KZBlog

Today Parliament held the second meeting to vote on Amendments to the Constitution. Although most of the amendments proposed today had been discussed earlier, there was one surprise amendment. Parliament today voted to allow the First President of Kazakhstan to run for reelection as many times as he choses to[RU]. The first President is, of course, Nursultan Abishevich Nazarbayev, whose current term will end in 2012. It’s not quite the same as electing him President-for-life as 1) he may chose not to run again and 2) he still has to be re-elected. However, the move will not sit well with those who criticize Kazakhstan for having an undemocratic government.

I also find it odd since the new reforms which give more to both Parliament and to political parties (and to political parties via Parliament!), seemed to me to be a way of resolving the succession crisis. Who will follow Nazarbayev in 2012 was a big question as there really is no other candidate who has the same popular support, the same standing in the various interest groups, and the experience to prove he can be an effective leader. Letting the power disseminate out into organizations like Nurotan and Parliament seemed like a way of guaranteeing stability and a viable candidate in the absence of a clear successor. Now it seems that the plan is to let Nazarbayev remain President. Or maybe they are just trying to sew up all sides of the issue.

EDIT: A couple of reactions on this:

A comparison to Turkmenbashiin the Kazakhstan LJ community

Registan.net is also on the ball, pointing out that it is not clear how this constitutes democratic reform and adding the tidbit I missed, that the President can now dissolve Parliament upon consultation with the Prime Minister and the Speakers of the Parliament. Also, the Senate will replace the Mazhilis if the Mazhilis are dismissed–and notes that the Senate is largely chosen by the President, directly and indirectly. I was under the impression that the President could dissolve Parliament anyway, but this change does present a challenge to the claim that the democratic reforms strengthen Parliament.

On this note, the new amendments say that the President will appoint the Prime Minister and the Ministers after consultation with Parliament. The phrase “in consultation with” appears all over the new amendments and is sufficiently vague that a lot will depend on how it is interpreted. My understanding was that currently Parliament must approve the President’s choice of Prime Minister, so their role is actually being weakened in that respect since surely “consulting” is weaker than ‘approving.” In all fairness, Parliament has never had a say in selection of Ministers.

More as it comes in.