War in Kyrgyzstan: what is causing the violence?

When the five former Soviet republics of central Asia gained their independence with the breakup of the USSR there were hopes that Kyrgyzstan might achieve a semblance of responsible rule.This small country of 5.5 million people had a relatively developed civil society and free press. But hopes were dashed under Askar Akayev, a president accused by the opposition of nepotism, corruption and growing authoritarianism.

Akayev was succeeded by Kurmanbek Bakiyev in the Tulip revolution in 2005. Bakiyev concentrated power within his family and allegedly plundered state funds and secured lucrative contracts for friends and relatives. Human rights abuses were widespread as dissidents were killed or disappeared. Journalists were muzzled and often detained, and the presidential elections last July were judged by international observers as having been rigged.

In April, it was Bakiyev's turn to suffer the wrath of the people. A rise in utility prices proved to be the final straw and a swift, violent, rebellion broke out in the Kyrgyz capital, Bishkek. In less than two days, 85 people were killed, the centre of the capital was looted and Bakiyev was gone.

Kyrgyzstan dropped from the headlines as a provisional government, led by Roza Otunbayeva, a former minister under Bakiyev, took over.

As the International Crisis Group thinktank pointed out in April the provisional government turned out to be weak. Its 13 members largely failed to present themselves as a cohesive or coherent administration, or be transparent about their activities at a time of great anxiety and uncertainty. There was a lack of common ideology or strategy, as well as signs of internal discord. The decision to postpone new elections, promised for October, until the end of 2011, did little to inspire public confidence.

Analysts say a power vacuum since April has allowed opportunists to fan political tension for their own ends.

The absence of strong government "has provided opportunities for clans to exploit social tension", said James Nixey, a Russia expert at the Chatham House thinktank, although he argued that the tension within the country stemmed more from poverty and social exclusion and had more of an intra-ethnic than inter-ethnic nature.

Otunbayeva has blamed Bakiyev, who has fled to Belarus, for instigating the unrest in southern Kyrgyzstan, where clashes between the two main Kyrgyz ethnic groups – the Uzbeks and the Kyrgyz people – in the second largest city of Osh have left about 120 people dead. Bakiyev said that claims that he ordered the disturbances were shameless lies.

Uzbeks make up 15% of Kyrgyzstan's 5.5 million population, but in the south, where the violence has been, their numbers rival those of ethnic Kyrgyz.

As tens of thousands of Uzbeks flee to the border and await entry into Uzbekistan, there are fears among other central Asian nations that the violence could spread. It will also worry the US, which operates a military base near Bishkek, supplying troops in Afghanistan. The US is having to use Bucharest, Romania, as a transit point for troops flying home from Afghanistan because of instability in Kyrgyzstan.

In its gloomy report in April, the International Crisis Group warned that the collapse of the Bakiyev regime was a case study of the risks facing authoritarianism in central Asia, where Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan have been governed by strongmen in the old Soviet mould.

"What happened in Kyrgyzstan in terms of corruption and repression is already taking place in several other countries," said the ICG. "What happened in Bishkek in April 2010 could happen in most of its neighbours. It could indeed be much worse."

But outside powers, particularly Russia and China, who covet the region's extensive natural resources of natural gas and hydro power, and the US, with its base in Kyrgyzstan, show little interest in fostering more responsible rule.