Tokayev sets the date for constitutional referendum that promises to hail a new era for Kazakhstan

President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev of Kazakhstan announced Thursday (5 May) that on 5 June, a constitutional referendum will take place. The referendum will ask voters to approve an overhauled constitution that the government say will launch Kazakhstan’s Second Republic.

Kazakhstan is still reeling from the January unrest that led to numerous deaths and substantial numbers of protestors in jail. To quell any possibility of more riots and protests, President Tokayev stated on 29 April that the government would devise a new constitution that would bring about a “new format of interaction between the state and society.” The referendum itself, the government says, is an example of that commitment. “Changing the constitution by means of a popular vote will be a clear demonstration of the will of the people. The referendum will allow every citizen to take a direct part in deciding the fate of the country.”

The constitution of Kazakhstan, adopted in 1995, had seen light modifications and tinkering until 2017 when changes were made to make the President more accountable to the legislature. Nevertheless, the then President, Nursultan Nazarbayev, retained veto power over new laws.

Under the new constitution, proposals focus on reducing the power of the President. The President will not be allowed to be a member of a political party and their family members can not become “political civil servants”. Furthermore, the number of senators the President chooses will be reduced from 15 to 10. Currently, the Senate has 49 members.

Proposals also look to the Majlis, the lower house of Parliament. Its 98 members will be elected through a mixed electoral system so that only a few will be elected through a proportional representation system, which is currently the case for all members.

Those who work as judges, or for the Central Electoral Commission, the state auditing committee, the military, or law enforcement agencies, will not be permitted to be members of any political party. Moreover, citizens will now be allowed to directly file petitions to a proposed Constitutional Court to test any new legislation’s compliance with the fundamental law of the country.

In what is seen as a reversal, Nazarbayev will lose his status in the constitution with certain privileges that were awarded being removed. He, nor his family, will no longer be immune from prosecution. Criticizing the former President will also no longer be an offence.

However, the changes are seen by some as not being far-reaching enough. Direct local elections will still not exist, the President will retain the power to choose local governors. The Secretary of State, Yerlan Karin, was criticized for elitism, writing on Telegram on 27 April that “It is possible that it will be very complicated for the non-specialist to navigate through such a large number of amendments.”

Despite criticism, the reforms are supported by local think tanks. Director of the Nur-Sultan-based Eurasian Integration Institute, Urazgali Selteyev, said “We will get an influential parliament and a generally balanced system of checks and balances between government institutions that will become more effective.”

To modernize Kazakhstan, Tokayev will need to implement deep-rooted reforms to institute substantial reforms, in practice and not merely in a declaratory fashion as was the habit with his predecessor. The constitutional changes are seen as a good start, but can certainly not be the end of the story if the promise of a new Kazakhstan is to be delivered.

Sources: CommonSpace.eu with Eurasianet (New York), RFE/RL (Washington D.C), and other media agencies
Picture: President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev (Akorda)

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Finland’s decision to buy one million landmines creates a serious contradiction in the policy of the European Union, and is symbolic of a bigger dilemma facing European countries as they get used to the need to acquire “hard” power to face an increasing threat from Russia. Finland is seeking to acquire one million anti-personnel mines at a cost of 100 million euros. Finland, together with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia last year abandoned the Ottawa agreement, the international framework that bans the use of anti-personnel mines, which the EU had been instrumental in establishing and supporting. All five countries cite the threat from Moscow as the reason. Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finland’s national news agency STT that officials are now gathering information from suppliers regarding the deal, the AFP news agency reports. Helsinki would like domestic manufacturers to supply the mines, with contracts signed by the end of 2027 and production up and running by 2028. “It would be useful in many ways if Finnish companies produced the anti-personnel mines in Finland,” Mikkonen said. About half a dozen Finnish firms qualify, he told STT. “However, at this stage, buying the mines from abroad is not totally ruled out,” he added. LANDMINES PROVIDE THE EU WITH BOTH A CONTRADICTION, AND A DILEMMA Eliminating landmine contamination worldwide is one of the EU’s main soft power postures, and it basks in its record as the biggest funder of anti-landmine action in the world. But the fact that 5 of its 27 member states  have now left the Ottawa Treaty dents the EU moral high ground. It is a contradiction that is too big and important to be ignored. It also presents the European Union with a deeper dilemma. The threat from Russia is changing what the EU has stood for decades, namely a force for good able to mobilise its considerable soft power for the greater good of humanity. How the Union will implement this change will define its future. In the meantime landmines have not become any less lethal, benign, or unimportant. They remain in many parts of the world a major threat to life, an impediment to prosperity, and a potential trigger to further conflict. The 22 EU members states that still adhere to the Ottawa treaty must regroup, and be more assertive in their quest against anti-personnel land mines. All the reasons why they supported the Ottawa treaty in the first place still exist. The message must be clear: NO TO LANDMINES!
Editor's choice
News
Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Armenia should sign and ratify a peace treaty with Azerbaijan before 2031, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. He described the objective as the top priority for his administration. Earlier, the Armenian prime minister also spoke about a possible land-swap with Azerbaijan Armenia and Azerbaijan should agree to establish a clear, conventional border without enclaves or exclaves, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. Armenia controls three Azeri enclaves inside its borders while Baku controls one Armenian enclave – those could be subject to a land swap, Pashinyan announced.

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)