RiaNovosti has an interesting story on the future of Kazakhstan’s political system. Nazarbayev, who will run for yet another presidential term in December (and most likely win it), is opposed to the idea of changing Kazakhstan into a parliamentary republic.

He says that:

“We had a parliamentary republic with the communist Supreme Soviet [parliament] in 1993 and 1994,” he said, addressing a congress of entrepreneurs in the capital of Astana.

Taking the post-Soviet turmoil as an indicator of how well-tailored certain political systems are for Kazakhstan is likely to be troublesome. Also, from the data I can access, this statement is not quite true. The first Kazakhstani constitution was accepted in 1993, granting Nazarbayev wide-reaching authority. However, this was sort of counter-checked by a parliament more powerful than it is today.

Apparently, the President was not all too keen to leave it that way: In December 1993, following Boris Yeltsin’s dissolution of the Russian Duma, Nazarbayev dissolved the Supreme Council of Kazakhstan as well, vesting him with powers explicitly not provided for by the constitution. The next parliament that constituted after the 1994 elections was also dissolved.

So why does Nazarbayev then dismiss the fact that a more powerful parliament could actually be beneficial to Kazakhstan’s development and political stability, when his only argument against such a power reshuffle is the flawed anecdote of 1993-1994?

Also, I’d like to know who these ‘Western political scientists’ are:

He also said a group of authoritative Western political scientists who spent a year-and-a-half studying Kazakhstan’s society and government concluded that for the nation to prosper, the present political system should remain unchanged for at least another twenty years.

Twenty years! But, of course Mr Nazarbayev is benevolent and will himself use the powers to effect positive change:

But he said this by no means meant stagnation and promised that if elected for a third presidential term, he would launch liberal political reform to decentralize government authority, develop local self-government and fight corruption.

Let’s face it: Nazarbayev is not the worst option for Kazakhstan. Despite serious wrongdoings, he can be considered the cleverest and actually most successful Central Asian authocrat-president. However, there will be others succeeding him. Fermenting the strong position of the president, unchecked by any other constitutional body, can only bear potential risks for the future.

Obviously, people would object and point at the current parliament. Can this body be a real alternative to an un-checked president?

On the surface, a parliament packed with clients, supporters, and beneficiaries of the Nazarbaev regime would appear to reinforce the president’s already unchecked control over the legislative and political processes,

…says Bhavna Dave*. However, the parliament in its current setup itself is a direct outcome of the personality-centred Kazakh political system. The three political parties supporting the president seem to evolve into tools for likely contenders for the succession of Nazarbayev.

(…) Finally, the third group [influencing the President] consists of various oligarchs and business groups, notably the Eurasian Group, Kazakhmys, Kazakhstan Temir Zholy, and others, who control more than half of the country’s industrial potential and also have their own political parties, such as Otan and AIST. Many commentators concur with Abilov that the election results [Parliamentary elections 2004]reveal the Family’s crumbling hold on power and the strengthening influence of the other two groups [family and the presidential administration]. Some analysts even suggest that Asar is the only effective opposition within the regime, as it is embroiled in a bitter rivalry with Otan and the AIST bloc behind closed doors. Asar is the product of the political and financial resources of both Nazarbaeva and her husband Aliev, although she is the most prominent member of the family after the president himself. Incidentally, Aliev is also Kazakhstan’s envoy to the OSCE. Should Kazakhstan succeed in obtaining the OSCE chair for 2009, it will be a vital boost to Aliev’s standing as well as Nazarbaeva’s efforts to obtain the international limelight.

At least some kind of pluralism… It will probably continue this way for the time being. I recall this to be quite a standard anecdote (at least I heard it more than twice over the last time): “Opposition is fine as long as it comes from within the government”. We could also dub that: Responsible Pluralism the Kazakh way.

*Kazakhstan’s 2004 Parliamentary Elections : Managing Loyalty and Support for the Regime, Bhavna Dave, Problems of Post-Communism, Volume 52, Number 1 / January-February 2005