• Forum

The count is taken for seconds
The role of OSCE and nation-wide dialog
Sergei Duvanov

On June 2, the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, met with representatives of political parties, press, and NGOs. The very meeting was not something out of the ordinary, meetings of that kind have become usual enough for Kazakhstan's public. But its form is rather symbolic. To a certain extent it signals the attitude of this organization to democratic processes in Kazakhstan. It was envisaged that most prominent representatives of Kazakh political contra-elite would be allowed to speak, unbelievably, as much as 120 seconds. Fortunately, our opposition did not have to take this exam in the ability to speak fast since Ms. Ferrero-Waldner could not spare even those seconds for the opposition. So, members of Kazakh opposition had to go away without even being heard.

It is well known that the amount of time we are willing to spend on a person is in direct ration to our respect for him/her. Not the two minutes are humiliating. (Two minutes can suffice for politicians and journalists to make public what they feel important). It is the very procedure and the excuse of being pressed for time that is humiliating: sorry, I've got no time to speak with you. Moreover, the underlying idea is that we know everything about you, that's why speak very briefly.

Everyone understands that OSCE is a governmental organization, and Ms. Ferrero-Waldner came to see the president and his team to discuss the OSCE problems. Very well, nobody objects. But where does the opposition, press and non-governmental organizations come in? Who needed that performance with the invitation of opposition, which eventually was not given time at all? What was the purpose of the meeting on the run with the leading journalists if only some of them were allowed to speak, and those who spoke were not to exceed those two minutes.

Taking into account that OSCE has got the most complete information on the events that take place in Kazakhstan, it looks like this performance was needed just to report back. Could it serve to emphasize the neutrality of the visit, and at the same time to demonstrate the commitment to democracy?

It should be mentioned that two years ago such a meeting could really be regarded as true concern of the OSCE over the state of democracy in Kazakhstan. Today, the attitude to the role of OSCE in Kazakhstan is changing. It becomes more and more obvious that OSCE goes in for double dealing.

I believe that the image of a prim nanny looking after a naughty child suits best the OSCE and president Nazarbayev. The nanny, certainly in the interests of the child, is telling the frolic favorite off, comforting those who suffer from his mischief, saying that the child will grow up a little and become an example to follow. But the nanny does not venture to punish him in the fear that the disobedient child would run away from the kindergarten altogether. On the whole, everything is quite logical. The task is not to expel the elfin, but to use the opportunity to influence him.

We in Kazakhstan are aware of that, we are concerned over another problem. Why at all pretend being friends with democrats, if in fact the OSCE currently cooperates not with them but with the authority? Kazakhs are no fools. Everybody has already realized that the basic problem of the OSCE is not help the Kazakhstani democratic public to promote democracy, but to push the authority in the person of the president towards this democracy. Feel a methodological difference: the democracy from the bottom - or from the top. The goals appear to be the same, but the practical approaches differ. Like with quinsy: one can try to treat it by way of operation on a throat while it's possible to try to get to it from the… In my opinion, OSCE has chosen not the best way.

In recent years, the political realities in Kazakhstan have proved that the efforts of OSCE, USA and others, interested in Kazakhstani democratization, bear no fruit. On the contrary, we see the reverse process. Despite all the efforts of the kind nanny, the admonitions are wasted on the pupil and he continues to do what he pleases.

The idea of the West that democracy can be introduced in Kazakhstan from the top, through Nazarbayev's re-orientation is anything but right. The example of Kirghizia shows that even in the country where president was consistent enough in his moving to democracy, the situation develops in the way hardly advantageous for democracy.

Despite all best democratic intentions the absence of real political pluralism, establishment of the authoritarian pyramid of power somehow result in concentration of power in one hands. Even if a democratically-minded politician is at the top of this pyramid, it does not guarantee any democracy. The monopoly of power and democracy are incompatible.

