IMPLICATIONS: The main short-term implication of the election is the further consolidation of Nazarbayev’s power. Public unrest is at this point not a threat to the ruling elite, and the opposition has specifically chosen not to seek to generate unrest. What the ruling elite is vulnerable to, however, is charges of mismanagement of public office, especially cases involving high-level corruption such as the Giffin case, a corruption case involving an American oil consultant accused of bribing Kazak officials. Such corruption cases can have a detrimental effect on the popularity of the newly re-elected president. The further consolidation of Nazarbayev’s power poses a challenge to future improvements of the rule of law and democratic governance in the country. The key question for the next several months is whether the President will choose to devolve some political power to the parliament, as in Ukraine, or whether the Russian model of further centralization is applied. Interestingly, Nazarbayev and his two main contenders all support the idea of having regional governors elected instead of appointed. For Nazarbayev, it will be a real challenge to move beyond patronage and co-optation of political opponents as a method of ruling. There are broadly speaking two alternatives for Kazakhstan. One is to promote loyalty to an inclusive and democratic state, which is the path of civic democracy. The other is to go along a more nationalistic and exclusive line, which might in its worst form lead to ethnocracy. The latter would further estrange the large Russian minority in Kazakhstan. If a more inclusive form of governance was introduced it would give the people a higher stake in the state and therefore create loyalty to the state. This may sound abstract and lofty, but in Kazakhstan these issues have a tangible relevance. Even though Kazakhstan has enjoyed rapid economic growth and substantial poverty reduction for the last years, social tensions might nevertheless emerge as a threat to the political stability of the country. If the government chooses to speed up public sector reform and indiscriminately deliver along the lines of its promises, it would effectively disarm the opposition. The opposition might still regroup and formulate new critiques, but absent social discontent, it would have a hard time succeeding.
CONCLUSIONS: The presidential election in Kazakhstan offered both encouraging and discouraging signals. The positive developments of the election day set the standard for future elections in Kazakhstan, something that Nazarbayev’s daughter Dariga, considered to be the next in line for the post, must be aware of. The country unquestionably faces huge challenges in its lengthy and cumbersome transition to more democratic forms of government. In the short term stability prevails, but the underlying societal tensions stand the risk of acquiring a more revolutionary character if the re-elected president proves unable to deliver according to his election promises. The president is clearly popular, but nevertheless not immune to charges of misuse of public office. Combating corruption and ensuring more transparency in the work of the government is a challenge to the current leadership, given the widespread nature of patronage. A discouraging element of the last election was the restrictions on the right of assembly and the harassment of opposition media. In the near future, Nazarbayev has a golden opportunity to take the allegations of election irregularities seriously and to make sure that the judicial system solves the disputes in an impartial and timely manner. This is a test of his sincerety in moving beyond electoral authoritarianism. This is a process that will be closely followed by the international community.
AUTHOR’S BIO: Fredrik M. Sjöberg is a junior fellow at the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and Silk Road Studies Program, Joint Transatlantic Research and Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University-SAIS and Uppsala University, Sweden. He holds a BA in International Relations from Stockholm University and an MA in Development Studies from Uppsala University. He took part as an election observer for the OSCE to Kazakhstan during the presidential elections in December 2005.