The following is an (unofficial) excerpt of last Friday’s Caspian Information Center conference titled: Kazakhstan’s Presidential Election: An Assessment. Please do not reprint this summary without permission.

Due to the length of the material, I have decided to split the excerpt into two parts. The following covers the morning session until lunch, with the following speakers:

• The Rt. Hon. Lord Parkinson
  Formerly Secretary of State for Energy and for Transport, twice Chairman of the Conservative Party, Leader of the Election Observation Mission of the Caspian Information Centre.
• H.E. Erlan Idrissov
  Ambassador of the Republic of Kazakhstan to the United Kingdom
• H.E. Yermukhamet Yertysbayev
  Minister of Information of the Republic of Kazakhstan (former Presidential aide and consultant)
• Dr. Shirin Akiner
  School of Oriental and African Studies, London
• Professor Dennis O’Keeffe
  Department of Social Sciences, University of Buckingham, and official observer of 4th December election

It is noteworthy that the focus of the first session was not so much the elections themselves, but a more general introduction to Kazakhstan 15 years after independence and the underlying reasons for President Nazarbayev’s success.

The convenor of the proceedings was The Rt. Hon Lord Parkinson who also made some initial remarks.

Lord Parkinson did not know a lot about Kazakhstan before asked by Gerald Frost to lead the CIC’s observer mission to Astana. He said he had been intrigued by the possibility of visiting this part of the former Soviet Union he has never been to before. According to Lord Parkinson, the group of observers he led was totally independent-minded and had no bias in any direction. The assessment the CIC put forward reflected this independent stance. However, the OSCE came to a different conclusion and the event staged on Friday was meant to discuss with representatives of both organisations their different approaches and findings.

Unfortunately, despite an official invitation, the OSCE did not send anyone to London’s Reform Club, where the event was held. Apparently, the OSCE is not open to a discussion of its methodology and does not engage in a critical public discourse. Lord Parkinson was also disappointed that no one from the Kazakh opposition accepted the invitation (although he admitted that Alikhan Baimenov, chairman of Ak-Zhol, might not have come in the light of the Sarsenbaev murder).

Lord Parkinson then went to describe what the CIC mission was up to in Astana. The first afternoon of their stay, the mission met with representatives of the opposition. It was noteworthy, so Parkinson, that most opposition politicians were very aggressive in their stance towards the government. This showed to be an absolute change in attitude vis-à-vis Soviet times. The open and quite upfront criticism spoke for itself already and hinted at a quite healthy state of freedom of speech.

Lord Parkinson’s overarching impression was that the Kazakh authorities were committed to having free and fair elections. The high turnout and the high approval rate for President Nazarbayev can be attributed to the President’s outstanding record. Himself an ex-politician, Lord Parkinson said that he would have been happy to go into elections with Nazarbayev’s achievements, especially in the economic hemisphere.

Nevertheless, according to Parkinson, there is still much room for improvement and nothing can be considered perfect. A genuine attempt was made to carry out the elections in a fair and free manner. The Kazakh people wanted Nazarbayev to go for another term.

With Lord Parkinson having set the stage, the next speaker to address the 50-60 people in the audience was Kazakhstan’s Ambassador to the UK H.E. Mr. Erlan Idrissov. The ambassador then made some general remarks on the growing interest in Kazakhstan and the busy agenda of Foreign Minister Kassymzhomart Tokaev who was in London last week. Jack Straw, the UK’s foreign secretary, extended an official invitation to President Nazarbayev for a visit to the UK later this year.

The fact that there are so many opinions on Kazahstan’s elections is a good sign, according to Idrissov. It shows that there is genuine interest in Kazakhstan’s development and its political situation. Nevertheless, post-election Kazakhstan is more important as the elections are already history. In this light, the President’s state-of-the-nation address was an important landmark. It set out a roadmap for the country’s future development in a variety of domains.

