Randy Bregman
On April 3, I served on a team of eight independent observers, put together by the International Tax and Investment Center (ITIC), to monitor the Presidential elections in Kazakhstan. The team, which consisted of economic, academic and legal specialists in developing countries and, in particular, post-Soviet countries, was asked to examine how the process of democratization was unfolding in Kazakhstan by talking with political parties, civil society organizations and media agencies, visiting a number of polling stations and taking part in the vote count. We did not conduct a thorough, poll-by-poll study of compliance with election procedures as did the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Rather, we engaged in discussions with poll officials and voters at 65 polls in four cities to try to understand whether the election process was working fairly, in general, and to get an in-person sense of the thoughts and attitudes of the voters.
Our overall conclusion from the polls we observed was that the polling process was well-organized, that the officials and observers at each poll were well-trained and knowledgeable about the procedures and the laws and regulations, and were helpful to the voters. Further, we noted that the great majority of the citizenry was enthusiastic about voting and proud to be part of the democratic evolution in Kazakhstan.
Our overall conclusion from the polls we observed was that the polling process was well-organized, that the officials and observers at each poll were well-trained and knowledgeable about the procedures and the laws and regulations, and were helpful to the voters. Further, we noted that the great majority of the citizenry was enthusiastic about voting and proud to be part of the democratic evolution in Kazakhstan.
The purpose of this article is to describe my personal experiences. I have been active and engaged as a lawyer, participating in the Gorbachev reforms during the last days of the Soviet Union and in the development of a new legal regime in various post-Soviet jurisdictions. As the managing partner of a Western law office in Moscow in the early 1990s and a participant in a large number of business transactions in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, I had the opportunity to see not only the creation of new legal systems but also the creation of a middle class which takes part in civic and social activities not imagined during the days of the USSR. And as a member of the Board of the Eurasia Foundation, I have seen energetic citizens set up democratic institutions in localities throughout the region.
In my view, the Kazakhstan presidential election marks a step forward, not a step backward, in the evolution toward democracy. This view, I realize, is likely to be controversial and, in some ways, counter-intuitive. There was, in reality, only one real candidate, the incumbent President Nazarbayev. I am not commenting here on the cancelled referendum or the constitutionality of the early elections he set up, which, although criticized for opportunism, do not appear to have been irregular. Nor am I apologizing for the corruption in and the human rights violations of the Kazakhstani government that have marred and sidetracked a direct path to a free and open economy and society.
Rather, my purpose here is to look at this election as a potential turning point in Kazakhstan history and, as one of our team members stated, a dry run for real, competitive parliamentary elections in the near future.
First, I observed polling stations that worked. The long lines moved steadily. There appeared to be no coercion or fraud. The heads of the polling stations quickly intervened when there were questions of proper registration and resolved the issues in a professional manner consistent with the law. Voting secrecy was maintained.
Second, we arbitrarily selected one poll each to observe the counting. We were permitted to see each ballot as it was counted. And when we asked, pursuant to the election law, to be able to count the ballots ourselves, we were encouraged. In fact, at the poll where I counted, we found a one-vote discrepancy in their count and ours. They re-counted and determined that we were correct. They promptly called in the correction to the elections headquarters.
In my view, the Kazakhstan presidential election marks a step forward, not a step backward, in the evolution toward democracy. This view, I realize, is likely to be controversial and, in some ways, counter-intuitive. There was, in reality, only one real candidate, the incumbent President Nazarbayev. I am not commenting here on the cancelled referendum or the constitutionality of the early elections he set up, which, although criticized for opportunism, do not appear to have been irregular. Nor am I apologizing for the corruption in and the human rights violations of the Kazakhstani government that have marred and sidetracked a direct path to a free and open economy and society.
Rather, my purpose here is to look at this election as a potential turning point in Kazakhstan history and, as one of our team members stated, a dry run for real, competitive parliamentary elections in the near future.
First, I observed polling stations that worked. The long lines moved steadily. There appeared to be no coercion or fraud. The heads of the polling stations quickly intervened when there were questions of proper registration and resolved the issues in a professional manner consistent with the law. Voting secrecy was maintained.
Second, we arbitrarily selected one poll each to observe the counting. We were permitted to see each ballot as it was counted. And when we asked, pursuant to the election law, to be able to count the ballots ourselves, we were encouraged. In fact, at the poll where I counted, we found a one-vote discrepancy in their count and ours. They re-counted and determined that we were correct. They promptly called in the correction to the elections headquarters.
