THE recent bloodbath in Uzbekistan was a test case for democracy and the free world. The champions of free world failed it, and failed it miserably. The wave of democracy that has led people to lay down their lives for freedom has resulted in the emergence of quite a few democracies in the world, more notably and more recently, in the Russian periphery. The nascent democracy is just like an incipient plant, which has to be nurtured, watered and cared for, otherwise it may wither and dry up. The new democracies need support from the civilized world, which at the same time, must demonstrate its unequivocal determination not to permit or condone state tyranny against civilians anywhere in the world. After the March events in Kyrgyzstan, it was more or less writing on the wall that people would come out on the streets in Uzbekistan. The West remained unprepared for that and when the time arrived, a green signal was given to Islam Karimov to go ahead and butcher his people. All of this augurs ill for the future of democracy and for that of humanity.

Instead of the freedom loving people worldwide becoming emboldened, the recent incidents have comforted the despots around the globe, that let alone bringing them to account for their crimes against humanity, they could rather be encouraged to go ahead in throttling freedoms, if only their policies in general did not annoy the Western powers otherwise. Now the chances of Uzbekistan following the model of Kyrgyzstan seems increasingly remote, while the reverse happening, that is the new Kyrgyz leadership becoming authoritar-

ian on the Uzbek pattern, is more likely.

Kyrgyzstan, the latest addition in velvet revolutions, was one of the most unexpected of places, where the sheer motivation of the people could have thrown away the yokes of despotism. A relatively unheard of nation of five million, the land-locked, mountainous and tribal republic of Kyrgyzstan, remains among the most isolated countries in the world. It is one of the six Muslim majority republics of the former Soviet Union that changed colonial masters in 1991; the Russians left these republics in the hands of "indigenous Stalins" -groomed and trained by Moscow.

Little wonder, independence from Moscow was only nominal. The Russians retained military bases, controlled all the industry and resources, and dictated the foreign and even domestic policies of these nations. Russia purported to embrace democracy at home, but would not tolerate the same in her hinterlands like Georgia, Ukraine, and central Asia, not if she had a choice. one after the other, three nations have manifested their will and determination to show Moscow's proteges the exit door. The peoples of the three Baltic republics had done this a bit earlier, around a decade and a half ago.

In Georgia, red rose was the symbol of the opposition led by the present President Saakashvili, the colours of Yuschenko's camp in Ukraine were orange and that of the democratic opposition in Kyrgyzstan happened to be pink. These colours of revolution have come to symbolize the spirit and colour of freedom.

The revolution in Kyrgyzstan was the biggest surprise not only because of the sheer momentum

of events. Each day, one would write a column to post to papers the following day, when it would have already become too late to be of any relevance. The speed of pen would fail to keep pace with the zeal of the Kyrgyz nation. They did it, without the ostentatious display of American money and European support, as was much too evident in the streets of Kiev and Tblisi, in the heydays of crises there. The protests in Kyrgyzstan , in the Southern cities of osh and Jalalabad, however, were the spontaneous reaction to a rigged parliamentary election, orchestrated to bring in the kith and kin and close cronies of ousted leader Askar Akayev, and manipulated to bar all prominent

opposition figures. opposition was doled a mere six-seat presence in a House of seventy-five deputies, that too, only for media consumption abroad. The writing on the walls was clear, Akayev would not only belie his promises to step down after three terms of unchallenged rule, in october this year, by managing an amendment through a rubber stamp parliament, but open the way for his children to rule the country after him. If Azerbaijan's Hayder Aliyev and Syria's Hafiz el Asad have treated their nations as a family property, bequeathing the throne to playboy sons, what after all was wrong with Akayev's daughter?

For weeks, Kyrgyzstan was being ruled by two parallel gov-

ernments, a fragile administration in the North and a mob rule in the South. Akayev's reaction to the situation was more or less a textbook response of dictators. He first called the protesters traitors and refused even to discuss demands for re-polling; then when things grew out of hand, he showed willingness to negotiate, while exploiting the Western sensitivities to Islamic fundamentalists by calling all of them Islamists; and finally, firing his own Interior Minister for being soft on the citizens, appointing a former intelligence chief to the post who immediately threatened use of live fire arms. Like Islam Karimov, he finally did order a bloodbath, but in this instance,

the forces refused and rather helmeted mounted police were seen joining the protesters, shouting slogans against Akayev. Fearing for his own life, Akayev ran away from the country. Meanwhile the country's Supreme court stepped in by annulling the results of parliamentary elections.

Like all the four neighboring central Asian republics, the Kyrgyz despotism survived by playing on the fear of resurgent Islam, exploiting the presence of rich mineral resources to lure Western economic interests, and permitting the presence of military bases to both the United States and Russia. The ostentatious and over stocked US military base at Manas remaining in place in sharp

contrast to the typically-impoverished Russian base at Kant, both not far from the capital Bishkek, are standing testimonies to the fact that too many vested interests and stakes from divergent ends had been collected in Kyrgyzstan, so that no power in the world really wished a change in status quo, except that of the common men and women of Kyrgyzstan.

Like in Iraq, cuba, and North Korea, the potentially most destabilizing factor in a postdictatorship phase is the paucity of recognized public leadership, since none is allowed to grow in authoritarian dispensations. There is no leader in Kyrgyzstan whose hands are not red for past collaboration with the same regime that has been ousted. New acting President Kurmanbek Bakiev, was Prime Minister till recently, Foreign Minister Felix Kulov was a former Vice President and head of Security, and the new Speaker Ishenbai Kadyrbekov was a party leader.

With this background, the future is clear, either there would be a stable democracy, if the free world supports the new regime, or it's going to be a bloody civil war, Iraq-style, if it doesn't. In Ukraine and Georgia, the discontent was not to that level that people would have risked their lives for a change in government. It was only when the Western powers made clear to the communist regimes that killing spree was not an option, the people got emboldened. In central Asia, the discontent is to a level that life has ceased to remain the highest priority for freedom-starved nations. Yet, if the world remains a silent spectator in the postrevolution Kyrgyzstan, then it would be a social, political, and environmental catastrophe.

With the struggle between democrats and despots becoming over, the clan-based and regional tensions may surface. Ethic rivalries between Kyrgyz, Uzbek, chinese, Uighur, and Korean nationalities may turn violent. The erstwhile landlords, fiercely opposed to Akayev's land reforms, may also jump into the fray. And the organized crime gangs, largely responsible for the lootings in Bishkek following the flight of Akayev, may try to make hay while the sun of instability shines. The impoverished elected leadership would not even be able to tackle the environmental and ecological impact of two million cubic metres of Soviet era radioactive waste, buried at 23 different sites in Mayli-Say region. In short, Kyrgyzstan has all the seeds to become mayhem, unless the leadership of the free world shows sagacity and farsightedness.

The US President George Bush met with Ukranian leader Viktor Yuschenko and made a point to visit Georgia to show solidarity with the people's revolution that brought Mikhail Saakashvili to power; his decision not to visit Kyrgyzstan, that could have been a morale booster for all the democratic forces in the region, is not something that could have missed the eye. The message is clear, democracy is not welcome at any place where the US has oil or gas interests. It is time that the opinion makers and intelligentsia of the world unite and cry for freedom. Moreover, to act as a deterrent for future adventurers and tyrants, the United Nations should be moved to work on a blue-print for an International criminal court to try ousted dictators for crimes against humanity.

The writer is an Oxford-published analyst on issues of democracy, governance, and the rule of law in the Muslim world.