BACKGROUND: Media laws were passed in 1991 and 1999, and the latter law was amended in 2001. The Constitution and each media law theoretically guarantee freedom of speech and expression and prohibit censorship, but lawyers, human rights organizations and press freedom/media groups cite a worsening trend for freedom of speech since the 1991 law. Oversight bodies and registration procedures have increased, and prohibitions of the “abuse of freedom,” as well as other limitations on press freedom, remain in the law. The most important areas of change in the draft law are in licensing/registration, accreditation, language, editorial board limitations and access to information. The “authorized body” mentioned repeatedly in the law is also contentious, as the draft gives it significant power without defining it. The “authorized body on mass media affairs” is defined as a “central executive body which fulfills state regulation of mass-media activity and information agencies of the Republic of Kazakhstan,” part of the Ministry of Information. Major contentious areas include registration, licensing, technical requirements, and language. The authorized body has increased control of registration, which is required for all media companies. Under the 1991 law, this was the Ministry of Justice’s responsibility, but the 1999 law and the draft law give the authorized body this authority. The 1991 and 1999 laws gave only courts and owners the ability to suspend publication or broadcast, but in the 2001 amendment to the 1999 law, the registering body was given power to revoke its decision to register a media body (outside the court). The draft law worsens the situation, giving the authorized body almost unlimited power for suspending or revoking registration (Article 8). Language detailing the licensing process is contradictory. Licensing is required for all electronic media, but the 1991 and 1999 laws do not specifically mention the licensing process. Licensing was governed by the 1995 presidential decree “On Licensing,” giving the Ministry of Transport and Communications, responsibility for granting licenses. The draft law contains several contradictions in defining the licensing body. Article 25 simultaneously gives licensing responsibilities to the authorized body and then to the Kazakh government, contradicting the aforementioned law on licensing, while Article 8(4) gives this responsibility to a commission for competitive licensing. Section 26 is contradictory on who can suspend licenses, at once granting this ability to both the authorized body and to the courts. The draft law (Article 22) includes restrictions on technical equipments radio and TV broadcasters must use, which will create a monopoly on antennas for the company KazTeleRadio, an Internews analysis wrote. The 1991 law’s Article 3 states that media programming and publications can be produced in the state language and in other languages. The 1999 law (Article 3) requires the state language, Kazakh, to receive equal broadcasting volume as other languages. The draft law requires that Kazakh-language programming be “evenly distributed.” In addition, the draft law, like the 1999 law, does not prohibit monopolies or obstruction of professional journalistic activity. The 1991 law forbade not only monopolies (Article 7) but also the obstruction of professional journalistic activity, punishable by law (Article 39).

IMPLICATIONS: The negative implications of the draft law far outnumber the positive, as the draft law retains most of the negative introductions of the 1999 law and introduces other problematic rules. The general reliance on the authorized body is extremely problematic, as the body is not independent. The draft law is significantly worse, giving the authorized body the power to suspend or terminate broadcasting and publication, whereas this right was only given to courts earlier. Although a stated purpose of the new law is to simplify the registration process, this process has become more confusing, especially for electronic media. Electronic media, according to the draft law, will be going to the same authorized body two separate times: once for registration and another time for licensing. Internews Kazakhstan’s lawyer Sergei Vlasenko said the more times the media returns to this authorized body, the more the body has the opportunity to restrict the media. The authorized body’s has total control of all elements of opening and closing media via licensing and registration. The draft law continues the trend of decreasing editorial independence. Article 9 of the draft law prohibits foreigners and stateless people from being editors of a media body. Journalists and lawyers claim this provision is directed at the editorial staff of the Respublika organization’s newspaper. The newspaper’s editor is Russian citizen Irina Petrushova, currently living in Russia. The newspaper, now published under the name Assandi Times, has been shut down three times and was the subject of several attacks last year. But, according to the two organizations’ joint statement, the draft law will no longer include other articles governing media owners and founders. Earlier the law gave the owner full access to documents of the editorial staff; it is unclear if this will remain in the law. The provisions on languages and retransmitting are financially problematic for smaller TV and radio stations. Both ultimately require stations to increase original programming, which is expensive. Furthermore, original programming is generally of lower quality than Russian programming, so it receives lower ratings and consequently brings less money from advertising. The article on languages does not give a time period during which programming should be uniformly distributed; this period could be 24 hours or over a week. Furthermore, technical restrictions will create a monopolistic environment and make broadcasting more expensive. The draft law lacks a clear-cut range of sanctions and a mention of whether there will be registration fees. Sanctions should be detailed, beginning with light punishments and ending with limits on fines for moral compensation. Appeals procedures also require further detail in the law. One improvement is that only courts can revoke individual journalists’ accreditation, whereas this was in the authorized body’s power in the 1999 law. Still, accreditation is not required to work as a journalist.

CONCLUSIONS: There is no concrete information on what changes will be made to the final draft before it is considered formally in Parliament. The draft currently under consideration is the outcome of months of negotiations with media, and the Ministry of Information claims it has accepted most changes journalists suggested. However, journalist groups have claimed the ministry only accepted those changes which were inconsequential to the regulatory purpose of the law. Other groups worry that more restrictive clauses will be added to the law later, when it is considered by Parliament. Vlasenko said, “This law is bad, but the government can do much worse.”