KZBlog

When in the course of human events, a nation suffers hardships and prospers and one group of people prospers beyond the limits of all predictions, they get odd ideas. Many accuse the Bush administration of trying to use political and material capital to remake the fundamental core of the United States government. Now in Kazakhstan, the Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, Raxat Aliyev, who is also the son-in-law of the President, has proposed that Kazakhstan become a Constitutional Monarchy

Printed about 2 weeks ago in Karavan, the newspaper apparently run by his wife, Aliev puts forth the argument that there is something inherently contradictory in the name: the Republic of Kazakhstan. He does not develop this very deeply, depending on his audience to understand that Kazakhstan does not have any kind of history of being a republic, that to be a –stan (as he puts it), is not compatible with being a republic. Presumably he is thinking about past arrangements like the Khans and the Sultanates and Emirs, that ruled relatively autocratically over the tribes occupying the lands of Kazakhstan.

Aliev then states that the choice to become a Republic after the fall of the Soviet Union was never really discussed or consciously made. It was the fashion of the times to be a republic, all the other former Soviet countries were doing it, you know how it is. Or so it seemed. However, he claims that Lenin and Kalinin (another founding father of the USSR) created the Kazakh-Kyrgyz Soviet Socialist Republic, which later became the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic. Why should this Leninist decision remain, Aliyev asks?

He then asks the reader to look at the track record of republics, referring to, but not describing in any detail, the bloody French Revolution, Pol Pot’s Kampuchea (pointing out that Pol Pot went to the Sorbonne!), the Chinese People’s Republic, and Latin America.

He reminds us that republic does not mean democracy, though many people associate the two, missing his chance to define both terms so we understand what he is basing his arguments on. He then lays into republics, that they are not guarantees of stability, growth or freedom from corruption. In fact, the most stable and free countries—though his arguments about freedom quickly drop away and he emphasizes stability more and more—are the European constitutional monarchies.

That is the basis of his argument, amidst a facile argument that Kazakhs are tribal and take care of each other, which is why you never see poor Kazakhs.

Unfortunately it’s a weak argument: First, nowhere does he define his terms. It is not at all clear what he means by ‘republic’. On the one hand, he appears to think it has some kind of meaning, since it is incompatible with Kazakhstan. On the other hand, , he now seems to be happy to believe that anything that is called a republic IS a republic. Even Communist countries where no kind of voting of any kind occurs. He also nowhere refers to the United States, presumably because the name of the country does not contain the word ‘republic’ anywhere. If he is arguing simply that Kazakhstan take the word ‘Republic’ out of its name, this is not a serious change and I see no reason why it can’t be given a vote in the Parliament. If, on the other hand, he sees some serious structural problems in the government of the country, perhaps he should outline them besides that the country is not yet 100% safe from corruption or instability (as no country in the world is).

He also seems to miss the fact that most European constitutional monarchies hold onto the monarch only because of tradition—a tradition that may exist in Kazakhstan, but has been interrupted beyond the point of rectification. European monarchs are very weak. Usually they wave and smile and fund charities and the Parliaments and Prime Ministers get on with the real work. Also, he seems to ignore the hundreds and hundreds of years of wars, negotiations and revolutions that the people have endured in order to win freedom from oppressive kings. No one, I don’t think, has ever established a constitutional monarchy. Monarchs have been dragged screaming and kicking to the limiting framework of a constitution.

We might add that he also ignores unstable and unfree monarchies like those in the Middle East. But then a lot of those aren’t CALLED monarchies. In fact, surely the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with its history of tribalism, would be a better comparison. And that monarchy came into place by violent revolution, complicity with the right-wing Wahhabists, and is currently suffering from a series of decript Princes, throwing the possibility of peaceful succession into serious doubt.

Secondly, the article lacks any kind of serious analysis of Kazakhstani history, which incidentally has traditions of representative. Finally, it lacks any kind of practical plan. Does he plan to enshrine the President as King, and his own wife then as future queen, as many people are saying though I doubt he would be quite so obvious about any power grabbing? Shall we dig through genealogies to find the rightful heir to Chingis Khan, or Sultan Zhanybek, or whoever we decide has the most right to be King of Kazakhstan, a territory that has never existed as one nation before in history, meaning the entire population has never been held in thrall by one person since Chingis Khan?

Also, I believe many poor Kazakhs would be thrilled to learn that they are not poor, due to their being Kazakhs.

It seems impossible to believe that this article is to be taken seriously. In the introduction, Aliyev himself says his main objective is to start a public discussion on the shape of the nation and society. The interesting question then is, why did he publish this? What idea is he trying to promote?

Two theories abound: Maybe he really does think Nazarbayev will be made king and his wife queen after that. Highly unlikely, but he is being mocked mercilessly for this ambition.

The second theory is that it is a test of some kind. Perhaps readers are responding to Aliyev that Kazakhstan should return to traditional values, that Westernization has gone to far, that they are tired of reforms in the name of the OBCE. Youngsters are looking for meaning in their lives, and old people want to go back to the golden age of the steppes. Look for Aliyev at the head of a traditional, Kazakhstani party in the near future???