse for democracy as government of people. Recently I saw the performance of Kyrgyz kuuduldar Tynar and Boronchu, who with caustic satire expressed opinion of the majority of our people about the members of the government. And it is very different from the views of the head of state. It is clear why these views are opposite. Because the head of state, whose party is always in the ruling coalition, will be responsible for all the last five years. To recognize the work of the parliament poor - is to acknowledge own powerlessness to solve the problem of Kumtor, unemployment and corruption, "creeping" Islamization and others.
The power in the country belongs to second-rate businessmen, with the experience of shady deals in the raucous 1990s, during "Bakiyev lawlessness." They were directly engaged in the main mode of business in the country, poor and at the same time declared "democratic" - politics for the good of their own selfish interests, setting up for national. Therefore, in the eyes of the country loses not only the glaciers, human and intellectual resources, here is not only plundering of natural resources but steadily decreasing credibility of our country in the eyes of neighboring countries, in spite of our accession to the EEU.
Abdymanap Kutushev, member of the parliament:
- I think this convocation will get its assessment in the future, and it will be positive. Good is usually seen from a distance. Elected officials have provided legislative support for the transition period in which we live in a free society.
Begaly Nargozuev, deputy of the fourth convocation of the Parliament of the KR:
- Recently Almazbek Atambayev criticized the parliament and said that deputies should deal only with lawmaking, but they interfere in all cases, even became prosecutors and courts, political and criminal corruption is thriving among the deputies. But now parliamentary elections are approaching, so the president can only praise the fifth convocation, which many experts have called the worst in the modern history of Kyrgyzstan. But such variability in the assessment is understandable. SDPK faction bosses in parliament, the media repeatedly wrote about its representatives in the most unpleasant tones. Journalists made a bit of a noise but exposed deputies are still unpunished. And today they want to go back to the parliament and fight among themselves for the proximity to the leader. Parliament actually solves nothing, the presidential administration makes decisions instead of deputies and the deputies became voter fraudster. They are satisfied only with that they have the status of a deputy, but don't make policy. In order the parliament in a parliamentary country to become so toothless on the Constitution, one should try hard for a long time, and the top managed to do it. Rallies for the dissolution of Parliament, which took place at the beginning, were organized specially for the demoralization of the new parliament. After that, the highest legislative body became tame. Today criticized for conjuncture, tomorrow praised - the element of the current leadership of the country. With the new Constitution, such great powers of this convocation couldn't withstand the pressure of the presidential administration and totally went under the heel of the authorities, so I give the fifth convocation of the parliament "unsatisfactory" mark.
Uran Botobekov, a political scientist:
-I strongly disagree with the view that this convocation of the Parliament worked effectively and successfully. Quite the contrary. There wasn't a balance of power between branches of the government. All power with the consent of parliament was handed over to the President. One person country decides all the issues that discredits the parliamentary form of the government.
-That is to say that the Parliament didn't do anything reasonable?
-The Parliament could not fulfill its historical mission on implementation and approval of the parliamentary form of government. It was completely under the control of the first persons of the state, who have managed to break up Respublika, Ata-Zhurt and Ar-Namys.
Irina Karamushkina, a member of the Social Democratic Party:
-For the first time in the history representatives of different parties, different ideas got into the Kyrgyz parliament. Why people say that this convocation is the most confused? Because so many people, who got there, are far from politics. I understand that politicians are not born, they become. This is the political culture, oratory. Therefore there are complexities that we began to experience in parliamentary development in the country from scratch. I have also noted that many deputies should be kept away, but we have made our choice - free development of parliamentary democracy.
We need to consider all the remarks by the next convocation, so not to repeat the mistakes. I think the next convocation has a lot of work to do. In general, there were enough negative aspects, and a lot of good ones. Who initiated these fights and fisticuffs? They are the ones who wanted to show failure of the parliament. Many citizens in networks even said: let them kill each other in the parliament building, than demonstrate in the streets who has more supporters. I observed by myself, that Parliament has certain powers that are specifically provoked the fact to show inconsistency of the Parliament. These are the forces of the ousted former government - biased, who provoked and it was clear, well, then, let us learn the parliamentary culture.
Bekbosun Borubashov, the Professor of the KRSU:
In my opinion, deputies of the fifth convocation failed in their main tasks. Although we have a parliamentary form of government and the reins are in the hands of the Parliament. Parliament forms the government, there are other powers and control functions, legislative and executive ones. That is, people's representatives were to decide the main problems, which are now available in the Kyrgyz Republic. Unfortunately, they still have not been resolved. They relate to wages, employment, population, economic development, fight against corruption, problems with Kumtor, ensuring safety of citizens of the Kyrgyz Republic. These problems are not solved for years. In this regard there is a conclusion. There is one "but": we mustn't accused only the deputies of all this, because the system of formation of the parliament itself is created in such a way. Just look at composition of the Parliament, who was there... These are people, who can finance political parties, that is, mostly businessmen. And they have their own psychology, a mission - they make money and protect their business. That's their job, they deal with issues of a personal nature: worried about their well-being, business. Therefore, in 2010, we shouldn't create such an electoral system. It corresponds to the interests of a certain group of people, but not population. Now look at supplement that MPs have offered: to increase the election pledge. This shows that wealthy people can come, if they can make that kind of money. What is psychology then? I paid the money, and now I have to return them. We are creating a state power only for wealthy people. And there is no democracy in our country. And they actually proved it. And we can not blame only the deputies, this issue must be approached comprehensively.
Ghani Abdrasilov, the expert:
- I absolutely agree with the opinion of the head of the state, but it is necessary to change the electoral system of the deputy corps. Parliament must be submitted by parties, and territorially. Kazakhstan, by the way, switched to this system, and we all think... or rather, do not think, because it is not profitable to some political parties, which are simply occupying power in the person of Tekebayev and others... In 2010, 34 percent of the population eligible to vote, gave the mandates of national trust to this convocation. This means that 66 percent of citizens do not have any relation to the elections, because they didn't know who to vote for, because single-member districts was made instantly, and suddenly we created the party parliament. It does not happen. I guess the best thing - to have 70-80 deputies, 35 of whom - representatives from political parties, as today, five are elected from single-member districts and, relatively speaking, 10 people represent ethnic minorities. At the same time the quotas for women and youth remain. It is difficult, but, in my opinion, is the most compromise variant. Being non-party, I will vote in my Sverdlovsk district and as a man of not titular nationality - for deputy from ethnic minorities, as well as a sympathizer of a political party - I will vote for any party. That is, I must have three choices, in my opinion, this is an ideal system. I am 65 years old and will you really think that I do not know who to vote for at the end of my life?