Silence of the lambs The idiocy of the situation, when everyone acts as if nothing happens is really amazing. The president has personal accounts with the public funds on them. And he does not deny that! He explained this fact to Swiss Prosecutor's Office, how can it be, in a simple way: he deposited this money to save it for the benefit of the country. The Swiss Prosecutor's Office, unlike its Kazakh counterpart, is reluctant to believe this. Although hardly any comments are needed here at all. State money has been discovered on the account of a governmental official, president Nazarbayev. There is no need, I gather, to explain, how this should be called. Moreover, the president instructed the prime minister to publicly explain that some time ago he had stashed $1 bln without letting know the parliament. They explained that it was done for noble purposes and helped to solve state problems. Even if it is true, it changes very little. The president of the country violated the law. His position prevents him from opening an account of that kind without the authorization from the parliament. Consequently, he violated the law. There is no need to explain how such offenders are called either. The maxim that success is never blamed and "victors are not judged" is not applicable here. Victors are judged. Just remember Akezhan Kazhegeldin, who had pulled the country out of crisis and was sentenced to 10 years of jail. We will not comment on the fairness of Kazhegeldin's trial now. We will just keep in mind an important fact that the prime minister, who had been given the country's highest award for his services to the country, was named a criminal. But why we find it possible to judge some victors and can't judge others? It's trivial, but all are equal before the law. If so, the question arise as to the president's responsibility both for personal accounts in Swiss banks and the notorious "secret billion". Moreover, even it was not a president's decision to open the account and the accounts in Swiss banks belonged not to him, but his subordinates, even in this case full responsibility will lies with the president as the guarantor of Constitution. There is a presidential republic in Kazakhstan, which means that the person who runs the show assumes full responsibility. There is no use arguing that our president is responsible for nothing. The constitutional norm saying that the president is not responsible for anything looks like a big joke to make fun of the first president who trusts this norm (after he resigns). What's the matter, dear ideologists — regime defenders? Where is your eloquence, which has helped praise the authorities' successes, achievements, and services to the nation unabashed? Do use it to explain why the law keeps silence and why the prosecutor's office, court, national security and parliament do not care a straw about law violations? How could it happen, that all these governmental bodies keep silence and act as if nothing has happened? All these questions are rhetorical. Me, you and the majority of Kazakh citizens know about the true reasons for the "silence of the lambs". It is fear. Fear, which has become a foundation for the political system built by Nazarbayev. A personality cult and a cult of fear are bound to emerge in the country where everything depends on the will of one person and where there are no political alternatives or an opportunity to appeal to other branches of power. All this are copybook maxims. Unfortunately, Kazakh citizens have to deal with these maxims themselves. We all are afraid to tell the truth. I can't call the things by their right names either. I have to hide the truth behind a veil of words too. The law, which has transformed into a knobstick in the hands of the authorities. This knobstick is dropped down onto the head of everyone, who dares to tell the truth. In this respect, I can understand those, who revert their eyes and say: "You know, old man, might is right, you cannot chop wood with a penknife. And I've got a family and kids…" But it's a different story, when others keep telling with glassy eyes that the president does not have any accounts abroad and all this is nothing but opposition's allegations, which has itself opened multimillion accounts in the president's name just to tarnish his reputation. They deserve special attention. In this case, they are even not advocates. They are the accomplices, who assist in hiding the truth. They do it with zeal. They are not the silent lambs who hear the lie and do nothing due to the lack of stamina. They are assistants to herdsman. They are team members and will bear not just moral responsibility, but a legal one as well. When? It is not so important in our case. It can happen tomorrow or in a couple of years. What is important, it will take place anyway and everyone will get what is coming to him. History proves that. It teaches that even most well-hidden secrets are disclosed and those responsible go to trial. The most recent examples are Pinochet, Fuhimori and Milosevic. But they are the "herdsmen". We can only guess, how many "assistants" have to pay for their masters' faults in the shadow. Can judges, rendering unfair verdicts to opposition members and disloyal journalists, hope to excuse themselves by saying: "I am a dependent person. I did what I was ordered to do"? I doubt this. I think they will have to accept the full responsibility under the existing law. And what about the Central Election Commission (CEC)? Can it be true that Ms. Balieva hopes no one would ever ask her how "fair" were the parliamentary and presidential elections hold by akims (heads of regional administrations) and other "assistants" under her supervision? She will be asked this question for sure. And I do not rule out a possibility that not only journalists, but also investigators will ask her questions about this. And what about the present and former MPs, who have rewritten the Constitution "to suit