Governance

Politics:
  • President Nursultan Nazarbayev was re-elected in April 2015, the results of the elections were largely as expected. The ruling Nur Otan party won 82.20 percent of the vote and 84 seats, while the Communist Party of Kazakhstan (CNPK) and the Ak Zhol Democratic Party secured 7.14 percent and 7.18  percent of the vote, respectively, endowing each of those two parties with seven seats in theMazhilis. None of the three smaller parties, Birlik, the Social Democratic Party (OSDP), and Ayul, reached the 7 percent necessary threshold to gain representation in parliament. [1]
  • The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), which observed the elections, concluded that they were “efficiently organized, with some progress,” but still failed to uphold Kazakhstan’s stated OSCE commitments. The elections did not present voters with “genuine political choice” and there was a “lack of pluralism of opinion in the media.” The OSCE added that Nur Otan’s dominant position in national politics has effectively obscured the distinction between the state and political party.[1]
  • Surely, the people of Kazakhstan are eager to be a member of the developed nations club, and they desire the prosperity of a liberal democracy, but there is little evidence to suggest that they are ready to embrace the norms, behaviors, and traditions characteristic of societies with a high degree of political pluralism, such as those found in other OSCE liberal democracies. Kazakhstan’s conservative culture does not lend itself to lively, and often confrontational, political life.

A Presidential Structure: 

  • Nazarbayev is regarded the guardian of Kazakhstan’s national unity, even by members of the opposition. An Ak Zhol official noted, the president “is the only leader capable of uniting all of Kazakhstan’s over 120 nationalities, because his first act as president was to secure border agreements with China and Russia.” Another Ak Zhol candidate observed, “whether we like it or not, Nazarbayev is our future,” and “we live in a dangerous world, and Kazakhstan has not experienced any terrorism or civil war, thanks to Nazarbayev.” Meanwhile, some former Nur-Otan officials shared that despite their departure from the party, they continued to vote for Nazarbayev, as he is the only one capable of ensuring national unity.[2]
  • Kazakhstan’s legislative culture reinforces the super-presidential system. While the legislature influences politics through the appropriation process, senators and deputies are not nearly as active in the legislative process as they are in the U.S. Congress or in Western European parliaments. Deputies themselves do not draft legislation, but fulfill the legislative mandate presented by the executive branch at the beginning of the term. One former Mazhilis member recalled how deputies worked around the clock, including weekends, in the fall of 2008, just as the real estate bubble hit Kazakhstan, to ratify a series of anti-crisis measures presented by the president.[2]
  • While legislation is amended during the review process, generally, deputies try not to change more than 50 percent of the original text, as doing so would alter the bill’s original intent, and require resubmission to the executive. Deputies therefore restrain themselves from making significant modifications in order to ensure the bills are passed. Moreover, similar to the party discipline that dominated Soviet-era politics, deputies in the Mazhilis vote as a unified bloc, in accordance with the policies set by their respective the party leadership. Any diversion from the party line could be perceived as an abandonment of party ideology. Insofar as Kazakhstan lacks a vivacious legislative culture, it is natural that the political pluralism observed in long-established OSCE liberal democracies lags.

The Three Guiding Pillars: Unity, Security, Stability:

