Parliamentary democracy in Kyrgyzstan: utopia or reality?

Classics ideas of representative government and the proponents of parliamentarism (John. Locke, E. Burke, G. Bolingbroke, F. Guizot, D.-St. mill, A. D. Gradovsky, B. N. Chicherin, and many others) regarded the Parliament as a collection of experts with a privileged position in public administration. The definition of democracy gives independent scientist B. I. Barbashov: democracy is the road to sustainable development of society, its material basis is public property, the national spiritual ideology, social basis of justice, political statehood [2]. Historically, for the social structure of Kyrgyzstan, unlike many countries in Asia and even our closest neighbors, parliamentarism is the most appropriate form of government. Throughout its history, Kyrgyzstan has been characterized by: the division into clans and tribes; the lack of centralized power; the Kyrgyz had a nomadic democracy; never had a monarchical form of government (centralized power of Khan), authoritarian regime and bureaucratic apparatus. The basis of national consciousness was freedom, the basis of the political and legal system of democracy, which, in turn, was the political Foundation of Kyrgyz society. With the independence and sovereignty of the Kyrgyz Republic in August 1991, a new system of statehood, democracy and market economy began to form. And the reality today of the new Parliament of Kyrgyzstan has changed dramatically and left established in 1991, perfect image; today Jogorku Kenesh is, in fact, an addition and continuation of the presidential power, a kind of collective screen that legitimizes presidential decisions on behalf of the Parliament. Today, no one is surprised by the fact that de jure under the Constitution we have a parliamentary-presidential Republic, and de facto a rigid vertical of presidential power. Also, no one is surprised that completely irresponsible governments are formed and work permanently in Kyrgyzstan, the composition of which changes almost every year, and there can be no question of any reforms in the socio-economic and political life in the country. If we talk about the laws adopted by the Kyrgyz Parliament, it should be noted that the legal system is not in the interests of democracy, but the authoritarian regime.