by Pyotr Svoik
ALMATY, June 17
(Specially for THE GLOBE)
Despite the fact that Kazakhstan does not depend politically, financially and economically on Russia, as it did before, Kazakhstan is repeating the main events that occurred in Russia. Naturally, Kazakhstan does not repeat the concrete events, but all of the main trends determining these events. Kazakhstan repeats these trends earlier or later. One of the latest examples is the April announcement of Prime Minister Balgimbaev about the free-floating tenge�s rate. This announcement was not just similar to �the unexpected� act of Sergei Tereschenko, but was a copy without any obvious necessity of its theatrical-dramatic style.
Objectively speaking, even the truest patriot, if he does not wish to be a victim of his own illusions, has to perceive Kazakhstan�s secondary status as some historically predetermined objective factor. More than any other part of the former USSR, Kazakhstan was demographically and economically formed and civilised during the Soviet period. That is why Kazakhstan was a more tangible and cultural reflection of the Moscow metropolis than the other republics. Hence, after the break-up of the USSR, there is less potential required for construction of self-sufficient state system in Kazakhstan compared with the other national republics. That is why in the first years of independence, almost all of the activity of Kazakhstan�s authorities were Russian calques, but until the present time the borrowing elements are obvious.
However, as the single State was broken, the weakening of the Russian influence on Kazakhstan was predetermined.
Two main factors caused this process. The internal factor was as following: the former party functionaries began to redistribute the power and the property (it was an exclusively domestic affair, which demanded maximum national sovereignty, i.e. disintegration). To achieve this purpose, the divorce union � CIS was established. The external factor was that disintegration was (and still is) the main strategic aim of the USA, and all CIS countries were separately influenced by this State.
Due to the combination of these countries, Moscow of Gaidar-Shohin�s period demonstratively turned its back on the recent �younger brothers�, and this policy is still valid. Alma-Ata was simply unable to live separately due to intellectual-ideological reasons rather than tangible ones. That is why Kazakhstan�s President had more foreign advisors than any other CIS leader, among whom we may recall the American Korean Beng, the Frenchman Moskovich and (for a very short period) �Grigory Yavlinsky.
This quite sincere belief of the Kazakh President that foreign advisors can deal with the specifics of local reforms better than he and his Minister specialists seems to be so natural that this belief is not concealed. Just the opposite, the latter is used as the main argument of the rightness of their creation. So to impart the weight to the Program �2030�, it was specially emphasised that several tens (!) of big (?) foreign scientists took part in the working out of this program. The same situation was observed after the introduction of the free-floating tenge�s rate. Giving grounds for the rightness of this measure, the President announced that this decision had been prepared by several groups of foreign experts.
For the same reason, the Kazakhstani authorities chose one after another about ten States as a model for imitation. Among these states were very different states such as Korea and Germany, Indonesia and Singapore, or for example, the Arabian oil kingdoms.
However, the natural successor as external supervisor, as the lawmaker of economic and ideological fashion that was earlier occupied by Moscow, was the world�s monopolistic leader, the USA. It has become prestigious to teach children in this country, to export specimens of culture, world conception and life style from the USA (as it was before prestigious to do from Moscow).
That is why due to its insufficient historical tradition, economic and cultural basis, Kazakhstan has become the best pupil of USA. It is why Kazakhstan is the most hard-working follower among the CIS countries of the policy of the new Political Bureau announced by the World Bank. Consequently, Kazakhstan was the most �advanced� in the radical economic reforms, having outrun other ex-Soviet republics in privatisation and the sale of national resources and strategic enterprises to foreigners. It was Kazakhstan, who was the first to introduce the recommendations of the IMF and World Bank not to finance public-housing, to shift to paid healthcare and education, and to begin pension reform. In general, Kazakhstan is the most �non-social� and �dollarised� CIS country both in the direct and in the common cultural and ideological meaning.
However, the medal which USA could hand out to us for our successes at the market school, has a backside. Having received the possibility and necessity to create its own state system after the break of the USSR according to that civilised potential which was available for the local elite, Kazakhstan �stepped back� deeper into its history than other parts of the USSR. As in Kazakhstan, the Soviet past was preceded by the nomadic society. The internal political system of Kazakhstan restored some symbiosis of the nomenclature-clan and traditional tribal organisation of the authorities added to the respective modern experience of the private-family ownership of the State - characteristic to the regimes of Chaushesku, Marcos and Suharto.
