Many sources have said the reason for uncontroversial approval of the amendments last month was the extensive discussion that has already taken place, and the willingness of the working group to compromise. President Nursultan Nazarbaev presented the first governmental version Sept. 2, 2002, and established a working group, and for months there were three versions of suggested amendments—a governmental version, a version from the political party “Otan,” and a version from the political party “Auyl.” However, Otan withdrew its version in December, saying it was in agreement with the governmental version, and Auyl leader Gani Kalieva declared on the day of the vote that the majority of the party’s members supported the governmental draft as well, citing constructive dialogue with the government.

Kazakh news agencies reported active debates in the working group while it considered these versions, and some provisions are still controversial. The most controversial one concerns how the regional election commissions will be formed. The governmental draft originally allowed the akims, or mayors, to appoint the commissions, but the deputies compromised, and according to Kazakh news sources, the deputies will be appointed by the Maslikhats, or local legislative bodies. This will give a degree of greater independence to the regional election commissions.

Still, the debate on how to choose them is not over. Deputies are now debating the contradictory language in the code: Each commission should have seven members, the code stipulates, but the code also requires each commission to have a member from all parties participating in the election. There are nine registered parties in Kazakhstan, and although many will not be running in each region, in regions like Almaty or Astana, there is likely to be too few spots in the commissions for the parties. Deputies now debate how they will decide whom to refuse a spot on the commission, a controversial discussion.

Also controversial is the wording on observers. The current wording is a vast improvement over the original version, which forbade direct or indirect financing of sociologists, journalists, independent observers from Kazakhstan by international NGOs, foreign governments, and other foreign sources. This would have barred all local NGOs receiving foreign money from monitoring the election, but the OSCE, NGOs and other politicians worked to remedy this problematic wording. The current wording, according to the OSCE report, allows foreign-funded observers, but the government will not accredit them. The groups that send them, however, will be able to individually accredit the observers. Still, the Almaty-based political NGO Echo points to clauses in the code that would allow commissions to remove observers for infractions, which could be used improperly.

Regarding media, the law requires media outlets to publish paid information from any parties, regardless of the ownership of the media outlet. Opposition parties have claimed this is a positive development that gives them as much right to publish their opinions as pro-governmental parties. On the other hand, Echo claims it is negative because it can be used as a mechanism for shutting down media outlets, as it puts more restrictions on the media.

Despite these existing problems, most political observers say the new law is a vast improvement over the old one. OSCE’s official evaluation of the law claimed it was an improvement, and has also worked extensively with parliamentarians on the law. The head of the work group and member of the Mazhilis parliamentary house Zhazbek Abdiev said the new law would comply with international standards, and one of the stated purposes of the new law is to reduce governmental ability to meddle in elections. Nonetheless, Abdiev said the changes to the code did not mean that previous election results were “illegitimate.”

Not everyone is optimistic about the new law. Independent journalist Sergei Kozlov wrote in an article published online that he was pessimistic. “It is all being added together, it seems to me, to be used for the authorities, like always.” And the OSCE’s report noted that despite the improvements, the authorities still have enough mechanisms for controlling the elections if they choose to do so.