The author: Muratbek Imanaliyev, President of the Social Policy Institute (Kyrgyzstan) and member of RIA-Novosti Expert Council

Judging by official reassurances that haven't changed a bit since Askar Akayev's time, Kyrgyzstan is permanently in the process of transformation. Disabuse yourselves of illusions because the republic remains within the framework of the so called "post-Soviet period". Moreover, neither its "transit nature" nor the alleged transformation guarantee a successful outcome.

Pro-Russian foreign policy is probably the only definite aspect. All other actions of the political leadership, domestically and abroad, leave the impression of being spontaneous or promote clearly personal interests of the leaders. Even the "pro-Russian" trend is ascribed to inertia rather than to anything else. By the way, pro-American stand of some countries is not absolute either, due to the categorical denouncement of the American way of life there.

Where does it all lead?

First, what was known as Soviet economy is ruined. The government is supposed to control economy, but what it has been actually doing is meddling with domestic and foreign businesses, preventing economic development, and encouraging corruption. Had the authorities wanted actual economic control, they would have come up with at least some, even perhaps primitive, economic policy and offered business circle at least some support the way it is done in other post-Soviet countries. The latest Kyrgyz Constitution proclaiming that even subsurface resources may be privately owned does not guarantee transparency of market relations.

Social life is a wholly different matter. Kyrgyzstan remains the only Central Asian country where civil society was developed and where political opposition exists legally and legitimately. It is clear that this opposition will remain a factor of the country's political life and that the powers-that-be, regardless of who walks the corridors of power and makes decisions, will have to take in into account. It may be added as well that the population of Kyrgyzstan is no longer infatuated with the authorities. "Infatuation" in this particular case means respect and servility. The question "Why he?" asked in Akayev's days has been amended to "Why not me?" these days. Kyrgyzstan is the only country in the Central Asia region where asking this question is actually safe.

A great deal of importance is therefore attached to the snap parliamentary election on December 16. At first sight, the activity of the authorities makes the outcome of the election a foregone conclusion. The impression is that the president is the only player left in Kyrgyz politics, particularly in the wake of the referendum on the Constitution. Still, this impression is misleading - even discounting the lack of a team Bakiyev could rely on or the expanding influence of informal leaders, economic depression and spreading impoverishment.

Suffice it to say that no other Central Asian leader is as vulnerable as the president of Kyrgyzstan. There is more to this vulnerability than inadequacy of his political and other resources. Patently unable to properly analyze the actual situation in the country, Bakiyev blindly apes the models offered him.

Everyone was stone-cold confident that United Russia and Nur Otan would come in first in the parliamentary campaigns in Russia and Kazakhstan and more or less knew in what direction these countries would develop afterwards. Ak Jol in Kyrgyzstan is different. Its triumph in the parliamentary campaign is predictable too, but what happens afterwards is anybody's guess.

Pro-presidential Ak Jol is a conglomerate of people with vastly differing political views. As such, it is highly unlikely that they will be able to form a monolithic faction in the parliament. Ak Jol is not essentially a political party, it is but an instrument needed at the given moment to accomplish a given objective. Even Ak Jol members themselves understand it. Some Ak Jol functionaries on the list of candidates intend to oppose the powers-that-be individually or in groups they will form in the parliament. The powers-that-be in the meantime are doing what they can to take over absolutely everything. They already controls the united republican voting district and all resources from administrative to information to financial.

All other political parties permitted to run for the parliament may only become the opposition - even if the opposition ends up to be bogus or tame. Most political parties will fight for seats on the parliament without sparing a thought to political platforms, their own or others'. An emphasis is made on celebrities on lists of candidates because political parties lack what constitutes programs as such and because voters themselves do not really care. Everything comes down to slogans and calls - not that the voters pay any attention to them.

Odds are the bona fide opposition - Ata-Meken, Ar-Namys, and Asaba - will fail to make the parliament with the rules of the game dictated by the regime. Opinion polls in the meantime indicate that at least Ata-Meken can make the parliament as long as the election is free and fair. Protest potential of society in Kyrgyzstan is such that the powers-that-be cannot act with utter disregard of the population. It definitely restricts the authorities' freedom of maneuvering.

Kyrgyzstan is at a crossroads. It may choose a road leading to development or the one leading to deterioration. That's what makes consolidation of the elites so important in Kyrgyzstan at this point. That's what makes programs of leaving the crisis behind and abidance by the law so important. Everything will depend on whoever is elevated to the corridors of power. The snap parliamentary election will be a crucial moment in history of Kyrgyzstan.

Restoration of the people's trust in the powers-that-be is what must be strived for in the wake of the election. It is a must for the future development.