FLORENCE — Kyrgyzstan entered a tumultuous period nine years ago last week. Amidst the current crisis surrounding Ukraine and the focus on the legacy of the Orange Revolution in 2004, it is easy to forget that Victor Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko’s ascent to power ten years ago was part of a larger phenomenon: the color revolutions. Georgia saw the rise of a pro-West government under Mikheil Saakashvili in its Rose Revolution in November of 2003. Then came Ukraine one year later. And, finally, the Tulip Revolution in the Kyrgyz Republic during March of 2005. Although largely forgotten by the international community, the Kyrgyz Republic demonstrates that the road to democracy can go through a violent and seemingly hopeless tunnel. But the tiny ex-Soviet country has proven that there can be a bright light at the end.

During its nearly six-year democratic transition, Kyrgyzstan endured two revolutions, unprecedented levels of political violence and deep geographical and ethnic divides. The Tulip Revolution replaced Askar Akayev with the more ruthless Kurmanbek Bakiyev. Between 2005 and 2010, the republic saw a steady decline into a consolidated authoritarian country, according to a report by Freedom House. Thugs intimidated independent journalists, members of parliament engaged in gun battles and the general population saw no enhancement of living standards. This was not the country envisioned by the Tulip Revolution protesters. Still, the "island of democracy" in Central Asia was not ready to give up all hope.

In 2010, protesters overthrew the Bakiyev regime. The interim period under Roza Otunbayeva did not see a period of stability. On the contrary, the Kyrgyz Republic seemed to have spiraled into a perpetual cycle of violence. Security forces in southern Kyrgyzstan incited ethnic violence between the ethnic Kyrgyz and Uzbeks. The ethnic strife resulted in over 450 deaths and forced some 400,000 ethnic Uzbeks to flee their homes, according to the Freedom House report. International human rights organizations reported acts of torture, extortion and illegal arrests during police raids of Uzbek neighborhoods.

The situation seemed hopeless. But beyond the surface, Ms. Otunbayeva implemented institutional changes that would affect the country’s long-term prospects of democratic consolidation.

Kyrgyz political leaders have also taken advantage of the country’s vibrant civil society to further develop accountability, transparency and effective governance. Non-governmental organizations have played an important role in the oversight of elections. Although the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe report on the 2011 presidential elections noted issues regarding transparency, the report concluded that the shortcoming did not affect the overall election outcome.

The creation of Public Advisory Councils is one example of how the country’s civil society has positively shaped a democratic culture. The PACs are tasked with monitoring government agencies, thus further ensuring that the government prioritizes accountability and transparency. These groups are composed of independent experts, academics and NGO leaders, according to Freedom House.

The Kyrgyz Republic is by no means the type of democracy we ideally would like to experience. The country is bordered by one-party, and sometimes one-man, states. Rampant corruption still exists, and the ethnic tensions could easily throw the country back into turmoil. But the signs of progress are irrefutable. NGOs, both national and international, continue to help develop a vibrant civil society. Institutional changes have introduced the country to a democratic culture. And, perhaps most important, the Kyrgyz citizens have demonstrated twice with their protests that they are determined to be represented by their government. Precisely these protests have shaped Kyrgyzstan into being an "island of democracy" in an otherwise autocratic region.