The two most important factors in the next presidential term are liberal political and economic reform. This goes hand in hand with the President’s aim to catapult Kazakhstan into the league of the world’s top-50 competitive nations. It will be important to diversify the economy and not overly depend on the extractive industries. This coming June, a summary of the ongoing discussion on the implementation of the President’s strategy will be published, culminating in a 5-year plan. It will also be important to preserve the infant institutions of democracy.

The next speaker was Kazakhstan’s new Minister of Culture, Information and Sport, Mr. Yermukhamet Yertysbayev. Before being appointed Minister, he served as one of President Nazarbayev’s main political advisers. Yertysbayev started by expressing his disappointment with the fact that neither anyone of the OSCE nor the opposition could make it to the conference. However, he could understand them in a way, too. If the winner gets 91% of the vote, there is not a lot to argue about. Baimenov, who was supposed to come, got a mere 1.5% of the total votes, and along with the other opposition candidates, had no chance competing against the incumbent.

The first reason for the unanimous approval of President Nazarbayev was the high level of social optimism prevalent in Kazakhstan. Yertysbayev went on listing some of the economic indicators of the last years, including the impressive rise of living standards and growing GDP per capita. During the last seven years, the average monthly pensions tripled, bank deposits multiplied by 18 times, health care expenditure fourfolded, and three times as much money is now being spent on science and education.

Kazakhstan has formally entered the league of nations whose GDP per capita is considered “normal”. The general mood of the population is becoming more optimistic. With this background, it was obvious that one wouldn’t see a protest vote during last December’s elections. This optimism is evident both in the Eurobarometer and the Asiabarometer. In their evaluation of the country’s President, the Kazakhs lead the score with approval ratings in excess of 86% (cf. Russia: 72%, Ukraine 30%). The general optimism is felt by 50% of the population (cf. Belarus: 28%, Russia: 22%, Ukraine: 14%).

The second reason for the President’s success is the state of the nation address before the election campaign set off. It set out clearly Nazarbayev’s strategy in case he would be granted another 7-year term. During his renewed, the level of GDP will grow by 2 1/2 times, per capita income will twofold. He set out his export targets, i.e. Kazakhstan will become one of the top-5 grain exporters and will be among the top-10 oil exporters.

According to Yertysbayev, the third factor explaining Nazarbayev’s success is the lack of a comparable strategy on the hands of the opposition. Along these lines, the fourth reason is also quite straightforward: The opposition did not have a chance because they were riddled with internal divisions and could not manage to unite behind one single candidate.

The fifth and final reason for Nazarbayev to carry home such an astonishing victory was the support of the “great nations”, Russia and China but to a certain degree also the EU and the US. All of these four are interested in stability in the region but they also regard Kazakhstan as an ever more important economic partner. Kazakhstan is among the top-5 most-dynamically growing countries in the world and foreign direct investment into the country is staggering.

In essence, observers should come to terms with the fact that Nazarbayev is one of the very few leaders in the world that can boast such degree of public support.

Yertysbayev concluded with a personal anecdote: He himself had hoped that the result would be more in the range of 70% and he would have wanted to see the opposition unite behind a single candidate. When he first heard the official result of 91%, he even referred to a sense of disappointment (which he later clearly designated as a joke). Then, President Nazarbayev assigned him to become the minister of a newly-founded minstry.

The next speaker to address the audience was Dr. Shirin Akiner of the School of Oriental and African Studies. She structured her talk into three points: the elections, the subsequent reports, and the way ahead.

Akiner said that she had expected Nazarbayev to win, albeit she was surprised about the large margin by which the President carried home the vote. With the reasons for that already clearly outlined by the Minister speaking right before Dr. Akiner, she went on to describe her personal impression of the progress in Kazakhstan.

The confidence in the President had come over the years. She noticed substantial trickle-down effects to the population during her substantial travel through the country and especially the emergence of a small-business community was encouraging for her. In small towns, e.g. new restaurants and dry cleaners open frequently and bear witness to a growing small-service sector that a flourishing economy like Kazakhstan needs.

