Keeping Up Appearances in Kazakstan
Presidential election serves little purpose apart from claiming democratic credentials.
Keeping Up Appearances in Kazakstan
Presidential election serves little purpose apart from claiming democratic credentials.
Despite the emergence of multiple candidates for the April 3 presidential election in Kazakstan, none looks likely to seriously challenge the incumbent, Nursultan Nazarbaev. Analysts say the only real reason for holding the contest is to maintain the facade of democracy.
The election was due to take place next year, but was brought forward in a surprise announcement by Nazarbaev on February 4, leaving just two months for possible rivals to prepare. The move was seen as a deft piece of sleight of hand, since a snap election was bound to be viewed as more democratic than the alternative then under review – holding a referendum to allow Nazarbaev to carry on until 2020 without going to the polls.
Kazakstan’s beleaguered opposition parties are boycotting the election. On February 21, opposition groups and NGOs that oppose the early election set up a Committee to Protect the Constitution and Boycott the Forthcoming Election. Apart from its self-explanatory name, the body plans to monitor voting on election day.
When nominations closed on February 20, a total of 22 names had been submitted, although not all may pass the qualifying tests needed to go forward as candidates - they must show least 91,000 signatures supporting them, pay a 5,500 US dollar deposit, and pass an exam in the Kazak language. Nazarbaev has already done so.
Some candidates represent political groups that support the current administration, such as Jambyl Akhmetbekov of the Communist People's Party, Gani Kasymov of the Kazak Patriots’s Party and Kurmangazy Rakhmetov of the Jeltoksan movement. The rest are little-known figures, the only exception being Mels Eleusizov, head of the Tabigat green movement who is running as an independent.
Vyacheslav Abramov, deputy director of the rights watchdog Freedom House Kazakstan, estimates that between four and six hand-picked candidates will make it past the final approval stage. None of them can believe they have a remote chance of winning, and standing as candidates merely provides them with opportunities for self-promotion, he said.
For the electorate, Abramov said, this would be an exercise in “voting without a choice”.
Analysts say the election landscape highlights the extent to which power is concentrated in Nazarbaev’s hands, and the lack of scope for other individuals or political groups to emerge and compete with him.
At 70, Nazarbaev has been in charge since the Soviet period, periodically securing constitutional changes to extend his term in office and lift the two-term restriction on his presidency.
However, Kazakstan has also made efforts to win international acceptance as a democracy, exemplified by a much-prized spell as chair of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe last year.
Abramov sees the forthcoming election as Kazakstan’s response after western governments raised concerns about the planned referendum allowing Nazarbaev to avoid going to the polls.
“This [election] won’t save Kazakstan from criticism since things are already clear – a very short time-frame for campaigning, pictures of Nazarbaev on every street and footage of him on every TV channel. There’s no question of a fair campaign,” he said. “Nevertheless, the democratic facade has been maintained. And that’s enough [for Kazakstan] to stay in the bigger game with the West, and set its own rules.”
Igor Vinyavsky, editor-in-chief of the Vzglyad newspaper, said the opposition parties were probably right not to take part, given that doing so would only allow the authorities to claim more legitimacy for the election.
Pavel Grudnitsky, head of the Almaty-based Analytical Resources Studio, said that most of the opposition politicians who might present a challenge in elections were in prison, in exile or had left politics.
Abramov said opposition groups could use the boycott process to put their own ideas across to the public. But he said it was surprising they had not anticipated that the election would be brought forward from 2012, since the authorities often used the element of surprise.
“They should have had some campaigning scenarios. But it turned out that they didn’t, and that everyone was preparing for 2012,” he said.
While the present monolithic structure of power suits the ruling elite very well, Abramov said it would have to change sooner or later, so the forthcoming election was just postponing the inevitable.
“The political system is built around one individual, so efforts should already be under way to ensure it doesn’t collapse when that person leaves office,” he said.
“I believe Kazakstan’s [leaders] are closely following events taking place in other authoritarian countries, and they realise that at some point in the future, Nazarbaev will have to state that he’d not going to stand for re-election.”
Saule Mukhametrakhimova is IWPR Central Asia editor.
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.
