Kyrgyz revolution - unintended consequences?

Today's Moscow Times has an opinion piece which is very insightful about the conclusion that the rulers of Kyrgyzstan's neighbors might draw from the events there:

Moscow Times, March 25, 2005
A Revolution of Clashing Colors
By Daan van der Schriek
Journalist Daan van der Schriek, who worked from September to December 2001 with the Times of Central Asia in Kyrgyzstan, is now based in Afghanistan. He contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.

Better not be too soft on your opposition. This is what the leaders must think whose countries border Kyrgyzstan, which is in the grips of revolution or, depending on your view, of thugs. Some have called the protests sparked by disputed elections the "Tulip Revolution," after Georgia's Rose Revolution and Ukraine's Orange Revolution. But opposition leaders seem unable to agree on a name. Small wonder, because the opposition hasn't been able to agree on coordination or cooperation, either. [...]

This is an important difference from events in Georgia and Ukraine: The Kyrgyz revolution lacks leadership and, as a consequence, is more violent. Hopefully, however, the opposition will soon
agree on a policy and keep its supporters in check. They are the authorities now, after state buildings were stormed and Akayev fled Thursday.

What did Kyrgyzstan, an "island of democracy" in a sea of Central Asian dictatorship, as it was called in the early 1990s, do to deserve this? Being more liberal than its neighbors is, paradoxically, part of the answer. This left room for dissent. Thus, it was possible to demonstrate against the nepotism and electoral fraud that became increasingly characteristic of Kyrgyzstan -- which is a pity because everything started so well. [...]

Probably this has idea has been mentioned elsewhere, but this is the first place I've seen it articulated in print. This sort of deflates the triumphalism I've seen on several US right-wing blogs, people crowing about the triumph of democracy. Sorry, guys, what happened in Bishkek is not really related to the "liberation" of Iraq or to any US actions - in fact, I've seen reports that the US played on both sides of this game.

As several more thoughtful bloggers have noted, the proof of the new government will be in the pudding - will we see democratic elections in the near future as promised, or will the opposition-turned-rulers get busy feeding themselves at the corruption trough, a rich tradition in the former Soviet space?