Elections against the backdrop of “REORIENTATION”

Kazakhstan is looking for its own recipe for modernization

When in 1998, the famous sociologist and economist Andre Gunder Frank came up with the treatise ReORIENT (“REORIENTATION”), which suggested the historically transitory nature of the geo-economic hegemony of the West and that until the 19th century, eastern countries dominated global trade and economic development , especially India and China, his ideas, if they aroused interest, were moderate, and only on the left spectrum of the academic community. However, the publication in 2005 of the open report of the US National Intelligence Council, “Contours of the World’s Future,” which had considerable resonance, forced wide expert circles to talk about global “REORIENTATION.”

Without a doubt, the predicted restoration of former eastern greatness is a trend that should not be exaggerated, much less idealized. However, the trend that has emerged since the last third of the twentieth century towards the formation of dynamic centers of economic growth in the Asian region (first in Japan and the “four dragons” of Southeast Asia - Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea) indisputably indicates one thing: Western countries are no longer have a universal recipe for modernization. The successful formation of the “spirit of capitalism,” as it turned out, does not at all require sanctification from the “Protestant ethic.”

Among Asian countries, a very successful example of the development of modernization processes is demonstrated primarily by Kazakhstan. In terms of the success of economic liberalization, this eastern country, which at the same time belongs to the European political space through the mechanisms of the OSCE and other structures, is ahead of most post-Soviet states. According to influential representatives of business circles with whom I have recently met, in a number of areas the management decisions of the Kazakh leadership may well be used as guidelines for Ukraine and Russia. As Yuri Solozobov, a Russian expert on Central Asia, believes, “today Kazakhstan is one step ahead of Russia and a number of other CIS countries in terms of the pace of economic and political reforms.”

During 2000-2006, the GDP growth rate in Kazakhstan remained at 10.3%. Real GDP in 2006 reached $77.9 billion. Per capita GDP in 1995 was $1052, in 2005 - $3620, in 2006 - $5120. Since independence, Kazakhstan has attracted more than 60 billion dollars of foreign direct investment (in 2001 - 2.7 billion, in 2005 - 6.4 billion, in 2006 - 9.6 billion dollars). In the coming years, assets and loans are expected to triple in the banking sector, which is demonstrating exceptional dynamism. At the same time, Kazakhstan is pursuing increasingly ambitious plans , combining economic liberalization with government regulation, especially in the processing sector. According to the “Strategy for the Republic of Kazakhstan to join the 50 most competitive countries in the world,” a decision was made to create powerful social and entrepreneurial corporations designed to accumulate a significant part of state assets, including land resources and communal property; a large-scale capital amnesty was announced; The Samruk megaholding was formed, controlling state stakes in enterprises of various forms of ownership.

Skeptics link the success of the local economic development model to the fact that Kazakhstan has exceptional reserves of valuable raw materials. Indeed, this country is one of the world leaders in reserves of oil, gas, chromium, tungsten, copper, bauxite, lead, tin, uranium, zinc, bismuth and many other elements. But still, the economic growth achieved should largely be associated with rational, thoughtful government management on the part of Nursultan Nazarbayev’s team, rather than simply with the presence of rich sources of raw materials. After all, world experience is replete with examples where significant raw material reserves in themselves are by no means the key to the successful economic development of a particular country.

The dynamic economic growth demonstrated by Kazakhstan has recently been observed against the backdrop of a reorientation of the political system. On February 19, the final recommendations of the special government commission on democratization were released. The main idea of ​​political reform is the desire to combine the ideas of democracy and strong government. On May 22, Nazarbayev signed amendments to the constitution approved by legislators, thus opening the way to changes in the political system.

On the one hand, the parliamentary majority, and thus the political parties, received significant influence on the formation of the cabinet of ministers, as well as the right to fill two-thirds of the Constitutional Council and the Central Election Commission. It was also decided to elect 98 out of 107 deputies of the lower house of parliament (Mazhilis) from party lists. The right to nominate the remaining nine deputies is reserved for the Assembly of Peoples of Kazakhstan, an advisory body representing the interests of national and cultural groups in this multinational country. On the other hand, the current head of state was given the opportunity to run for the presidency beyond two terms and retained wide opportunities to dissolve parliament.

In general, the reform apparently aims to strengthen the mechanisms of democratic competition and generally intensify the political system, while at the same time preventing the possibility of destabilizing the situation and maintaining control over its development by the head of state. According to preliminary estimates, 64% of voters took part in the August 18 elections. The preliminary voting results are as follows: Nur Otan - 88.05%, NSDP - 4.63%, Ak Zhol - 3.27%. At the same time, only Nur Otan has overcome the restrictive barrier and will be represented in parliament.

In a press release from the joint observation mission (OSCE and PACE structures), pointing out a number of procedural flaws in the electoral process, it is noted that the parliamentary elections “demonstrated progress worthy of praise.” According to the statement of the head of the PACE delegation, David Wilchard, “building democracy is a long and difficult task. However, the people of Kazakhstan are showing real progress.” Based on such assessments, it follows that the violations were not systemic in nature and are not something extraordinary in the OSCE area of ​​responsibility on the European continent. Many observers are characterized by the emphasis that the past elections represent a noticeable step forward in comparison with the previous ones.

Although there is discontent among opposition parties, there have been no acts of civil disobedience or escalation of tensions since the vote. The elections themselves took place in a calm atmosphere and demonstrated a fairly high level of voter activity and their loyalty to their political system. This is quite natural: Kazakhstanis have something to lose and they do not expect to exchange the achieved economic growth and the opportunities that open up in this regard for the unpredictable prospect of fierce internal political strife. No doubt, the strictly one-party nature of the new legislature may offend many observers. The high restrictive barrier (7%) played a role in this regard. However, in any case, there is confidence that recent political changes are aimed at motivating parties for real political participation. And most likely, this movement will continue.

Mikhail POGREBINSKY, director of the Kyiv Center for Political Research and Conflictology