The Sultanate of Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan's Nursultan Nazarbayev carried off the latest in a remarkable string of election victories. His party won every single seat up for grabs in yesterday's parliamentary election. Read AP story. The upshot: the Caspian states are not republics, but sultanates.
The question is not how it is possible to lose no local election, nor whether the election was free and fair (the Europeans said progress was made toward that goal; the former Soviet observers deemed it another grand election in the state); obviously Nazarbayev's deputies rigged the outcome.
Instead, one might ask why Nazarbayev no longer feels it necessary while he is rigging his elections to throw a few crumbs to the opposition.
The answer is that Nazarbayev has now fully made the political transition from Communist Party boss. For a long time, Nazarbayev regarded himself as the most statesmanlike and worldly of the region's leaders, and hesitated to assume some of the accouterments of power that his neighbors took on. Nazarbayev's lieutenants routinely defended him by comparison, snickering at the late Turkmen leader, Saparmurat Niyazov, who ran a personality cult, they would say.
Nazarbayev has shed any hesitation. The election shows that.
Some of the smart thinking says that Nazarbayev's most recent actions -- his very public family spat, his pursuit of his former son-in-law around Europe, his ejection at least for now of his eldest daughter from politics -- actually show that he is weak and frightened. That is probably wishful thinking.
The West should stop the farce of dispatching election monitors to Central Asia and the Caucasus. For starters, it's old and failed international politics, a 1990s approach to diplomacy that didn't move the countries toward truly competitive elections and stronger institutions.
The other reason is that none of the 'Stans, nor Azerbaijan, is a truly elected government. Whatever label one chooses -- kingdom, sultanate, sheikhdom -- all of them have chosen to be unapologetically self-appointed, and that is the way it is going to be for some time to come.
The question is not how it is possible to lose no local election, nor whether the election was free and fair (the Europeans said progress was made toward that goal; the former Soviet observers deemed it another grand election in the state); obviously Nazarbayev's deputies rigged the outcome.
Instead, one might ask why Nazarbayev no longer feels it necessary while he is rigging his elections to throw a few crumbs to the opposition.
The answer is that Nazarbayev has now fully made the political transition from Communist Party boss. For a long time, Nazarbayev regarded himself as the most statesmanlike and worldly of the region's leaders, and hesitated to assume some of the accouterments of power that his neighbors took on. Nazarbayev's lieutenants routinely defended him by comparison, snickering at the late Turkmen leader, Saparmurat Niyazov, who ran a personality cult, they would say.
Nazarbayev has shed any hesitation. The election shows that.
Some of the smart thinking says that Nazarbayev's most recent actions -- his very public family spat, his pursuit of his former son-in-law around Europe, his ejection at least for now of his eldest daughter from politics -- actually show that he is weak and frightened. That is probably wishful thinking.
The West should stop the farce of dispatching election monitors to Central Asia and the Caucasus. For starters, it's old and failed international politics, a 1990s approach to diplomacy that didn't move the countries toward truly competitive elections and stronger institutions.
The other reason is that none of the 'Stans, nor Azerbaijan, is a truly elected government. Whatever label one chooses -- kingdom, sultanate, sheikhdom -- all of them have chosen to be unapologetically self-appointed, and that is the way it is going to be for some time to come.
Labels: Caspian, election, Kazakhstan, oil, washington
4 Comments:
Steve,
A strong case can be made for a change in the EU/US policy towards Kazakhstan: moving from finger wagging to more engagement.
Everyone agrees Kazakhstan has done right in terms of it economic policy. Similarly, its foreign policy has been exemplary. There is also a consensus on its domestic policies: the country is making progress, albeit at a snail pace.
West's mantra with regard to China has been "engagement", despite Chinese regime's incomparably more oppressive policies. Why not the same policy towards Kazakhstan, whose only fault is the slow pace of progress?
