New Election Op-Eds
The Christian Science Monitor published an editorial today, and based on its content, was almost certainly written by the same Francine Kiefer who asked about a new cold war brewing in the region at yesterday’s Heritage seminar.
Kiefer addresses the leniency with which the United States has met Kazakhstan’s flawed election, and essentially applauds that approach.
US diplomats acknowledge the vote’s shortcomings, but point to this multiethnic giant bordering Russia and China as a democratic work in progress. That long-view emphasis is a wise one. Sixteen years ago, when Kazakhstan gained independence from the Soviet Union, Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev inherited a dirt-poor dumping ground for Soviet populations, gulag camps, and harmful nuclear tests. Now, it’s producing 1.3 million barrels of oil a day (the Kashagan field is bigger than Alaska’s North Slope), and is expected to become a top-10 oil exporter within a decade. It’s reduced its poverty rate to 12 percent (the regional rate is 44 percent). By sending young people to study in the West, Russia, and China, it’s cultivated a talented civil service. And it’s one of the best performers in nuclear nonproliferation.
The BBC also has an editorial more generally on Kazakhstan, and notes that the local media entirely failed to note the OSCE’s findings.
The OSCE monitors judged the election a failure by democratic standards. Kazakh television did not report that fact. Instead Kazakh viewers were told the election had been praised as an unprecedented success. Kazakh television even replayed one of my own reports aired by the BBC. Their commentary said the BBC had marvelled at the pace at which Kazakhstan is developing. It did not include the bit where I had pointed to the parliament building and said there was not a single opposition MP there.
At yesterday’s Heritage lecture, a Kazakh diplomat addressed this issue, saying that while the Kazakh press is biased heavily in favor of the president, most of the press is free, so this bias reflects the opinions of the populace at large. Then he proceeded to note shortcomings and biases of the press in the United States.
The editorial also draws attention to the fact that Nazarbayev does have a mild cult of personality being build around him, albeit not to the extent of certain other whack-jobs in the region.
President Nazarbayev’s new palace is like a giant version of the White House with the dome of St Peter’s painted blue and stuck on top. From his palace window he can survey the progress of his most audacious commission, a giant pyramid, like those of ancient Egypt. In a few months it will soar higher than London’s St Paul’s Cathedral. Designed by British architect Lord Foster, it will contain an opera theatre, museum, library, university, and be topped with hanging gardens like ancient Babylon.
on December 9th, 2005 at 11:01 am
It seems like pretty amazing future we’ve been awaiting for in Kazakhstan according a diplomat. But we are going to expect shortage of aincient Babylon over here. If you want to understand the real situation just look at people and public at large and you can see what is going on.
Baktygul.
on December 10th, 2005 at 6:04 am
Economic news always takes precedence! But let us not forget that 10 minutes from the new center of the city (pyramid, Ak Orda, Bayterek, and all) there are tiny cottages that get their water from a pump. It’s -25 degrees outside and these guys have to schlep all their water from a pump–then heat it on the stove to get a hot shower, or hot water for washing.
on December 12th, 2005 at 7:43 pm
Since this page is dedicated to op-eds on the recent Kazakhstan election, I offer you below an op-ed article by Frederick Starr and Daniel De Witt published in the Wall Street Journal European and Asia editions on 8th December 2005.
I have taken this article straight from the website of the Caspian Information Centre, which appears to be courting some controversy in your election discussion pages, so I hope the details are all correct.
In any event, the website describes Mr. Starr as “chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute of Johns Hopkins University. Mr. Witt is president of the International Tax and Investment Center. Both were accredited international observers to the 2005 presidential and the 2004 parliamentary elections in Kazakhstan.”
Text of article:
“Based largely on the report from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe International Election Observation Mission, Kazakhstan’s recent presidential election has received bad press worldwide. Reading these stories, some may be tempted to believe that the Kazakh elections were a big step backwards, that the Kazakhs had no intention of meeting OSCE standards, and hoped instead that by inviting its observers that they could somehow mask a rigged election.
