Much of the commentary on Kazakhstan’s adoption of a new constitution in a referendum last week is nothing short of scathing.
Serik Beysembaev, writing for Carnegie, concludes that if the observer “peels away the rhetoric”, they should see the document as “an embodiment of the ruling elite’s fears and a self-serving attempt to preserve the status quo while they still can”, adding: “The need for [President Kassym-Jomart] Tokayev’s regime to pay lip service to democracy disappeared with Donald Trump’s return to the White House.”
Peter Leonard, in a piece posted on his Havli blog on Central Asia, posits: “The new constitution promises a strong president, an influential parliament, and an accountable government. The first of those three is the only one the small print supports.”
And political scientist Dosym Satpayev, interviewed by Azattyk, describes how “we are currently seeing the existence of unstable political institutions in our country being further extended, with such institutions, unfortunately, not fully formed in Kazakhstan.
“And the new constitution does not create a new model of political development, because in its model, the main decision-making centre remains the president, and he acts without a strong parliament, an independent judiciary or other balancing mechanisms. This, of course… further increases the risk of discord and conflict in a closed background environment.”
Many analysts remain taken aback at how Tokayev suddenly permitted himself to sprint for the line by announcing a mid-March vote on an entirely new foundational law, having not long before suggested the proposal would be to amend around 40 constitutional articles, possibly by some time in 2027 (see PANNIER: Tokayev’s sprint for constitutional referendum perplexes Kazakhstan, published by bne IntelliNews on March 12).
Beysembaev, a sociologist who is director of Paperlab Research Center in Astana, Kazakhstan, says the “authorities have not provided a clear explanation for why” the change of course was necessary and allowed.
He reflects: “There are competing theories: maybe Tokayev intends to run for UN Secretary-General and wants a transition mechanism quick, or maybe the presidential administration is pushing through constitutional changes while Kazakhstan’s socioeconomic climate remains relatively favorable.
“Meanwhile, the Constitutional Commission attributes the haste to geopolitical turbulence and growing external threats, clearly alluding to Russia’s unpredictability.
“It is difficult to say which of these explanations is correct. In any case, rapid reforms are nothing new for Kazakhstani politics, where the authorities have repeatedly used the element of surprise to paralyze political opponents.”
Looking at the run-up to the March 15 vote, Leonard says: “There was no debate, no conversation even. Sceptics have been harassed or jailed into submission.”
“Legislation of this kind, he adds, “is not typically written by governments that are confident of their popularity. It is instead the work of governments that understand, even if they will not say so, that independent voices, when they exist, tend to say inconvenient things.”
Under the new constitution, the parliament will be reduced from two chambers to one and renamed the Kurultai, a “folksy name meant to evoke the great councils of the Turkic steppe where chieftains gathered to choose their leaders,” according to Leonard.
Unimpressed with what seems to be in store, he adds: “There is nothing yet to suggest that the Kurultai will be any less supine than its catspaw two-chamber antecedent. Genuinely oppositional parties are shut out of the system. The next parliament will, if anything, serve as an even smoother conveyor belt for presidential diktats.”
Looking at the upcoming establishment of a vice-president role, Beysembaev says the post could be used to test potential successors to Tokayev, who turns 73 in May, but suggests: “However, a simpler scenario remains on the table: extending Tokayev’s term. The adoption of a new constitution could provide a legal basis. Tokayev’s inner circle publicly rejects this possibility, but such assurances carry little weight in Kazakhstani politics. [First president of post-Soviet Kazakhstan Nursultan] Nazarbayev, for example, mentioned a transition repeatedly, but ultimately carried it out on his own terms and at his own leisure.
“At the same time, the reform also affects the future of those currently in power. Tokayev’s inner circle views the constitutional changes as an opportunity to secure their positions for the post-Tokayev era. The emergent power structure, in which the president and his appointees control the courts, law enforcement agencies, and electoral process, provides Tokayev’s circle with far more reliable guarantees than any informal agreement.
“These maneuvers attest to Tokayev’s personal evolution as a politician. Before coming to power, he was primarily a diplomat and technocrat. However, over the years of his presidency, Tokayev has developed his own vision of the state: it should be the chief arbiter of public life and prioritize stability over freedom. The new constitution cements this vision as part of Kazakhstan’s official ideology and a super-presidential system as President Tokayev’s political legacy.”
Satpayev, speaking to Azattyk, talks of how referendum day produced more scenes showing how the government, with no genuine democracy in play, often perceives the people “as just a crowd, spectators in play”.
Officials, he says, “are constantly trying to create an image of the president as an artificial superman, a peerless person”.
Yet, in the eyes of Beysembaev, the public certainly do not buy it. “The public,” he says, “reacted to the constitutional changes far more negatively than the presidential administration had likely anticipated. Predictably, the authorities are cracking down—in particular, by arresting activists and social media users who opposed the amendments and called for a boycott of the vote. Following the traumatic experience of [the ‘Bloody January’ unrest of] 2022, the regime prefers to extinguish potential hotbeds of discontent before they find the right kindling.”
No comments:
Post a Comment