Many countries, regardless of social and political changes, prefer to keep their national anthems, seeing them as enduring symbols of national identity.
In Kyrgyzstan, debates are intensifying over changes that affect the core of the country’s identity. Following a recent proposal to alter the national flag, government representatives have also raised the prospect of updating the country’s anthem.
This idea, proposed by Parliamentary Speaker Nurlanbek Shakiev and supported by President Sadyr Japarov and Vice Prime Minister Edil Baisalov, has sparked lively discussions. For any country, the anthem is not just a melody but a symbol of the nation, embodying its historical continuity and cultural heritage. The question of whether change is necessary concerns not only aesthetics or modernization but also our readiness to reassess the values that represent our people.
The History and Creators of the Anthem: Guardians of Independent Kyrgyzstan’s Spirit
Kyrgyzstan’s national anthem was created in the early 1990s when the country gained independence. This work brought together the talents of prominent Kyrgyz poets and composers, who became symbols of Kyrgyzstan’s cultural revival and independent path.
The anthem’s lyrics were crafted by Jalil Sadykov and Shabdanbek Kuluyev, whose poetry reflects the dreams and aspirations of the people. The music was composed by Nasyr Davlesov and Kaly Moldobasanov, who sought to create a piece that would not only be performed but also inspire. Each contributor helped shape national consciousness, and their anthem became a symbol of Kyrgyzstan’s new independent era. While other countries had established symbols, the newly independent Kyrgyz Republic created a work of significance that was hard to match.
The anthem became not just a musical composition but a means of self-identification for the country, inspiring the Kyrgyz people. As Moldobasanov noted, “The music and lyrics of the anthem allow each of us to feel that we are united.” This anthem, deeply imbued with history and sentiment, connects generations and reflects a bond with the past, symbolizing continuity and independence.
Each note of the anthem embodies the grandeur and simplicity of Kyrgyz nature, as well as the Kyrgyz people's aspiration toward great heights, much like the unyielding peaks of the Ala-Too Mountains. For many Kyrgyz, preserving the anthem means preserving the memory of those years when the country embarked on its independent journey, with its creators remaining cultural and historical figures whose contributions continue to be honored and respected.
International Examples: Lessons from Other Nations
Many countries, regardless of social and political changes, prefer to keep their national anthems, seeing them as enduring symbols of national identity. For example, the UK’s “God Save the King” has remained unchanged since the 18th century, symbolizing the stability and continuity of the monarchy.
In the United States, “The Star-Spangled Banner” has been preserved since 1931, reflecting unity and patriotism. As political scientist Stephen Henderson remarked, “State symbols are vital to forming national consciousness, especially amid global crises.” These examples underscore the importance of unchanging symbols for maintaining a sense of national identity and continuity.
However, anthem changes can also signal historical or cultural shifts, as seen in several countries:
- South Africa: After the end of apartheid, South Africa created a hybrid anthem in five languages, embodying the nation’s newfound unity.
- Russia: In 2000, Russia changed the lyrics but retained the melody of the Soviet anthem, helping the country maintain a link with its history.
- Australia: In 2021, Australia modified its anthem’s lyrics to honor Indigenous history, changing “For we are young and free” to “For we are one and free,” underscoring the nation’s unity and its recognition of a diverse population.
- Iraq: Following the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, Iraq adopted a new anthem, “Mawtini,” which reflects aspirations for freedom and hope, contrasting with the previous anthem’s association with Hussein’s propaganda. This symbolic change helped Iraq establish a new national identity in the context of rebuilding and transitioning to democracy.
- Germany: After World War II and Germany’s division, the anthem was altered. West Germany chose to use only the third verse of “Das Lied der Deutschen,” as other parts of the text were linked to Nazi ideology. After reunification in 1990, Germany retained the third verse as the official anthem, emphasizing a commitment to peace and democracy.
These examples show that anthem changes are often tied to fundamental social and political shifts: a desire for unity, a break from past ideologies, or a recognition of new values.
What Are Kyrgyz Politicians and Experts Saying?
In Kyrgyzstan, expert opinions on the anthem debate are divided. Well-known public figure and politician Bakyt Beshimov, in an exclusive interview for The Caspian Post, stated that changing the anthem would require society to re-evaluate its identity.
“The anthem is not just a symbol; it is steeped in history and emotions. If we change it, we must be ready to leave part of that behind,” he emphasized.