Such judgments are simply wrong. The Kazakh government introduced important changes in its laws and practices that made this election a big improvement. The OSCE indeed encountered resistance and even hostility in Kazakhstan, but the Kazakh government was quite sincere in inviting the observers. The problems say more about the OSCE’s methods than Kazakhstan’s progress on democratization.
In Kazakhstan, and elsewhere, the OSCE’s intentions are laudable. The collection of information by its volunteer observers is extensive, and its analyses are rigorous and responsible. Both command respect.
Regrettably, the reporting of OSCE findings seems calculated to arouse resentment even among the best intentioned countries that it reviews, including Kazakhstan. Specifically, the OSCE has adopted a preachy, condescending, Euro-centric and arrogant attitude that systematically offends those it seeks to persuade. No wonder that even some of Kazakhstan’s confirmed democrats refer disdainfully to the OSCE mission as the “democracy police.”
By its own rules, OSCE observer mission reports lead off with a statement on whether the given election satisfies the standards set down by the European and American founding members and accepted by newly enrolled countries. Inevitably, the new country is found wanting. And why should it be otherwise? If Kazakhstan had already arrived at the level of, say, Denmark, why would it have invited a 460 member OSCE observer mission to give it advice on how to improve? Besides, one wonders how many elections in the U.S., U.K. or France would meet this “gold standard”?
In a kind of inversion of what most would be accepted as effective pedagogy, OSCE dwells on the negatives and is stingy with its praise for positive achievements. Only after this does one get a chance to learn whether the election represents a step forward or a step back.
In Sunday’s presidential elections in Kazakhstan that gave Nursultan Nazarbayev a third consecutive term with 91% of the vote, the OSCE eventually came around to the grudging recognition that they represented steady improvement not only over the 1999 presidential election but the 2004 parliamentary elections. After its initial negative “up or down” judgment, the OSCE’s report proceeds to focus overly on the administrative and technical flaws, including whining about long lines at polling stations, which merely reflected a historically high 75% voter turnout. They also questioned the “political will” of leaders who have embraced some but not all of the OSCE’s post-2004 parliamentary election recommendations.
Reforms instituted by Kazakhstan in 2005 created a much more open and transparent Central Election Commission. For the first time in a presidential contest, there were legally sanctioned, genuine opposition candidates. There were televised debates among opposition candidates. Readers must dig very deep inside the OSCE report to learn about any of these positive steps. In both the written report and especially in the oral presentation offered in Astana, OSCE officials adopt a finger-wagging tone that seems designed to elicit resistance, not cooperation.
Rather than a simplistic “black or white” evaluation under which the aspiring democracy is inevitably painted as “black,” the OSCE should consider adopting a qualitative scale to evaluate elections. A system akin to bond ratings would allow the OSCE to “grade” countries on their democracy progress, or back-sliding, rather than simply pass or fail the process according to some unachievable standard. Such a “grading” would also send important signals to investors on political risk and stability.
The OSCE’s treatment of Russia’s cynically corrupt recent parliamentary election in Chechnya highlights a further problem: the institution’s double standard. Powerful Russia refused even to invite the OSCE to observe the Chechen elections. The OSCE docilely accepted this rebuff and said nothing about what turned out to be a shameful episode in the history of democracy among OSCE members. Meanwhile, Kazakhstan, which has repeatedly invited the OSCE to observe its elections and which has instituted positive changes on the basis of its advice, is left feeling that it has been mugged.
The West must embrace countries making good faith efforts to hold free and fair elections, work with them patiently and tenaciously, and do so in a spirit of modesty and good will. The recent presidential election in Kazakhstan was doubtlessly flawed in certain respects, but overall it was a success and a significant step forward. The OSCE’s duty is to point out avenues for further improvement but also to recognize steady progress that sets a high standard not only among the new and aspiring states of Central Asia but among all countries worldwide that have Muslim majority populations. Democracy is progressing in Kazakhstan. The OSCE should have said so.”