Kazak Leader Still Making the Running

The inauguration of Kazak president Nursultan Nazarbaev for yet another term in office on April 8 has left analysts wondering whether he will live up to promises of reform, or whether his re-election means more of the same for the foreseeable future.  

Nazarbaev was awarded 95.5 per cent of the vote in the April 3 election, with turnout officially put at nearly 90 per cent.

The other three candidates never stood a chance. The leader of the Kazak Patriots’ Party, Gani Kasymov, got 1.9 per cent of the vote, Jambyl Akhmetbekov of the Communist People's Party 1.4 per cent and Tabigat green movement head Mels Eleusizov won 1.2 per cent.

Opposition groups boycotted the snap election, on the grounds that they had too little time to prepare.

Now 70, Nazarbaev has run Kazakstan since the Soviet period, periodically securing constitutional changes to extend his presidential terms and lift the two-term restriction on holding office.

The ballot was criticised by the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, ODIHR, which sent observers to monitor the process.

In a statement published on April 4, ODIHR said that “needed reforms for holding genuine democratic elections still have to materialise, as this election revealed shortcomings similar to those in previous elections”.

Among the more serious irregularities, ODIHR cited numerous cases where apparently identical signatures appeared on voter lists and cases of ballot box stuffing. The vote count and tabulation of results lacked transparency, the statement said.

Yermuhamet Yertysbaev, political advisor to the president, played down the criticism, and promised political reforms including a multiparty parliament and changes to the government.

But analysts interviewed by IWPR say such reforms will be subject to the current leadership’s own interpretation of democratic progress – a carefully staged and orchestrated set process of change.

Yertysbaev acknowledged some of the criticism such as multiple voting, but said ODIHR’s negative appraisal came down to the strict criteria it applies to the electoral process. Other countries, even the United States, might not meet such election standards, he said in an interview to the Novosti-Kazakstan news agency.

Yertysbaev said an early parliamentary election might be held this summer – without waiting for the due date in August 2012 – so as to facilitate speedy work on the reform process.

In interviews to other media, Yertysbaev indicated that the parliamentary election would put an end to the current one-party legislature, and a new generation of western-educated young technocrats would be brought into government so as to stamp out corruption and nepotism.

Analysts were sceptical about these promises of changes, saying a multiparty parliament would mean little since the presidential party Nur Otan would remain dominant, and the authorities had no political will to include real opposition parties, as opposed to groups loyal to the authorities.

They also warned that following the hastily-conducted presidential vote, bringing forward the parliamentary election would further deprive the opposition of any real chance of success.

Almaty-based political analyst Talgat Ismagambetov said he could see no rational for bringing the parliamentary contest forward.

If there were reasons, he said, only Nazarbaev’s entourage would be aware of them. For instance, Prime Minister Karim Masimov has warned of further economic trouble early next year, as Kazakstan continues to suffer the effects of global crisis.

“If extraneous circumstances make it more advantageous to hold an early parliamentary election, then it will be brought forward,” Ismagambetov said.

Alexander Knyazev, a senior researcher with the Institute for Oriental Studies, part of the Russian Academy of Sciences, gives some credence to the Kazak leadership’s talk of shaking up the system of government.

If a parliamentary election was the way to achieve this, Knyazev said, it made sense to hold it as soon as possible. But it would be no easy task - “simply sacking large numbers of people and pursuing pointless reshuffles could trigger unnecessary conflict”, he warned.

In the end, Knyazev finds it unrealistic to believe Kazakstan can make the shift from a system built around one man, President Nazarbaev, to one in which strong institutions take the lead.

Ismagambetov sees talk of a technocratic administration as a way of “weakening the influence of regional alliances and clan allegiances”, and an admission that patronage networks are hampering the efficiency of the public service sector. But he does not foresee major changes to the current government, and believes Masimov will be retained as prime minister.

Igor Vinyavsky, editor-in-chief of the opposition Vzglyad newspaper, doubts that much can change as long as Nazarbaev is in power.

He believes that if parties other than Nur Otan are allowed into parliament, they will include Ata-Meken, which represents business interests. In turn, Ata-Meken could be used as a vehicle to promote Timur Kulibaev, Nazarbaev’s son-in-law, who is seen as one of the possible successors to the president.

One thing on which the analysts interviewed for this article agree is that now Nazarbaev has secured another term in office to take him into his mid-70s, he is still a long way off giving a clear hint about who he wants to succeed him.

Political analyst Daniar Ashimbaev believes the president will leave the announcement to the last moment. In an interview for Stan.tv on election day, he said politics was driven by personalities in Kazakstan, so nominating a successor too soon posed the risk of creating a dual kingship, with various interest groups backing the heir apparent in order to weaken the incumbent.

But as Knyazev pointed out, the public in Kazakstan is keen to know, and has good reason for doing so since the choice will influence the country’s long-term stability.

Almaz Rysaliev is IWPR’s editor in Kazakstan.

This article was produced jointly under two IWPR projects: Building Central Asian Human Rights Protection & Education Through the Media, funded by the European Commission; and the Human Rights Reporting, Confidence Building and Conflict Information Programme, funded by the Foreign Ministry of Norway. 

The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of IWPR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of either the European Union or the Foreign Ministry of Norway.