One person I spoke to recently who was at the meeting said on the one hand s/he’d [sorry, confidentiality] been pleasantly surprised by how open Bakiev had been, especially in comparison to how Akaev had been. On the other hand, s/he felt there was a feeling that political questions – including constitutional reform – should be left to the experts and “ordinary” people shouldn’t worry themselves about it too much. One is left wondering what the hell the point of having a “national discusion” on constitutional reform was then (shades of both New Labour’s Big Conversation and Akaev’s constant yurt references as a metaphor for inclusiveness spring to mind – another political similarity, perhaps?)

The main complaint about the media coverage was that they ignored some of the more tricky questions that people did actually ask in favour of the personal stuff David picked up on. And in that respect the media here is still giving Bakiev an easy ride for the time being – considering that he is still not showing himself to be particularly media savvy at the moment, he’s been very fortunate…