Third, and perhaps most encouraging, both the poll officials and the voters were excited about participating in this process. I asked many people how they felt about voting in what was essentially a one-person election. Several responded by asking if I, as an American, would have voted against George Washington.
To them, Nazarbayev is the founder of Kazakhstan. During the Soviet period, Kazakhstan was a poor republic used by the Soviet leadership to be the locus of dangerous weapons-development programs and experimental and risky economic experimentation such as the Virgin Lands program. When Nazarbayev became President in 1992 as the Soviet Union was collapsing, he effectively led a program of nation-building. With help of course from the fact that oil is plentiful in Kazakhstan and its area of the Caspian Sea, his administration organized the development of a modern economy and increased individual incomes significantly. He built in a very short period of time a new capital city at Astana, more centrally located than the previous capital, Almaty. He encouraged use of the Kazakh and English languages, alongside the Russian language. And his team promoted knowledge of and pride in a Kazakh history and culture, peaceful and ecologically sensitive.
Most frequently, the voters expressed support for Nazarbayev's leadership as a force for stability in a region fraught with violence and uncertainty. Compared to neighbors Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan society has little ethnic tension despite being home to comparatively large minorities. It has institutions which are step by step becoming transparent and stable. Compared with Belarus, the leadership maintains its power without resort as a matter of course to heavy-handed violence and repression. And it has managed to re-establish its Muslim heritage without the disruptions and threats of radical Islam. Looking at the dynamic political situation across the regions of Central Asia and Caucasus, the Middle East and North Africa, Kazakhstan does not seem on the verge of revolt by the victims of poorly-managed economies or by those alienated from the political process.
I asked older people how they compared this election to those during the Soviet period. In one way or another, each explained that voting in Soviet elections was required, was not considered a civil right but rather an administrative obligation. But, increasingly in modern Kazakhstan, each felt that he or she had not only the right to vote but also each voter had a responsibility for choosing its political leaders.
Again, to be clear, this election was not competitive. The outcome was known before the voting started; there was in reality only one candidate.
To them, Nazarbayev is the founder of Kazakhstan. During the Soviet period, Kazakhstan was a poor republic used by the Soviet leadership to be the locus of dangerous weapons-development programs and experimental and risky economic experimentation such as the Virgin Lands program. When Nazarbayev became President in 1992 as the Soviet Union was collapsing, he effectively led a program of nation-building. With help of course from the fact that oil is plentiful in Kazakhstan and its area of the Caspian Sea, his administration organized the development of a modern economy and increased individual incomes significantly. He built in a very short period of time a new capital city at Astana, more centrally located than the previous capital, Almaty. He encouraged use of the Kazakh and English languages, alongside the Russian language. And his team promoted knowledge of and pride in a Kazakh history and culture, peaceful and ecologically sensitive.
Most frequently, the voters expressed support for Nazarbayev's leadership as a force for stability in a region fraught with violence and uncertainty. Compared to neighbors Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan society has little ethnic tension despite being home to comparatively large minorities. It has institutions which are step by step becoming transparent and stable. Compared with Belarus, the leadership maintains its power without resort as a matter of course to heavy-handed violence and repression. And it has managed to re-establish its Muslim heritage without the disruptions and threats of radical Islam. Looking at the dynamic political situation across the regions of Central Asia and Caucasus, the Middle East and North Africa, Kazakhstan does not seem on the verge of revolt by the victims of poorly-managed economies or by those alienated from the political process.
I asked older people how they compared this election to those during the Soviet period. In one way or another, each explained that voting in Soviet elections was required, was not considered a civil right but rather an administrative obligation. But, increasingly in modern Kazakhstan, each felt that he or she had not only the right to vote but also each voter had a responsibility for choosing its political leaders.
Again, to be clear, this election was not competitive. The outcome was known before the voting started; there was in reality only one candidate.
Nevertheless, it is my opinion that the framework is being put in place for a free and fair election when a new parliament is scheduled to be voted on in 2012. And the citizens of Kazakhstan appear to play an active role in that process of choosing their future leaders. The President has expressed his strong desire to see a multi-party legislature. He has indicated that he wants his legacy not as a founder of an elite-based dynasty but rather as the founder of a political democracy with competition and political checks and balances.
All of this is, of course, just words for now. No one can guarantee that the President will be willing and able to keep to his word. But there is no doubt in my mind that the conditions for serious and real movement toward democracy exist. And that is a critical step forward in a country that matters.
All of this is, of course, just words for now. No one can guarantee that the President will be willing and able to keep to his word. But there is no doubt in my mind that the conditions for serious and real movement toward democracy exist. And that is a critical step forward in a country that matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment