Paper long abstract:

Some of the puzzles of modern day state building in Central Asia still lie

in the moments of the initial post-soviet transition. Although the transition paradigm was viewed as being over (Carothers 2002) it can be argued that, when it comes to the state building processes, past quarter of century has brought slow tectonic shift which is heavily affected how state was imagined and (re-)constructed at the dawn of independence.

This paper focuses on transformation of the parliament as one of the key institutions which reflects relations between society and the state, and on

the case of Kyrgyzstan where the parliament has been playing an important

role throughout its independence. The study looks into various aspects of

this institution, from elections to the functional relations with other state institutions. Timewise it is focused around elections to the USSR Supreme Soviet in 1989, the Kyrgyzstan's Supreme Soviet in 1990 and Zhogorku Kenesh in 1995. The latter is compared to the former two and these few years are analysed as transformative for relations between society and this institution.

Conceptually this work is based on Migdal's work (1998) and uses the critical juncture perspective (Pierson, 2004) to understand how the state was

transformed during the post-soviet transition. Taking into account limits

of making transformation from Supreme Soviet to Zhogorku Kenesh a proxy for

understanding the state transformation, this study conceptually aims to go

beyond the often-used Weberian perspective on these processes. Besides understanding critical moments of transition this work aims to contribute conceptually to understanding the state building process in times of transition.

Empirically the study is based on around 40 oral histories of people's experience

of Perestroika and early independence as well as on a number of interviews with participants of the parliamentary transformation in the late 80s and

the early 90s. It also analyses state and personal archives and print media of that time. While most of the data comes from the national level, some of it is collected in the city of Karakol (Issyk Kul oblast) to elicit also sub-national perspectives on state-building.