Nazarbayev" and have adopted antidemocratic laws? Do they hope to get away with it? All their activities will remain in history as an example of zoological subservience to the president. In the memory of future generations they will remain as "reptiles" - a special breed of politicians inhabiting the parliament during president Nazarbayev's rule. Certainly, we are talking about a moral responsibility, but they will hardly feel more comfortable because of that. Can journalists, openly working for the authorities, believe their efforts to defend Nazarbayev's regime will be forgotten? Hardly so. It's impossible to forget. It will stay with you for the rest of your life. Someone will not offer them a hand. Someone, in order to avoid a scandal, will reluctantly shake hands with them to afterwards wash the hands with soap. Someone will say I am fueling antagonism. That there are no barricades in our society and we are all in one boat. The only difference is that each of us work for his/her own master: some people work for Nazarbayev, others work for Kazhegeldin, a third party – for Ablyazov and Zhakiyanov. Let suzerains fight with each other. We are just their servants, why should we be at loggerheads with each other. We get paid for our work. The slavery psychology of this kind is very popular among journalists, political scientists and various public figures. Those with no views of their own, let alone political preferences, often resort to it. Their credo is to work for those, who pay. All other things like professional ethics, civil position or commitment to ideals are just abstract notions for them. This would be of little importance, if those in the "ideology business" were just making money while remaining loyal to the authorities and fawning over them. Some of them, on the contrary, seek to excuse themselves in the eyes of public opinion and turn into aggressive apologists of the regime. They believe all others are made on their model and accuse those who oppose their client (in our case, the president) of corruption. They say there is no significant difference between their activities and the activities of their colleagues from the camp of political opposition to Nazarbayev. They allege that the entire opposition is no more than Kazhegeldin's intrigues who seeks the top government position. In which case, according to their version, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other; there is no difference between Nazarbayev or Kazhegeldin. Which means we all do the same: some help a person to come to power, others defend the persons already in power. The problem is presented as a simple conflict of interest among leaders who seek more power. They do not consider the political element of the process. They completely disregard the differences in the political platforms of the rival leaders. With equal success one could try to pass the Bolshevik October revolution in Russia as a result of a conflict between Lenin and the tzar. These people fail to see that despite all Kazhegeldin's power ambitions, he has placed himself in opposition to Nazarbayev, declared his commitment to democratic principles, and built a democracy-oriented team, which turns him into a totally DIFFERENT person. He is unable just to replace Nazarbayev. Even reluctantly, he would have to meet his commitments, which will be a step towards a new democratic Kazakhstan. Moreover, even if Kazhegeldin wanted to become a second Nazarbayev, he would be unable to do this. He would encounter significant obstacles on this path. The first obstacle will be his democratic associates, committed to democracy. The second obstacle will prove the pro-Nazarbayev opposition, which, thanks to a democratic nature of the new power, would retain its parties, newspapers and influence over a part of Kazakh society. And, finally, the third obstacle will be the Kazakh people who, after a democratic transfer of power, will shrug off their passivity, as they will believe that rulers can be changed by way of free and fair elections. The history shows that one and the same process may not be repeated in politics. The situation would change, and the people would change too. It won't be possible to repeat the Nazarbayev phenomenon in a changed country. The people, who would come to power thanks to their criticism of the authoritarianism, would have to bring more democracy to Kazakhstan. Perhaps, it will differ from what they promise today, but the situation regarding democracy will clearly change for the better. It's time to realize: arguments that those who seek power will hardly differ from those currently in power is no more than a ruling regime's propaganda trick designed to influence public opinion. In our case, the shift of political elites is one of the most important tasks from the point of view of changing the country's political system. They have to be changed anyway as soon as possible. New people, critical of the Nazarbayev-built system, will come to power, which would allow (al least temporarily) to destroy the Kazakh corruption pyramid, eliminate the key corrupt figures and cut the flow of funds siphoned off from the Kazakh coffers. There is certainly a danger that those who will come to power will try to abuse their office for personal corrupt purposes. However, one should keep in mind that there will be created a system of separation of powers, independent judiciary and press, which will pose a significant obstacle to corruption. It will be dangerous to steal any longer, which, of course, won't root out the corruption altogether, but will put an end to pervasive corruption and will make it a risky business. Nobody will be able then to stash $1 bln "for a rainy day" or put public funds on personal bank accounts. This will happen because there will be no fear anymore, and people will turn into citizens concerned about their country, not just humble lambs. http://www.kub.kz/portal/article.php?sid=1140
IEI, July 12, 2002 |
