Veronica Khokhlova, noting that the overthrow of the Kyrgyz government isn't getting the same respect as other recent revolutions writes:
I don't think the Kyrgyz should be either more pessimistic or more optimistic about the future than we, Ukrainians, or the Georgians are: our new leaders haven't descended from heaven, either. And the way the Kyrgyz seem to fit into "the paradigm du jour" is this: just like Georgians and Ukrainians, they have shown their leaders - both old and new - that they're capable of dissent, and that it's safer not to try their patience for too long. And, hopefully, something good will eventually come out of it all.
Yes. Having witnessed the cause and effect of people power, new and emerging leaders should take it to heart that they are not given dispensation in government dealings. Those who protested in the face of real danger aren't about to trade one tyrant for another. For instance, we are seeing Yushchenko's feet being held to the fire to make good on his promises. His honeymoon was shorter than Britney Spears' last one. No he has to get down to making the marriage work.
The transition from oligarchy to democracy is indeed fraught with missteps and backsliding. Some newly elected leaders (Vladimir Putin) see an election as a way of legitimizing a new dictatorship. History is filled with sham elections and failed revolutions. Governments that follow on revolution have the dual responsibilities of competency and accountability. The new government must work, and work for the people, but also must fight the temptation to make excuses for its failures.
It is not enough to make good government. Leaders must make government open to the will of those who elected it.