It’s that time of the year again: The US pro-democracy NGO Freedom House has just published its 2006 Nations in Transit report, an annual “comprehensive, comparative, multidimensional study measuring progress and setbacks in democratization in 27 countries from Central Europe to the Eurasian region of the Former Soviet Union”.

Kazakhstan received a considerably worse score in 2006 than in the previous year. The key moment last year proved to be the presidential elections, which were (at least according to the OSCE) marred by severe irregularities and ensured that all political and economic power would remain with those close to incumbent Nazarbayev.

The high oil price is seen by many to be one of the key reasons behind deteriorating conditions in Kazakhstan last year. The bottom-line of the newest Freedom House report seems to be that nations with a significant hydrocarbon endowment seem to be backsliding in their transition towards more democracy.

The findings of the NGO raise several questions: Firstly, do things really stand that badly in Kazakhstan? And secondly, if yes, how further off the mark could Richard Cheney have been in his criticism towards Russia and his laudation of Kazakhstan’s democratic transition?

To address the first question, one could look at other countries that had to see their FH indicators deteriorate. Denise, in her first post on the neweurasia Azerbaijan blog, raises important questions with regards to FH’s methodology and biasedness:

The Freedom House report focuses in on a few specific and politically motivated cases where registration was denied, and these cases are in the specific area of interest of Freedom House itself.

It is difficult to assess from the distance whether one can say the same for Kazakhstan. Nevertheless, at least some some parts of the report can be questioned without too much hassle.

While it has been widely acknowledged that Kazakhstan’s presidential elections were not free and fair by Western standards, even the OSCE conceded that they were significant improvements vis-à-vis earlier elections. However, the Electoral Process indicator shows no upward trend whatsoever. The fact that an incumbent took home a solid 91% of the vote should not be regarded as a fraudulent act per se.

2006 has not been the best year for those who want to present a favourable and progressive image of Kazakhstan. The United States have tried hard though, especially during Vice-President Cheney’s visit to Astana earlier this year when he spoke positively of Kazakhstan’s democratic development, while at the same bashing Putin’s Russia for a backslide towards authoritarianism.

While one always has to take Freedom House publications with a grain of salt (especially the alleged comparability of the indicators), it is safe to say that Kazakhstan’s economy is developing far faster than anything else.

President Nazarbayev is in a comfortable position, though. Despite the US-NGO’s staggering criticism, he can look ahead to a year of more - not less - integration with the world’s super powers. His government might well become the first Central Asian chairman of the OSCE, WTO accession does not seem to lie too far in the future, and Nazarbayev is also the only Central Asian strongman to be courted during the upcoming G8-summit in St. Petersburg.