The article studies some peculiarities of the development of legislative body in Kazakhstan from the historical and institutional perspective. Most exactly, this paper examines three Parliaments of Kazakhstan elected during 1995-2007. The author analysed activities of the legislatures of Kazakhstan both separately and in comparison with each other. Particular attention is paid to the relationship of Parliament with other branches of government.
The most exciting challenge for comparative political studies has been a collapse of socialist regimes all over East Central Europe and the former Soviet Union countries. These transformations brought to the world a number of new countries with new forms of political institutions. Most of the theories in democratization and legislative studies based on Western countries, Latin America and Southern Europe had to be revised. The post-communist and post-Soviet democratization and transitional processes ought to be studied as a new phenomenon. It has produced a number of students in political science all over the world who are interested in new democracies and its institutional changes.
In this vein, our paper seeks to contribute to the research of parliamentary development of post-Soviet Kazakhstan under its new Constitution of 1995. It examines three parliamentary convocations (1995-1999, 1999- 2004, 2004-2007) in terms of institutional development, as well as electoral system and party composition. Author believes that by focusing to some particular external environment and internal organization of parliaments we may conclude about the relative strength and activity of legislatures, compared both to each other and to the other political institutions within a system. Consequently, this paper exclusively deals with the formation and development of the legislature in post-Soviet Kazakhstan since the adoption of new Constitution and up to 2007 in order to shed some light on institutional changes happened at that period of Kazakhstan’s political life.
The First Convocation of the New Two-Chamber KazakhParliament / Third Post-Soviet Parliament of Kazakhstan (1995-1999)
The political situation of Kazakhstan in 1995 was unstable and unclear. It happened due to the constitutional and governmental stalemate, which occurred after the dismissal of parliament in March 1995. It was obvious that the 1993 constitution could not provide stable relationship between branches of power. Moreover, the principle of separation of powers in Kazakhstan did not work properly out. During the absence of the Parliament in 1995 NursultanNazarbayev managed to adopt a new constitution by the referendum, and consequently, enacted new set of laws, including a new electoral law. According to this new constitution in Kazakhstan was created a two- chamber parliament consisting of the upper house, the Senate and the lower house, the Majilis. This constitution also stated that the Parliament is ‘the highest representative body’ of the republic performing legislative functions on the permanent bases. It was first time when the notion of “Parliament” appeared in the constitution of Kazakhstan. Today, in Kazakhstan we have the bulk of scholars who regard NursultanNazarbayev as a sole architect of both the constitution and the parliamentarism institution, because this constitution was introduced by him and during the absence of Parliament [1].
The new constitution introduced a purely presidential form of government, “which vested unrestricted powers in the President and severely curtailed the powers of Parliament” [2, p. 102]. It marked the end of debates about an adoption of either parliamentary or presidential system in post-Soviet Kazakhstan. According to Cummings the parliament was deprived of the Audit Chamber and of the right to appoint the Prosecutor General, thus lost all its levers of influence on the presidential office in 1995 [3, p. 55]. From that time it was clear that the institution of parliamentarism would be evolving under the strong presidential system of government. However, this constitution and its provisions about the creation of bicameral parliament have been substantial for the institutionalization and consolidation of parliamentarism in Kazakhstan. During the discussion of the draft of constitution the former communist elites, still prevailing in power, managed to retain the majoritarian electoral system. It meant that ‘mushroomed’ political parties and movements still could not directly compete for the seats in the Parliament. The majoritarian electoral system was detrimental for the party development in post-Soviet Kazakhstan. Parties were marginalized, thus “suspended between the old system and the new without specific functions to perform in political life” [4, p. 34]. Without an electoral system of proportional representation, which was adopted by the most post-communist countries in East Central Europe, it was impossible for political parties to influence decision-making and the development of genuine parliamentarism in Kazakhstan.
The national elections in the new bicameral Parliament were held in December 1995 under the new electoral rules. It was the first convocation of the new two-chamber Kazakhstani parliament. According to the constitution and new electoral law the formation of the Senate and the Majilis differed substantially in terms of mode of designation, and the number of seats. The upper house, the Senate was elected indirectly by the majoritarian voting system, where 40 senators elected by the Maslikhats (local representative bodies) in 19 regions and the capital, which together represented 20 multi-member constituencies, by 2 seats in each constituency and 7 senators were directly appointed by the President. So taken together the Senate consisted of 47 senators elected for the 4 year terms, while the 7 remain for entire term of the Senate, half of the remaining 40 are re-elected every two years. The lower house, the Majilis, featured 67 members elected directly in single-member constituencies for four years on the basis of the majoritarian electoral system [5, p. 44].
