The former prime minister noted that the breakup of the tandem could have been caused by serious factors
After Kamchybek Tashiev was relieved of his position as head of the security bloc of Kyrgyzstan, the public began to actively discuss the reasons for such a decision. The questions concern not only his political tandem with Sadyr Japarov but also the possible consequences for the entire government in the country. To clarify the situation, the editorial team of Vesti.kg reached out for comments from Felix Kulov, a former prime minister who understands the mechanisms of such alliances well, as he himself was part of the Bakiyev-Kulov tandem ten years ago.
- Felix Sharshenbaevich, what do you think could be the true reasons for Kamchybek Tashiev's dismissal? Is it a personal decision, pressure, elite conflict, loss of trust, or part of a broader reorganization of power? What seems most likely?
- We are unlikely to learn the real reasons behind Tashiev's dismissal, as this is common practice for decisions of this kind. However, it is clear that this was not a spontaneous decision by the president. The breakup of the tandem, which had long been considered stable and repeatedly confirmed by Tashiev himself, could only have occurred with serious grounds.
This is also confirmed by subsequent decisions, such as the dismissal of his deputies, the structural reorganization of the GKNB, and the separation of the Border Service into an independent body. All of this indicates that the decision was systemic, not personal.
Without delving into conspiracy theories, one might assume that questions arose regarding the balance of power and subordination in the "boss and subordinate" relationship. In such situations, the President, as the guarantor of the Constitution and the unity of governance, is obliged to act decisively, even when it involves influential figures.
Thus, the decision made indicates not a weakening of power but its maturity and ability to adjust the management system based on the long-term interests of the country rather than the personal merits of individual officials.
- How do you see the political prospects after the dismissal? Can Kamchybek Tashiev participate in the presidential elections and compete with the current president?
- According to the law, Kamchybek Tashiev, like any citizen of Kyrgyzstan, has the right to participate in elections. However, he has repeatedly stated that he does not aspire to the presidency, preferring stability over personal ambitions.
Of course, the political situation may change, and theoretically, such an option cannot be ruled out. Nevertheless, from a state perspective and ensuring stability, it is much more important to avoid a split in society and destabilization of the political situation. This is exactly what Tashiev himself called for when he held the position of chairman of the GKNB.
In the current conditions, it would be most reasonable to maintain a constructive dialogue with the current president and respect the existing power system. This aligns with the interests of the state and the expectations of society, as well as the principles of state discipline and responsibility that Kamchybek Tashiev himself had previously articulated.
- Given the current situation, can Tashiev return to Bishkek in the near future? Are there real legal or political risks for him, including possible prosecution or arrest, or are these just speculations?
There are no serious grounds for claims of significant risks. Kamchybek Tashiev's return to Bishkek and his further steps depend on his own decisions and political line. In the absence of confrontational actions on his part, no prosecutions should be expected.
From the state's perspective, initiating pressure or forceful actions against a former high-ranking official would be counterproductive, as it could create unnecessary tension and negatively impact political stability. It is clear that the authorities are interested in maintaining calm and manageability, rather than in actions that could weaken their positions.
In this context, discussions about a possible arrest or prosecution are more likely speculations and lack real grounds.
