Talking Democracy in Astana

Over the past few days, a lot of democratization talk has been coming from Kazakhstan’s government. Discussing proposed constitutional amendments, President Nazarbaev told Nur Otan members and regional governors that Kazakkhstan is liberalizing politics. Nazarbaev addressed parliament, pushing for “evolutionary” change of Kazakhstan’s government. The proposed changes include:

• Reducing the presidential term from 7 years to 5 years beginning in 2012, when Nazarbaev’s current term ends.
• Increasing the number of legislators in both houses to a total of 154.
• Removal of the constitutional prohibition on state funding of parties and public associations.

Nazarbaev said that the reforms would expand parliamentary powers, but that Kazakhstan would still be a presidential republic.

Zharmakhan Tuyakbay, Nazarbaev’s main challenger in the last presidential election (with 6% of the vote…) said that he is optimistic about the proposed reforms, and the parliament is already giving its approval.

This comes a week after Foreign Minister Marat Tazhin’s speech in Washington last week, in which he mentioned that these reforms were on the way.

The State Commission on Democratization chaired by the President was established at the dialogue’s final stage. It developed a number of proposals, including constitutional changes. In general terms the potential constitutional reform is aimed at considerable increase in the role of Parliament, expansion of its authority in formation of the Government, the Constitutional Council, the Accounting Committee, and the strengthening of the parliamentary control over the national budget.

A group of prominent legal experts has started drafting these recommendations, many of which will be realized this year.

Considerable strengthening of the role of political parties in the public life, broadening their influence and power in Parliament constitute an important direction for political reforms. The issue of public financing of the parties elected into the Parliament, is being resolved. We emphasize further decentralization of central management and maximum transfer of powers to elected local authorities.

Tazhin also went through a long list of realized reforms, and connected all of this to his government’s bid to chair the OSCE in 2009, promising that winning the position will speed up reform.

These achievements logically correspond with Kazakhstan’s bid for the OSCE Chairmanship in 2009. The Chairmanship is not a goal in its own end, but can offer a powerful catalyst of reforms and additional confirmation of our right choice for further liberalization and openness. In this context, the year of the Chairmanship, 2009, is also important as a confirmation of the rapid pace of transformations, readiness to adhere to the highest standards of quality and organization of life in Kazakhstan. We think that a positive decision on our bid will have a multiplying effect on the complex modernization of our country and the region as a whole.

Nazarbaev’s government is pushing awfully hard to win the chairmanship, and the case above is a pretty good one. The US and UK are opposed to a 2009 chairmanship, and they are not wrong that Kazakhstan could achieve far more liberalization. That said, Kazakhstan is not Uzbekistan; it is not entirely opposed to liberalization. To deny it the chair sends the message that the OSCE is a two-tiered organization. Tazhin’s message gives the opportunity for the US and UK to frame support for a Kazakh chairmanship in terms of applauding what has been achieved and expecting even more.

Martha Brill Olcott argued recently at Central Asian Voices that the US and UK would be wrong to oppose Kazakhstan for heading the OSCE in 2009. Indeed, by making its case so publicly, she says that Kazakhstan has forced the hands of Washington and London.

Some object that the Kazakhs are effectively blackmailing the OSCE with their request, but the distinction between blackmail and the demonstration of geopolitical clout is a wholly subjective one. Like it or not, it would be prudent for the U.S. and the U.K. to recognize that the state of Kazakhstan has arrived as a serious player on the international scene. And like all serious players Kazakhstan will not shy away from a demanding that it become the beneficiary of international double standards.

Western policy toward Central Asia is a mess. Perhaps moreso than anywhere else, Western policymakers choose to make the perfect the enemy of the good. That needs to change, and Kazakhstan, by advocating for some of the reforms Western governments call for (as Nazarbaev recently did in Kyrgyzstan), can be an important part of a policy that takes a long view toward building some good.