Big business and high-level politics in Kazakhstan: An everlasting symbiosis?

analysis

Big business and high-level politics in Kazakhstan: An everlasting symbiosis?

By SRI ⋅ May 8, 2008 ⋅

Abstract

This article argues that there is a symbiosis between elite business groups and top politicians in Kazakhstan. It suggests a typology for the different kinds of symbiotic relationships that exist and highlights the activities of a number of prominent figures in Kazakhstani politics and economy. The article asserts that the rapidly changing weight and status of big business groupings due to the shifting fortunes of a booming economy may have an impact on politics. Moreover, the underlying dilemma associated with the future transfer of power when President Nursultan Nazarbaev ultimately leaves politics introduces considerable degrees of uncertainty to national politics as well as to the business sector. The result is that even as Kazakhstan appears as a tightly managed democracy, the political system is neither static nor inherently stable.

Introduction

The managed democracies in the post-Soviet area are neither static nor inherently stable. In Kazakhstan, politics are defined by the tight but fluctuating relationships between top politicians and big business groups. Two features constantly inject dynamism and change into this structure. One is the rapidly changing weight and status of big business groupings due to the shifting fortunes of a booming economy; the other is the underlying dilemma and uncertainty associated with the future transfer of power when President Nursultan Nazarbaev ultimately leaves politics. This article assesses why and how the symbiosis between politics and business is such a central feature of politics in Kazakhstan. It highlights some key characteristics of politics–business links and provides an overview of some of the most central business groups. It ends by discussing the prospects for change.

Key Features of Kazakhstani Politics

Most of the post-Soviet countries have evolved into “managed democracies.” These are countries where “elections are held, but the results are known in advance; courts hear cases, but give decisions that
coincide with the interests of the authorities; the press is plural, yet with few exceptions dependent on the government.” The formal political process, in other words, is tightly controlled and managed by the
country’s political leadership.

This system is accompanied by a passive electorate and deficiencies in political interest formation. Some exceptions aside, few political entrepreneurs link up systematically with distinct sections of society in order to define grievances or formulate political demands and agendas. A recent survey conducted by the Risks Assessment Group in Kazakhstan found that the population showed scant interest in politics and voiced few political demands towards the government, aside from wanting continued guarantees of economic freedom.

Managed democracy and electoral passivity in Kazakhstan make – aside from a few prominent exceptions – formal politics relatively static, homogeneous and consensus-based. Moreover, the tightly managed formal political process leaves ample scope for informal politics. With few institutional checks on state conduct and with little scrutiny on the part of the electorate, the top political leaders are free to choose which political questions should be openly debated in formal institutions and which should be left as formally undisputable decisions to be taken by themselves. The latter type constitutes a substantial part of government decision making in Kazakhstan – and major informal political battles are played out around these closed decision-making processes. Importantly, these political battles tend to focus on narrow issues associated with demands and interests of the sole highly politicized group in Kazakhstan – the business community.

Business groupings do not compete in order to ensure that their political ideals are incorporated into state strategies or social development. Rather, the key focus of intra-business elite struggles is on being able to attract attention and recognition from the head of state, seeking to influence the latter in a way favorable to the immediate business concerns of a particular group.

By Heidi Kjaernet, Dosym Satpaev and Stina Torjesen