Naturally, this system of authority is categorically incompatible with the freedom of press, election of authorities, independence of courts and other democratic values, that USA (maybe only verbally?) announce as more important than oil and their geopolitical interests. Accordingly, our supervisors recently found out with surprise and even some irritation that their pupil has not prepared his home-task not because of natural underdevelopment (as that would be forgivable), but quite consciously and not fearing the teacher. So, the ahead of schedule presidential election was declared and conducted with an almost demonstrative neglect of the official positions of US State Department and OSCE. The same open ignorance we can observe in the new election law, which is the litmus paper of the coming renewal of the Maslikhats and the Parliament.
Presently the USA does not know what to do with us. That is why, as the US has a lot of troubles regarding Yugoslavia and Russia, the situation in Kazakhstan is left to self-ripening: as a stale vegetable put on a windowsill until it ripens.
As far as the Russian influence on Kazakhstan is concerned, this influence being formally insignificant, it is still very deep in its essential meaning. Hence, the Russian influence is more determining than the US one. This fact is so obvious that it does not demand any detailed argumentation. It is sufficient to say that the next Parliamentary and Presidential elections in Russia are expected in Kazakhstan to be an extremely important event (namely for Kazakhstan). What will happen in Moscow?
However, for the time being �the Russian factor� is preserved by the both parties. By Russia � because this country has enough internal problems and there is no concrete policy in respect to the CIS countries. By Kazakhstan � because even such �raw� democracy as in Russia, is very dangerous for the Kazakhstan authoritarian system. If the Akims do not control the election commissions and are elected, the Presidential power will lose its immunity and repeat the experience of Yeltsin�s regime. That is why the political intimacy of Kazakhstan and Russia is out of the question. Without this process, the economic and cultural integration between these two countries about which people in Astana like to talk is just rumours.
Thus, for the time being, the two influencing countries, the USA and Russia have given Kazakhstan a historical break. It has happened that the interests of the USA and Russia that Kazakhstan will follow are temporarily parallel. Russia continues to remake its economy according to the Western standard, as well as to �westernise� its political system (to develop local self-governing and regional independence, parliamentary and multiparty systems). Kazakhstan is also constructing the market and � declaring its devotion to democracy. However, Kazakhstan in fact dethroned democracy in 1995.
For the time being, the two influencing countries agree with this situation. The Americans agree, as in exchange for President Nazarbaev�s words about democracy, they have his concrete deeds (the Kazakhstan economy was fixed to the US dollar, loyalty to NATO and absence of any real rapprochement with Russia). Russia has to agree, as this country temporarily does not have its own face.
It should be noted that President Nazarbaev�s announcements about democratisation are probably sincere, as he realises the impossibility of the long-term stability of the authoritarian system in modern Kazakhstan. It does not mean that the current regime �is doomed� to democratic transformation, and Kazakhstan � to stability.
Just the opposite. Under the conditions of a passive external factor, the situation in Kazakhstan is most probably �doomed� to degrade. That means that after the next elections, the dismissals of governments and Akims, the regime will be able to reproduce itself in the worse form. Along with the unavoidable worsening of the economic situation and fall of the standard of living, the migration of population and reduction of the total tangible and cultural potential of the country will go on. The authorities will become weaker, and the State will become more obsolete, requiring external support. The State will become obedient to the respective influence.
We already have an instrument of external influence on the domestic situation in Kazakhstan that is quite effective. For the time being, this influence is adjusted to �an idling� position, but can easily become working. This instrument is the mass media and competitive election. The regime will not only be able to use democracy as a decoration and will have to apply to it if the external partners refuse to accept words instead of deeds. After this, having its own local colour, Kazakhstan will repeat situation of the Russian recent shocks, including analogues of the Duma opposition to the President, Upper Chamber�s own opinion, the expulsion of �the fallen angels� (oligarchs), and scandals with General Prosecutor.
The external factor will unavoidably become active when the route of Yeltsin�s Russia will deviate from the US route at an angle of Russian interests (the interests of the Eurasian power). Then this factor will certainly touch Kazakhstan. The Kazakh government will be between the hammer and anvil of the different interests of the two influencing states. In addition, there will be increasing domestic problems. The compromise between these forces threatening to tear Kazakhstan is possible only in the field of free elections. USA will be seriously anxious about it, as soon they see the recommenced Russian influence on Kazakhstan.
That is why the events that can be interpreted as a sign of forming image of the post-Yeltsin Russia, are so important for Kazakhstan.
Having involved the united Europe into bombing Yugoslavia, the USA has repeated the Afghan mistake of the USSR. The USA has become deeply bogged down in this mistake and will be for a long time. It is a sin to say this against the background of the tragedy of the hundreds of thousands of innocent civil population, but due to the Balkans war, the USA �sobered� Russia from former illusions and �presented� the political and spiritual consolidation that is so necessary for Russia.
We should wait for the consequences of these events in Kazakhstan as well.
All Over the Globe is published by IPA House.
© 1998 IPA House. All Rights Reserved.