12 elephants of Kazakh democracy
Democracy is not for Kazakhstan
The Globe, 10 May 2001
Kazakhstan’s economics is composed of monopolistic manufacturing
entities: in the year 2000, 12 major enterprises of Kazakhstan produced 52% of all
commercial production; whereas 9 oil companies produced 41%. The latter’s share soared
more than twice from 1998 (18.9%) to 2000. The launching of CPC and large-scale production
of oil in Tengiz would evidently add more oil flavor to Kazakhstan’s industrial pie.
The monopolistic character of Kazakh economics dates from the Soviet
times. 10 years of independence just fixed this tendency.
Of course, this is presupposed by a number of objective factors,
primarily by the following:
- Kazakhstan’s vast expanses with low average density of population and extremely
unevenly populated territories;
- considerable remoteness of main consumer centers from major transport communication
systems;
- at last, extremely tough time trouble after the collapse of the USSR.
This is axiomatic that economy predetermines the character of political
structure of the country. From this point of view, it is interesting to consider the
results of a recent poll of experts conducted in Almaty and Astana by the group EZH-ZH
(Ezhenova/the Zhusupovs, father and son). The poll (published in Panorama) concerned
comparative party structuring in Kazakhstan and Russia.
The authors associate the idea of the poll with the recent events in
Russia, i. e. the amalgamation of Russian two leading pro-presidential parties Edinstvo
and Otechestvo with the congress of Otan in Kazakhstan. At that, the authors formulate
long-term substantiation: "In fact, the rules of nomination of candidates to the
presidency are being elaborated. The party will, at last, acquire the necessary
flexibility".
It is interesting to note that theoreticians consider that,
theoretically, a multi-party system is good.
So, the overwhelming majority of experts in Almaty (from 85% to 95%)
and the qualified majority in Astana (from 65% to 75) think that multi-party system:
- makes it possible to give voice to the interests of different social strata;
- creates prerequisites for competitiveness and for creation of competitive medium for
elaboration of optimal decisions;
- insures control over distribution and consumption of resources (the core issue of
socialism!) and so on and on.
In theory, everything is OK, and the poll has clearly demonstrated
this: the experts are well acquainted with the advantages of the multi-party system. But
as soon as it comes to practice, the matter looks rather different…
Only 8,3% of experts believe that political parties in Kazakhstan are
the weighty elements of the political system. Compare: the similar evaluation for the
situation in Russia was 86.1% in Astana and Almaty. A dramatic difference!
The qualified majority of experts (75% in Astana and 62.5% in Almaty)
consider that "in 2-3 years the party of the power will occupy the main foreground
positions". Here is the conclusion of EZH: "The party Otan, which has claimed
its right to exist as the party of the middle class, cannot represent the ideas of the
majority of the population, as even in Russia the middle class composes around 20% of the
population. As for Kazakhstan, the percentage is nearly the same here".
And here we would like to afford not to agree with the conclusions of
EZH. But at first, here is one more scandalous response of the experts (it is the key
point!). Only insignificant 2.8% of experts in Astana (possibly, this figure corresponds
just to 1 or 2 experts, practically zero) considered that in 2-3 years "a two-party
system would be created in the Republic of Kazakhstan, and in the framework of this system
the power and the opposition would share considerable authority".
Yes, we agree with the Astana experts. We even assert that Kazakhstan
will never – not now or in 2-3 or more years – have the two-party political system
with Otan claiming to represent the opinions of the middle class.
But let us come back to the starting point of our reasoning.
Kazakhstan’s economics has a monopolistic character; and it predetermines the politics.
Democracy is not needed to be in command of 12 enterprises. Democracy
begins to work if only much more than 12 participants are involved in the economic field.
And what is most important they should compete with each other. These players need clear
rules of the game. If they are numerous and cannot come to terms with the authorities,
then democracy and strict observance of the rules can be of help.
In this regard, democracy – in the fundamental sense of the word –
is not for Kazakhstan.
The Globe, 10 May 2001 |