Read on Twitter
My preliminary exploration of the pro-Japarov base, #populism a la Kyrgyz, shows quite a diverse picture of backgrounds and arguments:
- there is a 'working' class without work at home (migrants, unemployed, poor) who see in Japarov 'their' man: modest, fair, but also strong.
- there is a 'working' class without work at home (migrants, unemployed, poor) who see in Japarov 'their' man: modest, fair, but also strong.
- there is a lower-middle class (if such a category is applicable to the precarious Kyrgyz labor market) who adopts a view that "only Japarov stood against the power back in October". These people don't see other candidates in the presidential run. And this is paradoxical:
20 candidates are running. But people identify among them either the old guard (Madumarov, Asanov, Imanaliev) or new faces unknown to the public. The oldies are discredited whereas the new are outshined by Japarov who was able to gain much visibility thanks to populist moves
So, this class might not admire Japarov but sees no alternative. Back in October, some have even voted for Reforma party, who's opposed to Japarov's new constitution. Both Japarov and Reforma are protest votes and not that dissimilar despite very different natures of two parties
- nationalism & religion also play out in Japarov vote. Japarov is perhaps spiritually closer to Muslims than Trump to evangelicals but one has a difficulty calling him a Muslim leader. Yet amalgamation of nationalism and Islam in past decades gives rise to this type of populism
How do postindustrial crisis, impoverishment, neoliberalism and liminal states of labor migration produce populism a la Kyrgyz? This phenomenon is crying for research and social surveys. But how to study society in a society where spending on science is -0.000001%???
