Here, we are not talking about free interpretation, which is the right of everyone, nor about harmless statements like, "I am an artist, I see it this way." The problem lies in the deliberate substitution and distortion of facts. History should record the truth, not serve as a platform for fantasies.
Personality or Political Stand-Up?
Syimyk Zhapikeev indeed played a significant role in opposing the regime of Sooronbay Jeenbekov. Since May 2020, his "kitchen" on YouTube attracted viewers' attention, where he shared his views on political events in an accessible language. He accurately captured the mood of the time, meeting the audience's demands both in form and content.
However, was he a catalyst for the events of October 2020?
The answer is rather negative. The change of power in October 2020 was a consequence of a structural crisis, not the actions of one well-known blogger, no matter how popular he was. The reasons for this crisis are well known and arose long before Zhapikeev's "kitchen" appeared. Although he was an emotional mouthpiece for the protest movement, a mouthpiece is not an ideologue, and popularity does not equate to agency.
The history of mass protests, including in Kyrgyzstan, shows that such events never have a single author; their triggers are combinations of factors, not streams from a "kitchen."
Zhapikeev's assertion in Kyiazov's podcast about his key role in the October events can be seen as an element of political stand-up, in which he is undoubtedly strong. But this is not a conclusion based on a serious analysis of all the factors that led to Jeenbekov's early resignation.
By the way, after it became clear that the elections of October 6, 2020, were falsified, and the results were divided between Rayimbek Matraimov and Asylbek Jeenbekov, the "Chon Kazat" party, of which Zhapikeev was one of the leaders, failed to organize protests. Only after major political forces such as "Mekenchil," "Ata-Meken," "Bir-Bol," and "Republic" began to openly protest did the movement take to the streets and overthrow the regime.
Japarov Was Not Expected
Another statement by Zhapikeev that he made in Kyiazov's podcast concerns the claim that no one demanded the release of Sadyr Japarov during those October days. However, the crowd in Ala-Too Square in Bishkek, chanting "Sadyr, Sadyr!" was likely not unnoticed by those following the events from both inside and outside.
In fact, Sadyr Japarov was a well-known politician long before 2020, and demands for his release were regularly voiced in street and online environments. While in custody, he actively worked on social media and managed to create significant support, which at a critical moment transitioned into active actions on the street.
One politician who participated in the protests and ran from another party shared that in all his meetings with the people, the first question was always: "When will you free Sadyr?" "In Bishkek, Naryn, on Issyk-Kul, in the south, people asked: 'When will Sadyr be free?'" he shared. "I was surprised myself at how, while in prison, he managed to gather such support. But that’s a fact."
"I Was Used and Thrown Away"
Another common narrative is "I was used and thrown away," often heard from those who seemingly were on the front lines but later found themselves sidelined. This is also the case in the podcast with Zhapikeev.
Indeed, history knows many examples where participants in protests do not find their place in peaceful life.
However, in Zhapikeev's case, it should be clarified that he did receive positions, and not just one. But his expectations did not match reality. This often happens, as politics is not just a continuation of blogging. Power and governance require responsibility, discipline, and the ability to act within the system, not against it. The inability to integrate into this system is not always a conspiracy; sometimes it is simply a mismatch between role and competencies.
To anyone who knows even a little about Syimyk Zhapikeev, it is clear why he is not taking an active position now.
In principle, this podcast could be overlooked if Zhapikeev's story were unique rather than typical. Especially considering that as the country enters another election cycle, similar stories will emerge more frequently.
This is dangerous not because someone is exaggerating their role, but because society begins to believe in simple explanations for complex processes.
Syimyk Zhapikeev was undoubtedly part of these events, but he was not their architect. He was given an opportunity but could not realize it as he had hoped. This is a common human story. However, turning it into an alternative textbook on the recent history of Kyrgyzstan is already abnormal.