The number of seats in Parliament was decreased again from 177 deputies in 1994 elections to 114 seats. Although the majoritarian electoral system was preserved, the parliament was represented by some parties and factions. The first convocation of Parliament elected in 1995 saw 24 deputies from Presidents’ Party of People’s Unity (PPU, renamed UPU), 12 from the upstart and nominally opposition Democratic Party (DP), 21 from various trade unions and youth organizations loyal to the President, 2 from the new Communist Party of Kazakhstan and rest were taken by the independent candidates [5, p. 45].
To the Majilis only 23 deputies (34%) were elected from parties, and remaining 44 deputies (66%) were elected as independents [6].However, if we take all Parliament, including the Senate and the Majilis, there were more deputies represented by political parties and public organizations than independents, namely 59 (52%) versus 55 (48%) independent deputies. The Communist Party of Kazakhstan (CPK) managed to regain the slight percentage of electorate in comparison to elections in 1994, though was able to win only 2 seats in the Parliament, whereas, the President’s PPU acquired less steady position in legislature than in 1994 elections, where it won 33 seats, and only 24 seats in current elections.
The third post-Soviet parliament of Kazakhstan was elected under new constitution, more or less without Soviet orientation, though still staffed by the old establishment. Nevertheless, this convocation started to frame contemporary parliament’s role in the country and shaped its path of development. Most parliamentarians supported a strong presidency and believed that it is the only way during the democratic transition to “get things done and enact efficient economic reforms” [4, p. 37].However, this situation did not contribute to the development of the multi-partism and strong, institutionalized parliamentarism. Even if political parties and movements were represented in the parliament, they could not participate in the elections directly. The structure of the Parliament did not change until 1999, when national elections were held under the slightly changed electoral rules, which was an outcome of constitutional amendments passed by the Parliament in 1998.
The Second Convocation of Parliament / Fourth Post-Soviet Parliament of Kazakhstan (1999-2004) The parliamentary elections to both the Senate and the Majilis were held under the new rules in September 1999 and October 1999 respectively. According to constitutional amendments in October 1998 the terms of office of the Majilis and the Senate were increased from four to five and five to six years respectively [7, p. 198]. Most significant change for the development of parliamentarism and party system was that first time in the history of Kazakhstan 10 additional seats in the Majilis were elected by the party list system. As a result, these elections were more contested by political parties. In the election of Parliament had participated 10 political parties [8]. All together the size of the Majilis was increased from 67 to 77 seats; where 67 members was elected by the same mode as in 1995 elections, namely, on the basis of majoritarian electoral system to single member constituencies and 10 members by the proportional representation system in one nationwide constituency, with a high 7% threshold in place [5, p. 46]. According to Bowyer, “the small number of seats and application of the 7% threshold for participation in the allocation formula, considered relatively high in comparison with standard thresholds used in more established democracies, limited the number of parties that would benefit” [5, p. 46]. I support his idea and think that high threshold was detrimental for minor political parties, considering the facts that political parties were not popular and strong enough yet, and that the post-Soviet Kazakhstan inherited weak party system where people used to and continue to associate politics more with charismatic leadership and less with ideas. As a result of the elections to the Majilis via party list only four parties out of ten were able to overcome 7 per cent barrier, including the newly-minted presidential OTAN (Fatherland) party (30.89%, 4 seats), the CPK (17.75%, 2 seats), the Agrarian Party (AP, 12.63%, 2 seats) and the Civic Party (CP, 11.23%, 2 seats). During the elections to the Majilis 34 deputies (45%) out of 77 were registered as independents [9]. Nevertheless, taken together with the single mandate elections, the progovernment parties received 55 per cent of the vote and managed to secure 80 per cent of the seats in the Majilis[10, p. 123].
In the Majilis of second convocation throughout its term were created 5 party factions, including the party OTAN (28 deputies), Republican Party of Kazakhstan ‘ASAR’ (‘All Together’)(2 deputies), the party AUYL (‘Village’, 9 deputies), the AP and the CP (28 deputies) and 10 deputies served as independents without entering to any party factions [11].