As your colleague Hugh Pope puts it:"But it [the West] has to become more realistic about how fast and in what way monopolistic states will move toward the rule of law and democratic rights...All in all, a remarkable number of goals set in the early 1990s have been quietly achieved...Indeed, the draft ideas for a new set of EU priorities in Central Asia are well-advised in focusing on the lifting of poverty as a key first step. In December, Germany’s Steinmeier himself noted that in the case of Russia, “we will not be able to influence things our way through criticism alone.” Why should Central Asia be any different?" His full article is here: http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=20215
The West has a good record of being patient with authoritarian regimes. Taiwan and South Korea were not democratic for a long time. However, their focus on economic development brought about affluence. A growing middle class began demanding greater participation in politics which led to transition to a multi-party political system and free media. We could be seeing a similar process at work in Kazakhstan.
Pitiful...that is the only thing I can say from the recent "election". It indeed sounds no different than hearing about when Soviet elections took place in the past. I had a great debate with a friend while I was in Almaty last month on the need to move forward, not just be happy with what he has in Kazakhstan today. My Uigur/Kazakh friend just laughed and said life is so much greater in Kazakhstan compared to 10 years ago, why worry about the rigging of elections? People in Kazakhstan also tend to state they are a young "democracy" and should be given lighter treatment (that the US must have had the same problems with elections in the beginning). Yet, they do not seem to understand that America retained the same "bill of rights" in the Constitution since nearly the beginning of this republic. And, our first president possibly could have kept going for more terms, legally or illegally if more devious, yet decided it was in the best interests of the young country to step down and not run again (an excellent Wall Street Journal article back in June spoke of this exact thought and how Washington had such honesty and respect for democracy compared to newly "democratic" countries nowadays, wish I had the link now). I did send some links to my friend in Almaty today from the BBC and CNN, but who knows if he'll take it to heart. I do believe that a larger middle class will indeed bring about the required changes but let's just hope it is not too late. One who lives in such a society as Kazakhstan today truly does not understand that changes (or revolution) can indeed be the "natural manure" for liberty and freedom, as Jefferson once wrote.
--Vincent
Two intriguing, differing lines of thought. On Eric's I disagree with the consensus that you cite -- I do not perceive political progress in Kazakhstan or any of the greater Caspian states. Quite the opposite -- I think they have reverted to their long, collective pasts, meaning to Soviet and pre-Soviet.
Nazarbayev, for example, has flirted several times with pluralism, free elections, allowing opposition. I say flirted because obviously he did not entirely let go. But this most recent election, combined with the decision to be president for life, demonstrates a turning away from such experiments.
If he were truly making progress, albeit slow, he would not have taken the power to rule as long as he chooses and precluded the same right to his successors; Nazarbayev believes that he and only he has sufficient judgement to rule the country, not just now, but presumably in future generations (until there is another powerful strongman who can push through such a self-entitled law).
As for the West, I think that Eric is absolutely correct in advising Washington and Europe to stop wagging its combined finger at Kazakhstan and the rest of the states.
Quiet, skillful diplomacy, perhaps weighted to the economic side, could be a good start. That said, the West should not shy from expressing its opinion behind closed doors. That would be taking the role of an enabler.
Vincent makes a strong point on vision and leadership. Nazarbayev and the others would do well to demonstrate their statesmanship and patriotism by cultivating proteges and stepping down to allow further generations to lead.
Thanks for your comments. Steve
Vincent: You are right that the US Constitution is essentially the same today as it was on the day it was created. However, the implementation of its ideas took quite a long time and in that regard your Kazakh friend has a point.
At least some of the Founding Fathers were slave owners (for example, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson). Slavery wasn't abolished almost for another century. Moreover, life in the South wasn't dissimilar to life under the apartheid in South Africa until 1955, when Rosa Parks broke the law.
The beauty of the US political system is the freedom of speech and separation of powers which has enabled everyone to stand up for their rights. That's what makes it worthy of emulation for the newly independent states. But they should keep in mind the US experience which shows that a mere adoption of rules doesn't automatically ensure a smooth ride. Things don't happen overnight.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home