The waves of revolution continue to ripple through the Commonwealth of Independent States. In the wake of the Rose Revolution in Georgia and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, yet another anti-democratic regime has been ousted, this time in Kyrgyzstan, in what has become known as the Tulip Revolution.

In response to President Askar Akayev’s attempts to rig the parliamentary elections and possibly place his children in power, protests erupted in the southern half of the country and quickly spread to Bishkek, the capital city of Kyrgyzstan. Akayev secretly fled to Russia on March 24 and formally resigned the presidency from Moscow on April 4.

Akayev became President of Kyrgyzstan in 1990 and went on to win a free and fair popular election after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many observers considered him a promising democrat due to his economic privatization policies, introduction of a constitution modeled after that of the US, and encouragement of civil society growth. Kyrgyz society and political culture, however, have long been organized around family clans, and the new democratic policies and institutions gradually became subordinated to the interests of Akayev’s clan. Thus, Akayev’s political behavior took a destructive turn in the late 1990s, leading Central Asia expert and Notre Dame Professor Kathleen Collin (Ph.D. Stanford, 2000) to categorize Kyrgyzstan as a “hollow electoral democracy” by 2000 and a “weak autocracy” by 2002.

International observers of the most recent parliamentary elections reported that the process was neither free nor fair. Akayev’s clan was accused of promoting media bias, buying votes, and improperly removing opposition candidates from ballots.

In what has become an embarrassment for Putin, CIS observers showed themselves to be little more than guardians of Russian regional interests by approving the election results in spite of evidence of widespread and blatant fraud. Coincidentally, Kyrgyzstan hosts a Russian military base that is located only 15 miles from an American base. In addition to its desire to maintain a military presence in Central Asia, Russia, as the regional power, has interests in preventing radical political transitions that cause the loss of longstanding allies within its sphere of influence.

Professor Larry Diamond, renowned expert on democratic development, offered his thoughts on the potential significance of the Tulip Revolution to the region. It is possible, he said, that a “demonstration effect,” a phenomenon in which revolutionary events in one country act as a catalyst for revolutions in another country, could diffuse to neighboring Kazakhstan, “where there is still a small degree of political pluralism and competition.” According to Diamond, things are far more uncertain in countries such as Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, where the fear of demonstration effects may persuade the presidents to avoid future elections altogether.

America’s role in the Tulip Revolution was a significant one. Since the early 1990s, US- supported civil society has promoted democratic culture in Kyrgyzstan. After Kyrgyzstan gained its independence, direct aid packages, courtesy of the 1992 Freedom Support Act, assisted the creation of democratic political institutions. The New York Times reports that Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Freedom House printing presses helped to broadcast and disseminate the democratic message. When Akayev became more autocratic, he began suggesting that America and the West were engaged in a conspiracy against him.

Asked specifically about the role of President Bush, Diamond speculated, “Bush’s pro-democracy message, spoken consistently over time, has had a contribution in stimulating the winds of democratization in regions like the Middle East and probably emboldened the Kyrgyz opposition."

Before anyone reaches for the champagne, however, there are reasons to delay heralding the new advent of Kyrgyz democracy.

The violent nature of the opposition protests, which stood in stark contrast to the peaceful demonstrations in Ukraine and Georgia, is the first major cause of concern. “In general, the more that a democracy comes into being from violence, the less stable its basis,” Diamond said. Kyrgyz authorities are currently struggling to reassert law and order as stick-wielding looters roam the streets and expose the inability of the state to enforce the law.

Even if achieving the rule of law at this point was feasible, it is not certain that acting President Kurmanbek Bakiyev would be the person to do it. When he was the Prime Minister in 2002, police under his regime fired into a crowd of protesters, killing five people. Bakiyev was forced to resign. Also, Bakiyev is now facing the prospect of a split in the opposition, as another popular leader, Felix Kulov, shows signs of disagreement with his leadership.

Furthermore, the extent to which the clan tradition will influence the formation and path of the future government is unknown. Diamond worries that “clans won’t accumulate into something large enough to constitute political parties. They might be too small and divided to coalesce.”

For the moment, Akayev’s ouster is a reason for hope, but Kyrgyzstan is still far from achieving democratic stability.