Statements by Jamin Akimaliev, a member of the legendary 1993 parliament that adopted Kyrgyzstan’s national symbols, highlight the importance of respecting traditions and previously made decisions. His argument touches on both the historical context in which the current anthem was chosen and its profound symbolic significance for the nation.
Akimaliev recalls that in 1993, the anthem was selected after careful consideration of multiple options, fully meeting the requirements for a national symbol. In his view, the anthem is not just a song to be replaced with a popular tune; it is the “motto of the state,” meant to inspire the people toward progress. “Forward, Kyrgyz people, on the path of freedom forward!”—these words, he notes, capture the spirit of freedom and the nation’s aspirations, supported by music infused with elements of folklore and symphony.
The academic also critiques the approach of changing national symbols for populist reasons, pointing out that the country’s leadership should instead focus on more pressing issues that concern the lives and future of the Kyrgyz people. “Changing the anthem will not alter the country’s situation,” he concludes, urging the avoidance of unnecessary disputes and the politicization of symbols that have already been carefully crafted and adopted at the state level.
Member of Parliament Iskhak Masaliyev told Azattyk that he sees no need to change the anthem and cited examples from other countries:
“If life improves with a new anthem, why not change it every year? The anthem is a song that reflects the nation’s future and its achievements. For instance, the French anthem, ‘La Marseillaise,’ speaks of the struggle of the poor against tyranny. Now there is capitalist governance. But they don’t say that it’s outdated and that they should replace the anthem, right? Their anthem has remained unchanged for centuries.”
Some experts, however, see the reform as necessary: “In the 21st century, national symbols can adapt to the spirit of the times. This does not negate tradition but allows the nation to move forward, showing openness to change.”
Political scientist Asel Bayalieva, like many, questions whether society is ready to accept these changes and how this might impact national consciousness.
The national broadcaster UTRK produced a segment
on the proposal to change the country’s anthem. In the video, historian Kyias Moldokasymov expresses support for the idea, believing that a country changes its ideology by changing its anthem. In his view, Kyrgyzstan is a “developing country,” and therefore the anthem’s content should be updated.
“Yes, our anthem was unique and magnificent at the time. Its words inspired Kyrgyz people to new achievements after gaining independence [...] But now the situation has changed [...] For comparison: in the anthem of our neighboring country, they sing about building a new Uzbekistan,” he said.
A similar view was voiced by Kanibek Osmonaliev, former head of the National Commission on State Language. He believes that, from a linguistic perspective, the current anthem is sung in the third person.
Meanwhile, People’s Artist and Director General of the Kyrgyz National Academic Theater of Opera and Ballet, Muratbek Begaliev, emphasized that after writing the anthem, the lyrics should definitely be discussed with Kyrgyz citizens.
The UTRK segment noted that the current anthem has been “repeatedly” criticized in the past. Journalists referenced the removal of the anthem’s second verse in 2012 due to the word “beykuttuk” (tranquility). Authorities explained that the prefix “bey” gave the opposite meaning to the word “kut” (happiness).
Political scientist and historian Aynura Arzymatova shared this view in a statement to Azattyk radio:
“I think it’s superstitious to believe we will progress by changing the anthem. The same thinking came up with the flag issue, and now with the anthem. Is it necessary to raise the question of changing the anthem right now? Is this the biggest problem we have? Looking at the lyrics, there’s nothing to change. The text is fine, and people have accepted it and become used to it over the years... Parliament would do better to focus on real work. Let them think about increasing the budget, express their thoughts on salaries and pensions, and solve other issues. If changing the anthem is truly necessary, it should be decided through a survey or referendum. Let them get the approval of at least 60% of the voters, and then they can make changes. Even in that case, will everyone like the new anthem? That remains uncertain.”
Conclusion: Change as a Step Toward a New Future or a Departure from Tradition?
Updating the anthem is not just a matter of altering lyrics or music; it is a symbolic step that affects the sentiments and self-perception of the nation. Kyrgyzstan stands at a crossroads, between preserving tradition and moving toward new ideals.
Changing the anthem could mark an important milestone on Kyrgyzstan’s path forward, as demonstrated by examples from other countries. Yet, maintaining historical symbols has its own merits. The decision rests with society: are we ready for change, or do we find strength and identity in tradition?
Mehmet Fatih Oztarsu