In general, people can now look ahead with optimism. In the early nineties, Akiner recalled, professionals were deeply distressed. Now, most of her acquaintances have found work, plan for the future. This in turn led Akiner to the conclusion that the immediate period of transition is now over: People don’t look back anymore, but ahead. A great deal of this optimism is the direct result of President Nazarbayev’s successful work.

In the beginning of Kazakhstan’s independence, many observers held that the multi-ethnic tapestry of the region could be a potential for conflict. However, what one could witness was ethnic harmony and not conditions one could witness in other Central Asian countries.

According to Akiner, the debate leading to the Presidential elections was open, although the opposition was very weak right from the start. In Kazakhstan, there is a tremendous level of debate - people are, in general, well-aware of the political situation. There was no element of fear involved in the ballot. Thus, 91% for Nazarbayev does not mean that there were no informed choices. Akiner went on to say that corruption and media biases are by no means exlusively Kazakh phenomena. The electoral process is difficult in most countries in the world.

As far as the reporting goes, Akiner said that her impression is that during the 1990s, Kazakhstan received too much praise, wheras it is now subject of an undeserving level of criticism. There is a pre-conceived attitude towards the region and the media coverage in the run up to the elections formed an opinion that was heavily-biased. Akiner said that even her students made up their minds with the help of these catchy headlines and did not look for evidence backing these claims up themselves. Can 91% be interpreted as a proof of rigged elections itself? In Kyrgyzstan, Bakiev received an equally high result, as did the President of Iceland.

The findings of two independent observer missions from the UK were immediately dismissed as if they were being paid by the Kazakh government and came to Kazakhstan with foregone conclusions. It is important to note that journalists are also paid as are representatives of NGOs. It also goes without saying that OSCE observers are getting paid for their work, too, Akiner said.

In terms of the aftermath of the elections, Akiner voiced her optimism. Things are moving ahead, targets for future development are set (e.g. foreign policy agenda, state-of-the-nation address). Kazakhstan has emphasised that it is interested in a cooperative approach which can be exemplified by the government’s interest in working closely with Uzbekistan and other regional players. In essence, Kazakhstan overcame a struggle for survival immediately after independence and turned it into a new level of confidence.

The Kazakh people voted for stability, peace and a clarity of policy. Without taking into account unpredictable events in the wider region, Akiner believes that Kazakhstan will be a nexus for stability in Central Asia.

Professor Dennis O’Keeffe briefly commented on a couple of issues raised and started by saying that the CIC mission did not see any of the malpractices that the OSCE reported on, although problems existed. There was no intimidation in the polling stations, although O’Keeffe conceded that the CIC mission only went to a small selection of stations. They were always politely greeted and questions were fully answered.

According to O’Keeffe, the main problem in today’s Kazakstan is that the economy modernises faster than politics, which is illustrated by the immaturity of the opposition that cannot articulate coherent policies alternative to President Nazarbayev. Professor O’Keeffe did not agree with Minister Yertysbayev that there should not be a discussion about the elections anymore.

It was important for O’Keeffe to note that in the same way slumps and depressions can destabilise a country, rapid economic growth can also have very unsettling effects. He cited Schumpeter, who coined the term of a ‘permanently adversarial intellegentsia’. In terms of the widely-cited media bias, he agreed that there is an imbalance in political broadcasting in Kazakhstan. However, a look at the BBC, a public broadcaster that is often accused of frank biases, should already be evidence enough that the at-times controversial position of mass media in any country’s political arena is a characteristic feature of modernity.

Before the lunch break, there was some time for questions. The first one taken asked Minister Yertysbayev to outline the economic strategy so central for achieving Nazarbayev’s promises.

