Kyrgyzstan’s Southern Gamble: A New Name, A New Capital?

Kyrgyzstan’s parliament has fast-tracked a bill to rename the southern city of Jalal-Abad to Manas, a move that is now awaiting President Sadyr Japarov’s signature. While the official cost of the name change is a relatively modest $171,500, the decision has ignited widespread speculation about a far grander project: the potential relocation of the nation’s capital from Bishkek to the south. This controversial discussion unfolds as the country’s legislative body prepares for its own dissolution and snap parliamentary elections.

The proposed new name, Manas, holds profound, sacred significance for the Kyrgyz people. It is drawn from the nation’s epic poem, “Manas,” a monumental work often described as an “encyclopedia of nomadic life” that encapsulates centuries of Kyrgyz history, values, and spirituality. This cultural cornerstone, recognized by both UNESCO and the Guinness Book of World Records, has rallied politicians, journalists, and citizens in support of the renaming initiative.

However, experts believe such a significant proposal was not a spontaneous local idea but rather a directive from the highest echelons of power. Suspicion has fallen on Kamchybek Tashiev, the influential head of the State Committee for National Security (GKNB) and a prominent southern figure. Fueling these theories, Tashiev recently visited Jalal-Abad and ordered local authorities to urgently develop a new General Plan for the city, emphasizing the need for structured construction planning tied to future funding.

The idea of a capital move has been openly endorsed by notable figures. Former Prime Minister Felix Kulov described the process as an unstoppable “train” that has already left the station. He argued that if a city is to be named Manas, it logically cannot be a secondary city but must become the nation’s primary one, necessitating a capital transfer. “The city of Manas cannot be third in this row, but only first!” he declared, supporting the move provided the financial resources are available.

The proposal has also drawn sharp analysis regarding its potential to destabilize the country. Political analyst Alexander Kobrinsky cautioned that while capital relocations can serve strategic goals, such as Kazakhstan’s move to Astana to unify the country, the Kyrgyz case is different. He warned that shifting the capital from the country’s center to the south could be perceived as an attempt by southern clans to consolidate power over their northern counterparts, a move that “carries the risk of a national schism and potential chaos.”

Kobrinsky further speculated on the geopolitical underpinnings of such a massive undertaking, questioning who would finance it. With Russia and China unlikely to back a seemingly risky project, he suggested it could be part of a “collective Western decision.” He floated the theory that if Turkish companies handle the construction, it could signal the advance of the “Great Turan” project into the region, an initiative widely believed to have British backing.

These grand geopolitical ambitions stand in stark contrast to Kyrgyzstan’s pressing domestic issues. The cost of implementing even the new city plan ordered by Tashiev would divert significant funds from a budget already struggling to support essential services. In a telling example, the first ten days of September saw a mass exodus of teachers from Bishkek schools, protesting low salaries and overcrowded classrooms with up to 60 students.

This entire affair is set against the backdrop of imminent political change. Kyrgyzstan is on the verge of snap parliamentary elections, with the current parliament expected to dissolve in the coming days. The haste to approve the renaming bill is seen by many as a strategic move by Kamchybek Tashiev, whose influence over the current parliament is undeniable, to solidify his agenda before a new political landscape emerges.