For the Senate the same electoral system was at place, where 7 senators directly appointed by the President and the remaining senators elected indirectly by the deputies of Maslikhats. The number of senators slightly changed in comparison to 1995 elections, due to the fact that in 1997 according to administrative-territorial reforms 5 out of 19 oblasts (region) were abolished and two cities, a new capital Astana and the former capital Almaty, were given a special status. Thus, from that time the Senate was elected in 16 multi-member constituencies instead of 20, two senators from each.
All in all, the second convocation of Parliament or fourth post-Soviet legislature of Kazakhstan functioned under the strong presidency and with limited leverages of power. It was limited to the law-making processes. However, the introduction of party list system stirred political parties and movements up. The parliamentarians of this convocations and also political elites and movements not represented in the Parliament started to discuss about increasing the number of deputies elected by the party list or making all Parliament elected by the proportional representation system. In my opinion the Parliament had implicitly concerned with issues, such as how to increase the power of the legislature in Kazakhstan, because it slowly and surely started to become subservient to the President, “rubber stamp” institution. However, we must admit that this Parliament was more institutionalized, staffed with more professional deputies, and more or less influenced decision-making processes in comparison to its predecessors.
The Third Convocation of Parliament / Fifth Post-Soviet Parliament of Kazakhstan (2004-2007)
The authority of the third convocation of Parliament started when the first joint sessionof the Senate and Majilis was opened on November 4, 2004 [13].
The national elections to the Majilis were held in September 2004. The mode of designation and the electoral system did not change from the time of last elections. It again featured 77 seats, 10 elected via party list and 67 elected in the single member constituencies. For the electoral competition were registered 12 political parties, where 4 parties out of 12 coalesced into 2 party blocks. As a result of elections, just like happened in last elections, only 4 parties managed to pass the 7 per cent threshold, including presidential OTAN party (60.61%, 7 seats), the opposition party AK ZHOL (12.04%, 1 seat), party ASAR (11.38%, 1 seat), and the AIST Bloc (a coalition of the Agrarian and Civic parties, 7.07%, 1 seat) [5, p. 47]. In the single mandate elections seats were taken as following: OTAN – 35 seats, the AIST Bloc – 11 seats, the ASAR party – 3 seats, the DP – 1 seat, and 18 deputies (23%) were independents [15].
Though right after the elections in the Majilis were formed two parliamentary factions, including the party OTAN and the AIST bloc, in the end of the term it ended up with only one party faction,which was a “party of power” OTAN with 67 deputies [15].It happened due to the fact that the Agrarian and Civic parties, which together composed the AIST bloc, merged with the party OTAN in late 2006. Thus, the OTAN again managed to have the plurality of seats in the Parliament. Nevertheless, there were also formed 8 deputy groups, such as “Labor” (Еңбек), “Village” (Ауыл), “Family” (Отбасы), “Region” (Аймақ), “Friendship” (Достық), “In Support of Asiad 2011 in Almaty”, “Development” (Даму), and “Truth” (Ақиқат) [15].
The only real oppositional candidate, elected via party list from AK ZHOL party, declined to take up his seat, stating that this was in protest at the conduct of the elections [5, p. 48]. As a result we got the Parliament without any formal opposition, and plurality of seats was taken by the presidential party OTAN and other pro-presidential parties. This convocation of the Parliament was remarkable with the high percentage of deputies from political parties and movements. For instance, in the Majilis only 23% independent deputies were represented, whereas as it was mentioned above 1995 and 1999 elections saw 34% and 45% independents respectively. It means that political parties more and more got to be involved in political life of the country. However, in Bowyer’s words “yet the results were once again far from satisfactory to the opposition” [5, p. 48].
The constitutional amendments enacted in 2007 had to be the turning point for the development of contemporary parliamentarism and party system in Kazakhstan. The reforms were directed towards substantial extensions of the legislature’s powers while retaining the presidential system. Most significantly, according to the amended Election Law, which was the result of these constitutional changes and parliamentary reforms, the mixed electoral system of the Majilis was changed to a pure proportional representation system. The numbers of deputies in both chambers were also increased. If before the Majilis consisted of 77 deputies, now the number of deputies was increased to 107. According to the new electoral system 98 deputies out of 107 are elected via party list with 7% threshold at place in one nationwide constituency and 9 are elected by the Assembly of the People of Kazakhstan [5, p. 48]. The Assembly of the People of Kazakhstan was created in 1995 and meant to be an ‘umbrella grouping’ of more than 130 ethnic groups in Kazakhstan. ‘According to the constitution, the Assembly of the People of Kazakhstan has the role of providing representation of Kazakhstan’s various ethnic groups in social and political life’ [16].