Minister Yertysbayev said that of highest importance for Kazakhstan’s future economic development was diversification, outlined in the President’s strategy to join the world’s 50 most competitive nations. By 2010, Kazakhstan strives to export 100 million tons of oil per year. Nevertheless, the Minister would want the government to address economic development by taking a step back and forgetting for a moment that the country possessed oil at all. To formulate a coherent strategy beyond oil is crucial for the country’s path of sustainable development.

The panel then got asked to name the main regional threats and Kazakhstan’s strategies in coping with them.

Ambassador Idrissov listed the, in his opinion, five most important potential sources for instability in the region:
1) Economic disparity within the region
2) Water management
3) Trade facilitation / transit routes (due to the region’s landlocked position)
4) Drug addiction
5) Islamic fundamentalism (which is at times overplayed but nonetheless present)

Dr. Akiner said that due to the geographical proximity to Afghanistan, there exist very serious security threats, mainly in the form of drug trafficking and Islamic militants. The three main security bodies in the region, NATO, SCO and CSTO would do good in working together. However, there is no cooperation taking place, mainly due to a lack of interest from the NATO side. Central Asia understands that it has to get involved in Afghanistan and is demanding a more pro-active role.

Asked what is being done to ‘preserve the infant democratic institutions’, Minister Yertysbayev told the audience about a new committee for the issues of democratisation within his very own ministry. This committee will be chaired by President Nazarbayev and will monitor and promote the reform of the constitution. Also, a new look will be taken at the parliament and whether it is in need of reform. Also, parliamentary elections might be held ahead of schedule.

Taking into account that 9% of the voters did not vote for Nazarbayev, it becomes evident that these 9% will find ways of expressing their political opinion from within parties and can dispose of newspapers as tools for voicing their dissatisfaction. By 2012, changes to the system should have reached the point where decisions are no longer based on personality, but on programs.

Asked about Kazakhstan’s desire to chair the OSCE in 2009 and whether the critical election report by the very same organisation was an impediment to Kazakhstan’s aspirations, Minister Yertysbayev said that the 2005 report clearly marked a huge leap forward in comparison to previous election verdicts. There were more than 1,000 international observers and more than 400 accredited journalists. The vast majority of them did not see any biases. OSCE standards are very tough and at times rigid. Even if applied to the US, it becomes obvious that it is difficult for most countries to meet them. A number of electoral innovations were introduced, e.g. transparent ballot boxes or exit polling. Kazakhstan still aspires to assume chairmanship of the OSCE in 2009. In the very long run even, Kazakhstan could join the European Union.

A question asked by a member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs was directed at the funding of the CIC mission and CIC in general. His organisation (the Royal Institute of International Affairs) always tries to be as transparent as possible when it pertains to its funding. Lord Parkinson answered that there was no funding by the Kazakh government, and had it been that way, he would have never agreed to take part in such a mission. A ‘trading company’ (ed: Ecotrade S.A.) acted as the official sponsor of the trip. As far as the general CIC funding is concerned, the coffee break hindered Mr. Gerald Frost from answering that particular question.

Coming soon: The second part of the conference: “What was achieved?”
Speakers:

• Mr. David Ruffley, MP
  Vice-Chairman, All-Party Group on Kazakhstan at Westminster
  Joint Author of CIC Report on Preparations for the 2005 Presidential Election
• H.E. Kassymzhomart K. Tokaev
  Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan

The OSCE/ODIHR Mission: How Fair, how Objective?

• Mr. Douglas Townsend
  Former Australian Ambassador to the Republic of Kazakhstan (1995-1997), accredited independent observer at the September 2004 election to the Majilis and the December 2005 Presidential Election.
• The Hon. Nirj Deva, DL, MEP
  Member of the Development Committee of the European Parliament, Leader of the EU election observer mission to the Indonesia (2003) and official observer of the 4th December election
• Professor Kenneth Minogue
  Emeritus Professor of Political Science, London School of Economics, University of London, and official observer at 4th December election