Just days after protests began in the northwestern Kyrgyz city of Talas it appears that the opposition has won a stunning victory. If the Twitter pundits (Twitdits?) are to be believed, the popular coup in Bishkek has much broader significance. According to the computer savvy masses, Tulip Revolution II should serve as a model for every other nascent democratization movement from Iran ("that's how you do it #iranianelection" seems to be a common sentiment) to Azerbaijan.

Before everyone gets carried away, let’s take a step back and review. The events in Kyrgyzstan are many things, but a model is not one of them. Here are four reasons why:

1. The Kyrgyz have a strong history of staging effective protests. In 1993, protests brought down former Prime Minister Tursunbek Chyngyshev.  In 2002, protesters forced then President Akayev to begin the process of reforming the country’s constitution. And of course there is the 2005 Tulip Revolution, which current opposition leader Roza Otunbaeva played a key role in organizing. It’s much easier to get a crowd together when people believe they are likely to succeed.

2. Kyrgyzstan lacks the natural resource wealth that allows governments in many other authoritarian or semi-authoritarian states to effectively quell internal dissent. And while I hesitate to use the word “easier” when talking about coups and revolutions in the former Soviet Union, it is clear that the Bakiyev regime was vulnerable because of it.

3. The protesters were backed by a segment of the Kyrgyzstan’s political elite and if reports out of Bishkek are true they were able to quickly co-opt members of the security services. 

4. The Bakiyev government wasn't particularly bright. Deciding to increase utility prices by 200% while publicly flaunting your corruption-based wealth  is a sure way to stir up popular unrest.

-Evan