Perhaps I spoke too soon connecting Kazakhstan’s proposed constitutional amendments to the country’s OSCE bid. Members of parliament have shown a bit of initiative, and added their own proposal for strengthening Kazakh democracy.
Kazakhstan’s parliament approved constitutional amendments Friday cancelling restrictions on the number of consecutive presidential terms for the oil-rich Central Asian state’s incumbent leader, Nursultan Nazarbayev.
“Given the first Kazakh president’s historical role, we have decided to approve lawmakers’ proposals to lift restrictions on the number of [consecutive] presidential terms for him,” said Yermek Zhumbayev, head of a parliamentary commission on constitutional amendments, adding that the law would only be valid for Nazarbayev, not for future presidents.
Another parliamentarian said that Nazarbaev needs the opportunity to stick around so that he can give Kazakhstan time to become a democracy.
It gets better.
The president can now also dissolve parliament after consulting the premier and speakers. And the upper chamber is now authorized to replace the Majlis in the event of its dismissal.
One might as well read the first part as giving the president the will to dismiss parliament at will. The other part troubles me because the president selects one block of Senat members, and the rest are chosen in a method very susceptible to presidential manipulation.
I doubt that these changes will have much effect on Kazakhstan’s OSCE bid, but they should. As far as I am concerned, institutional arrangements are far more important than things like specific human rights cases because they are a much more meaningful indicator of a regime’s trajectory. Even if Nazarbaev were to reserve for himself a special domain of power, were he to strengthen the legislature vis-a-vis the executive, it would be a positive indicator. But, out of the constitutional changes I have read about so far, there is little legislative strengthening. Sure, there is the proposal to allow state funding of political parties, to introduce party list voting for the Majlis,and to increase the number of deputies, but none of those put institutional distance between the president and the parliament.
This is not to say that I believe Kazakhstan should be denied the OSCE chair over these particular institutional changes. Western policymakers should, however, be sending the message that we are not just concerned about behavior, but also about how institutions constrain and/or encourage behaviors conducive to democracy.
{ 12 comments }
Pardon my French, but it’s almost like the Central Asian leaders are having constitutional dick-waving contests:
‘My presidential mandates’s bigger than yours!
Or maybe they’ve been receiving e-mail spam promising:
Generic Constitutional Amendment?i! Make Bigger y0r Term of Office!!!! Buy Majlis Now!
To be fair Nick, we might point out that at least in Kazakhstan Nazerbayev bothers to HAVE a constitutional mandate, unlike certain other leaders of points south whose term in office expired months ago. I guess those herbal supplements really work–for mandates, anyway.
Pah! Constitutional mandate – schmandate! still, someone’s onto a money-spinner – maybe Tony Blair should have tried some before deciding enough was enough – he was looking awfully tired …
Nick: pardon your what? You were speaking “freedom,” not French.
Au contraire, ‘pardon my French’ is a reference to the WWI General, John French, who was renowned for his potty-mouth. Consequently, other members of the British High Command would say ‘pardon my French’ before mouthing expletives. This was picked up by the lower ranks and filtered into British society. Hence there is no need to substitute ‘freedom’ for ‘French’.
Dammit, I thought I was being witty and clichéd!
Yeah, among the positive changes they cite the decrease of the presidential term from 7 years to 5, Mazhilis elections according to the party lists, part of the deputies proposed by the Assembly of the Peoples… Who are they trying to fool? The parliament is full of pro- parties, the Assembly is a joke with the president as a life-long head and the NGOs were financed by the state anyway. I am so disappointed, it’s not even fun anymore! Maybe the parliament (or himself) decided that it’s still safer with him than with mafia-like son-in-law fighting other clans.
I actually think the party list voting proposal is a very good one, and I wish it was in use everywhere in Central Asia. Though I don’t think that it necessarily improves the quality of government, it gives elites an incentive to organize themselves and compete for resources at the national level. Electoral districts reinforce regional divisions in politics. Regionalism’s not the problem it used to be in Kazakhstan, but I suspect that may not be the case were a weaker, less respected president running things.
Well, for party list voting to be effective, you really need to start with some kind of democratic elections. Turkmenistan already has party list voting. Everybody is in the same party. In vaguely open systems it has pluses and minuses. Kyrgyzstan’s shift to first-past-the-post did result in the election of large numbers of criminals, mass unrest and intensified regionalism, but on the other hand… well, I’m sure there was an upside there somewhere. Main problem is party list voting is boring – you just pay your money and get on the list, and nobody knows who you are, and the voters never meet you. By the way, is this OSCE Chairmanship still on? I thought it had died an unlamented death already?
The biggest problem with party lists is that for the past year, Nurotan has been increasing its majority. Parliament is not full of pro-partIES, it’s full of The Party–which now can receive government money to carry out its activities, those activities already paralleling and substituting for government activities anyway. One party essentially controlling the entire government until there is no distinction between the state and the Party? Does this sound familiar?
For what it’s worth, I can’t stand party list voting. But it can be an antidote to regionalism even in nondemocratic systems. In turn, that helps the state consolidate, and a functioning state is necessary for democracy.
But not formally having an Article 6 makes a world of difference.
David, the OSCE chairmanship still hasn’t been decided. The members have put the decision on hold.
Nathan, I agree 100%. Even if all the other institutional checks and balances go to the wayside, the possibility of peaceful regime change is still the most important. An elected dictatorship is a lot different from a true dictatorship. This is a big step backward for Kazakhstan.
One point for Stephen Kotkin…
Comments on this entry are closed.