In the Senate the numbers of senators appointed by the President were increased from 7 to 15. For the remaining 32 senators the electoral system remained unchanged, where senators elected indirectly by deputies of local representative bodies from 16 regions (two from each, half elected every three years). The statutory number of senators was increased from 39 to 47. In general, the total number of deputies in the Parliament was increased for 38 seats and consisted of 154 deputies, whereas before it was only 116.
By the introduction of the proportional representation system it was expected ‘to strengthen the role of the political parties on the process of parliamentary elections and in the work of the Parliament in general’. However, without new elections to the Parliament these reforms could not have changed anything in the functioning of the Parliament. The term of the third convocation of Parliament elected in 2004 should have been finished only in 2009. The parliamentarians of this convocation were kind of inspired by the parliamentary reforms of 2007 and were eager to see the functioning of legislature under new rules. Therefore, the group of deputies appealed to the Constitutional Council asking whether the Parliament has rights to self-dissolution or not, in order to make new elections under new rules. The Constitutional Council had hold that only the way to dissolve the Majilis before the ending of its term it is by the special degree of the President after his consultations with the Prime Minister and both Speakers of chambers. Then the parliamentarians addressed to the President with the same quest of dissolution. Accordingly, on June 20, 2007, the President prematurely dissolved the lower house of Parliament and called early Majilis elections for August 18 [5, p. 48].
To sum up, the third convocation of the Parliament of Kazakhstan proved to be even more unanimous and homogenous in terms of both party affiliations and political orientations. On the one hand, this kind of solidarity contributed to the political stability and smooth political reforms; on the other hand, homogeneity of the Parliament impacted the lack of competitiveness and hampered the development of party factions and deputy groups within Parliament and the development of party system per se.
As we have seen, the Parliament has in fact a broad range of powers and certainly can serve as a check on executive, but only if it will use the entire range of its constitutional legal tools, which is never properly happened and in fact quiet difficult to do so with “one-dominant-party” system. In other words, though Parliament has gained some powers and highly capable of influencing the politics in the country, it still remains somehow shadowed by the strong presidential system in Kazakhstan.
- Нəубəт {алиев, {азаyстан Парламентаризмі: Саяси Талдау. Докторлыy диссертация. –Алматы, 2005. 2 Bhavna Dave. Kazakhstan. Ethnicity, language and power. – Routledge, New York, 2007.
- Sally Cummings. Kazakhstan: power and the elite. – London, 2005.
- Sarah Whitmore.State-building in The Ukrainian parliament, 1990-2003. -RoutledgeCurzon, London and New York, 2004.
- 5Anthony Clive Bowyer.Parliament and Political Parties in Kazakhstan.published by the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and the Silk Road Studies Program, the USA, 2008.
- http://www.ipu.org/parline-e/reports/arc/2165_95.htm
- LeventGönen®.Prospects for Constitutionalism in Post-Communist – Law in Eastern Europe, Vol. 50.MartinusNijhoff Publishers, Hague, 2002.
- http://www.parlam.kz/ru/mazhilis/history
- http://www.ipu.org/parline-e/reports/arc/2165_99.htm
- Martha Brill Olcott. Kazakhstan: unfulfilled promise? – Revisited edition, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington,
- Данияр Ашимбаев. Новый Мажилис: штрихи к портрету. Available at: http://www.kazbio.info/?S=36
- Данияр Ашимбаев. Маленькие Нюансы Отечественных Выборов. Available at: http://www.kazbio.info/?S=136 13 http://www.parlam.kz/ru/senate/history
- http://www.ipu.org/parline-e/reports/arc/2165_04.htm
- http://www.centrasia.ru/cnt2.php?st=1183056695
- Marat Sarsembayev.Parliamentary reform in the Republic of Kazakhstan. – In InstitutfürFriedensforschung und Sicherheitspolitik Hamburg (IFSH) (ed.) OSCE Yearbook 2007, Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 115–124.