Who holds the Holy Grail of democracy?

Iskhak Masaliev has received support from Adakhan Madumarov and Omurbek Suvanaliev.
Meanwhile, Syimyk Zhapykeev and Klara Sooronkulova have expressed a willingness to support one another.
There are also other candidates, such as Bolot Kalmamatov and Mambetzhunus Abylov.
If this group can reach an agreement and put forward a single opposition candidate, the election can be considered truly meaningful.
If Zhapykeev and Sooronkulova were to back Masaliev, his chances of victory would increase significantly—especially given the immense standing of his father in the south, home to half of the country’s electorate.
Personally, I support Sooronkulova; however, in the current climate, securing a victory for her would be extremely difficult. Far too many women in our country—particularly in the regions—are opposed to the idea of ;;a woman in power, and this sentiment cannot be overcome in the three months remaining before the election.
Conversely, the support garnered by Masaliev could provide him with a decisive advantage.
Ultimately, what matters most for Kyrgyzstan today is the process of a peaceful transfer of power.
There are, however, other compelling arguments in favor of such a choice.
Even if Masaliev were to become president, he would be compelled to govern collegially—not only by appointing one of his influential allies (most likely Sooronkulova or Suvanaliev) as prime minister, but also by creating opportunities for his other supporters to contribute.
From this perspective, the son of Absamat Masaliev is a very strong candidate for the role of a moderate, democratic president—one under whom the principles of parliamentarism could finally begin to take root in Kyrgyzstan. All executive power would be concentrated in the hands of the Prime Minister, and the Jogorku Kenesh (parliament) would finally become a genuine political force rather than a puppet theater.
Unfortunately, in the late 1990s, Kyrgyzstan missed the opportunity to establish a parliamentary form of government—just as democratic mechanisms were beginning to take root—when a true democrat and communist, Absamat Masaliev, who advocated for such a collegial system, was ousted through intrigues, machinations, and electoral fraud. As a result, Kyrgyzstan ended up with President Askar Akayev—a democrat in name only—who laid the groundwork for a corrupt, clan-based system of governance from which we have yet to recover, even 30 years later.
Today, there is an opportunity to rectify this tragic error of the past: by electing Iskhak Masaliev as president, we could simultaneously lay the foundation for a parliamentary system of government.
It is also significant that the unlawful and rigged removal of Absamat Masaliev from power in 1990, followed by his orchestrated defeat in the 1995 presidential election—achieved through vote manipulation—left a deep, unhealed trauma in the hearts and minds of a vast number of our citizens. Consequently, supporting Masaliev would serve as a symbolic act of unity between the southern and northern regions, which could prove to be a decisive factor.
Another positive aspect is Iskhak Masaliev’s advanced age; it is impossible for him to become a dictator, even if the people were to grow to love and adore him as a new Lee Kuan Yew. Like his father, Absamat Masaliev, he is a patriot of Kyrgyzstan. Therefore, despite his communist background and his position as leader of the Communist Party, he will not be a blind tool in the hands of Moscow—especially since the Communist Party in Russia is currently an opposition force.
After all, we all desire a parliamentary form of government, and Iskhak Masaliev holds the key to such a system.
I am certain that if Sooronkulova, Suvanaliev, or even Zhapykeev or Madumarov were to win these elections, a transition to parliamentarism would take place in our country. However, their chances of victory are too slim, even if everyone else were to support them.
Masaliev, however, has a real chance.
Otherwise, authoritarian tendencies in Kyrgyzstan will only continue to grow; Sadyr Japarov and his inner circle are convinced that this particular system of governance is the most optimal for Kyrgyzstan.