  • Security is a central tenant of Kazakh culture. As a historically nomadic people reared on the Eurasian steppe, devoid of the defensive benefits of a sedentary lifestyle and vulnerable to invasions from rival nomadic tribes, Kazakhs consider the preservation of unity among friends, family and co-nationals to be invaluable to the existence of the Kazakhstani state. Kazakhs’ sensitivity to border threats manifests today in the country’s multi-vector foreign policy, which emphasizes friendship with all peace-loving peoples. [2]
  • Within Kazakhstan, security, unity and solidarity are predominant tropes in national politics, as the pre-election platforms of all six parties highlighted the importance of a unified Kazakhstani nation in the face of an increasingly dangerous and uncertain world. After all, Kazakhstan is a land-locked state neighboring Russia and China, and not too far from the conflict-ridden regions of Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq.[2]
  • The results of the 2014 World Values Survey confirm Kazakhstan’s preoccupation with security. More than half of Kazakhstanis polled feel “quite secure,” and yet 72 percent of Kazakhstanis are either “very much” worried or are “a great deal” worried about losing their existing job or not finding a new one. The collapse in global oil prices since late 2014 caused the government in October 2015 to readjust the 2016 national budget based on an average oil price of $40/barrel, down from an original assumption of $80/barrel in the 2015 budget. With oil revenues generating in excess of 50 percent of the government’s budget, Kazakhstan’s economy is sensitive to fluctuations in global oil prices. Under pressure from global markets and internal financial distress, in August 2015 the Central Bank of Kazakhstan made the prudent decision to float the Kazakhstani tenge (KZT). This move, while necessary for the country’s long-term financial development, caused short-term economic hardship as the KZT depreciated 44 percent – from 185 KZT/USD to 330 KZT/USD – between August and December 2015, slashing the population’s real income.[2]
  • Beyond economic volatility, some 71 percent of those polled in the World Values Survey indicated they were “very much” or “a great deal” worried about a war involving their country, another 80 percent were worried about a terrorist attack, and 65 percent were concerned about a civil war. Generally, the results suggest that people of Kazakhstan are worried about the future – as the country ranked above Ukraine, and below Pakistan in this category. Yet, Kazakhstan ranked as one of the top 13 nations in the survey for countries that perceived the least threat to their physical security.
  • The Kazakh preoccupation with security informs how the country’s electorate perceives governance, with a preference for hierarchy. Like their nomadic ancestors, the people of Kazakhstan admire a strongman. In an interview, one Ak Zhol Mazhilis candidate shared, “we are Asiatic in that way. In Kazakhstan, you give up some rights in exchange for security. You give up pluralism and the right to say what you want, but that’s how it is, and we are doing ok.”


Corruption:
  • Like in all the countries in the former Soviet Union, corruption is a major issue in Kazakhstan, from the mundane petty bribery of the traffic police to accusations of grand larceny by senior officials. According to Transparency International’s 2014 report, Kazakhstan is the 126th more corrupted country in the world, a situation that is worsening years by years as it was 120th in 2009.
  • However, the power is trying to make some efforts since the integration of the country to the United Nations convention against corruption in June 2008, President Nazarbayev‟s announcement of a major new anti-corruption drive, described as his „ten slashing punches‟, that was built on his 2006-2010 anti-corruption strategy. According to Bertelsmann, in 2009 new anti-corruption policies promised pay rises of 25% for public servants, a 60% rise for local court judges and an almost 300% boost in salaries for traffic police‟ but they argued that however, in overall terms, corruption remains rampant‟. [3]
  • While there has been considerable legislative activity and new hotlines encouraging citizens to shop‟ crooked officials in exchange for rewards”, there  remains a considerable gap between legislation and enforcement. While modest progress has been made in reducing everyday corruption at lower levels of the bureaucracy, higher up the picture is uneven. [4] Some analysts see the crackdown as an attempt to be seen to take action to provide a distraction from the wider economic crisis, rather than addressing the fundamental problems. [4] Indeed, where there have been high profile cases put against senior figures, it has often proved controversial, with the implementation of the crackdown being perceived to be both partial and politicized.

Government of Kazakhstan as of August 2016: 



[1] http://osce.org/odihr/elections/kazakhstan
[2]http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/understanding-kazakhstans-politics-again/
[3] Trustlaw, Anti Corruption Profile- Kazakhstan, http://www.trust.org/trustlaw/country-profiles/goodgovernance.dot?id=0efc7a55-251f-441d-916d-37a5ccc986c2
[4] Rayhan Demytrie, Officials fall to Kazakh corruption drive, BBC, July 2009: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8153982.stm (accessed 16th August 2010)