Post-Soviet Kazakhstan marked a major milestone this weekend, when two new parties were voted into the lower house of Parliament, breaking the pro-presidential party's virtual legislative monopoly. Yet given the political leanings of these parties, as well as alleged electoral irregularities, the move raises suspicion that the vote was all for show. Observers warned not to expect much change from the notoriously and longtime authoritarian Central Asian state.
The January 15 poll saw the election of the pro-business Ak Zhol Party and the Communist Peoples' Party, both of which secured around seven percent of the vote, in addition to the pro-presidential Nur Otan Party, which won a landslide of about 80 percent. The election was hailed by the government as a turning point for Kazakhstan, as it broke Nur Otan's near complete grip on the 107-seat legislature since 2007, it has held 98 seats while the rest was occupied by independent lawmakers and seemed to suggest, as part of a bigger picture, that the days of President Nursultan Nazarbayev's unchecked rule are coming to an end.
The vote stemmed from a recent law, drafted by Nur Otan itself, to transform the Majilis into a multiparty legislature and end the pro-presidential party's domination of the body. Adding to the suspicious generosity, it also stipulates that any second-place party regardless of the seven percent threshold would win seats. Before the elections, Nazarbayev pledged that at least two other parties would make it into Parliament.
And sure enough, Sunday's vote yielded victory for the two promised non-presidential parties. Officials, meanwhile, touted the move as a crucial moment of progress for Kazakhstan. "You will see, over the next three years, very slow, very gradual liberalization," Roman Vassilenko, the spokesman for Kazakhstan's Foreign Ministry, told The New York Times on January 14. "The key reason is the president himself sees the need for a more balanced political system."
But after the polls closed, others begged to differ. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe found that the vote had been marred by irregularities and "did not meet fundamental principles of democratic elections," according to a press statement released on January 16. Election observers also expressed disappointment with the lack of genuine opposition parties allowed to participate. Critics agreed. Bulat Abilov, the leader of the opposition National Social Democratic Party (OSDP), claimed the vote was heavily rigged. "We should not have held these elections at all," RIA Novosti reported him as saying. "Once again, they were marred by black PR against our party, as well as by agenda-driven public polls."
Indeed, many parties were reportedly barred from standing in the elections. What's more, only one of the seven parties allowed to compete was a genuine opposition party (Abilov's OSDP); the rest are seen as loyalists, to varying degrees, of Nazarbayev's. Experts noted that rather than offering a real opening in the political system, the regime simply sought to cast a democratic veneer over a long-existing authoritarian system. "The authorities would never let a real opposition party into Parliament," Kazakh political expert Dosym Satpayev told Kommersant FM after the vote. "Ak Zhol is absolutely loyal to the president. It's a sort of 'second leg' for him in Parliament."
Kazakhstan has long fit the model of an authoritarian Central Asian regime. Just as in neighboring Uzbekistan (and, until a few years ago, Turkmenistan), the current president is a holdover of the Soviet elite, having served as ruler since the Soviet collapse. Throughout independence, Nazarbayev has carefully crafted a soft authoritarian system, in which, as in Russia, the oil economy and a steadily growing middle class is given priority ahead of individual rights and open political expression. Critics allege that Parliament, meanwhile, serves largely as a rubber stamp body to help realize Nazarbayev's political writ.
And a key part of an authoritarian system is its legitimacy. For this reason, experts argued that the most crucial factor at play in the parliamentary elections was the 75-percent voter turnout, which helps craft an image of Nazarbayev as a deserving leader. "These elections are, of course, important," Russian foreign affairs analyst Pavel Felgenhauer told Al Jazeera. "For the regime the most important thing is the turnout, actually, not the result. Because a large turnout gives legitimacy to the authoritarian regime, and that's of paramount political importance."
Post-Soviet Kazakhstan marked a major milestone this weekend, when two new parties were voted into the lower house of Parliament, breaking the pro-presidential party's virtual legislative monopoly. Yet given the political leanings of these parties, as well as alleged electoral irregularities, the move raises suspicion that the vote was all for show. Observers warned not to expect much change from the notoriously and longtime authoritarian Central Asian state.
The January 15 poll saw the election of the pro-business Ak Zhol Party and the Communist Peoples' Party, both of which secured around seven percent of the vote, in addition to the pro-presidential Nur Otan Party, which won a landslide of about 80 percent. The election was hailed by the government as a turning point for Kazakhstan, as it broke Nur Otan's near complete grip on the 107-seat legislature since 2007, it has held 98 seats while the rest was occupied by independent lawmakers and seemed to suggest, as part of a bigger picture, that the days of President Nursultan Nazarbayev's unchecked rule are coming to an end.
The vote stemmed from a recent law, drafted by Nur Otan itself, to transform the Majilis into a multiparty legislature and end the pro-presidential party's domination of the body. Adding to the suspicious generosity, it also stipulates that any second-place party regardless of the seven percent threshold would win seats. Before the elections, Nazarbayev pledged that at least two other parties would make it into Parliament.
And sure enough, Sunday's vote yielded victory for the two promised non-presidential parties. Officials, meanwhile, touted the move as a crucial moment of progress for Kazakhstan. "You will see, over the next three years, very slow, very gradual liberalization," Roman Vassilenko, the spokesman for Kazakhstan's Foreign Ministry, told The New York Times on January 14. "The key reason is the president himself sees the need for a more balanced political system."
But after the polls closed, others begged to differ. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe found that the vote had been marred by irregularities and "did not meet fundamental principles of democratic elections," according to a press statement released on January 16. Election observers also expressed disappointment with the lack of genuine opposition parties allowed to participate. Critics agreed. Bulat Abilov, the leader of the opposition National Social Democratic Party (OSDP), claimed the vote was heavily rigged. "We should not have held these elections at all," RIA Novosti reported him as saying. "Once again, they were marred by black PR against our party, as well as by agenda-driven public polls."
Indeed, many parties were reportedly barred from standing in the elections. What's more, only one of the seven parties allowed to compete was a genuine opposition party (Abilov's OSDP); the rest are seen as loyalists, to varying degrees, of Nazarbayev's. Experts noted that rather than offering a real opening in the political system, the regime simply sought to cast a democratic veneer over a long-existing authoritarian system. "The authorities would never let a real opposition party into Parliament," Kazakh political expert Dosym Satpayev told Kommersant FM after the vote. "Ak Zhol is absolutely loyal to the president. It's a sort of 'second leg' for him in Parliament."
Kazakhstan has long fit the model of an authoritarian Central Asian regime. Just as in neighboring Uzbekistan (and, until a few years ago, Turkmenistan), the current president is a holdover of the Soviet elite, having served as ruler since the Soviet collapse. Throughout independence, Nazarbayev has carefully crafted a soft authoritarian system, in which, as in Russia, the oil economy and a steadily growing middle class is given priority ahead of individual rights and open political expression. Critics allege that Parliament, meanwhile, serves largely as a rubber stamp body to help realize Nazarbayev's political writ.
And a key part of an authoritarian system is its legitimacy. For this reason, experts argued that the most crucial factor at play in the parliamentary elections was the 75-percent voter turnout, which helps craft an image of Nazarbayev as a deserving leader. "These elections are, of course, important," Russian foreign affairs analyst Pavel Felgenhauer told Al Jazeera. "For the regime the most important thing is the turnout, actually, not the result. Because a large turnout gives legitimacy to the authoritarian regime, and that's of paramount political importance."