The efforts of the OSCE in Kazakhstan are seen as just an attempt to democratize the pyramid of political monopoly on power. It lacks perspective from the point of view of reality: the pyramids of power are formed not to share authority with anybody. But it is realistic from the point of view of preserving the regime of personal power in a soft form, which will not result in direct dictatorship. That is, if the political pyramid established by president Nazarbayev is dressed in democratic clothes, say, in the form of "independent" press, various bogus political parties, freely operating NGOs, and the assurances are got from the president and his encirclement that no repressive actions will be taken against the dissent, such an “educated authoritarianism” will apparently make the OSCE, USA and other western democrats happy.

Basically, Nazarbayev should find this acceptable too.

The only problem is that various compromises are regarded by the president as concessions to political opponents and he agrees to them very reluctantly. Even the consent to democratic scenery to cover the authoritarian essence of Kazakh political system intended for the West was literally squeezed out from Nazarbayev. The latest example is the idea of a nation-wide dialogue, the initiative of Kazakh opposition. From the point of view of those at the top the idea is absolutely absurd. Why those who have concentrated unlimited power in their hands would start discussing the issues of national political system with anyone? This is a "sacred cow" that only the press, but even the parliament and government are not allowed to bring up, and the hated opposition has ventured to propose such a thing. It's evident that this idea was opposed in Astana at first. Then the OSCE and the US State Department had to interfere. They arrived to explain that there is no need to be afraid of the national dialogue, on the contrary it would improve the democratic image of Kazakhstan. There is only the problem how to conduct it. And it's the problem of technologies applied. Like it was during the elections, like it was during the campaign against the independent media. The president administration realized that the dialog idea is not so terrible indeed. There are lots of ways to nicely transform this significant event in absolutely insignificant. And the most correct way here is to turn the dialog with opposition into a "friendly get-together", that is to gather all (pro-governmental) parties and public organizations like Otan and the Kazakhstan Peoples Association. They are known for their loyalty to the power. It is clear that the dissent, embodied by opposition parties, will be rebuffed. The government and akims will certainly be criticized but it has become a good tradition already and nobody will be surprised. But the president will got its traditional "approval".

All this will be recorded by the OSCE representatives, who will be present at the show. As a result the resolution will be adopted, and president Nazarbayev will be called on to further promote the national consolidation and interethnic accord in Kazakhstan. The scheme is so well-developed, that anyone hardly doubts the outcome.

The authority will agree to the dialogue, but it will be staged to the power's advantage. It will be done to please the West and at the same time to demonstrate oppositions "who is the master".

OSCE and democrats of the West will also agree to such a national dialogue. On the face of it everything will be okay: the power will be on the one side and public organizations, including opposition - on the other. The event can be presented as the next step towards democracy.

The opposition as the initiator of this dialogue will be deceived and humiliated for yet another time.

Which is most sad is that the opposition won't stick to its point again and insist on conducting the national dialogue in accordance with the original formula: opposition vs. authority. The leaders of opposition, most likely, will accept any terms proposed by the authority in order to show off again.

The authority realizes this. I won't be surprised if this time they will be given not 120 but 60 seconds to speak. Is there anything to do when the count is for seconds?

What is the role of the OSCE here? There are two points of view. The first is based on a positive attitude to the activity of this organization. The fact that Kazakhstan is a member of the OSCE forces the authorities to more seriously take the issues of human rights, freedom of speech, and political pluralism in Kazakhstan.

According to the other point of view, the OSCE helps Nazarbayev save appearances in the unfair democratic game. Nazarbayev is just using OSCE as a screen, behind which he has already created an authoritarian state and continues to gradually tighten his grip on power. On the other hand, all OSCE recommendations that refer to fundamental principles of Kazakh political system are ignored, accepted are only those that add a seemingly democratic entourage. This means that OSCE objectively promotes the creation of a democratic form of president Nazarbayev's personal power, and strengthen it.

Received via e-mail, 20 June 2000