In other news about the referendum, Germany has joined the US in condemning the referendum, and the head of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the OSCE has also expressed concern. Ambassador Janez Lenarcic claims in his statement that:

As a participating State of the OSCE, Kazakhstan is obliged to hold free elections at reasonable intervals and respect the right of citizens to seek political or public office without discrimination. Kazakhstan has also agreed that the basis of the authority and legitimacy of all government is the will of the people, freely and fairly expressed through periodic and genuine elections…“It is particularly distressing that this referendum initiative appeared only weeks after Kazakhstan as the then-chairmanship hosted an OSCE Summit that in strong terms reaffirmed all OSCE commitments, including those on democratic elections,” Lenarcic said.

The referendum would also be in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the legally-binding International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and CIS Convention on Standards of Democratic Elections.

In addition, the constitution states that international treaties ratified by Kazakhstan have priority over national legislation.

Interestingly while commentators in Kazakhstan dismissed criticism from the US, saying that the US itself was hypocritical in its own democracy or unfairly imposing its will on other countries, it will be hard for the Kazakhstan government to criticize the OSCE without tarnishing its own leadership in the OSCE.

Even Yermukhamet Yertisbayev has joined the fray criticizing the referendum, saying it is a pity that Parliament has forced this referendum on Nazarbayev. But he doesn’t blame the members, all of whom belong to the NurOtan party headed by the President himself:

We know that Nazarbayev has the support of 90% of society… The campaign that ran from the 26th of December to the 14th of January (to collect signatures in support of a referendum) clearly show and prove to the world that the president has overwhelming support…If Parliament decided against it, then it would, in principle, be made against the people. That is, the parliament was put in a position where it could not make another decision

I have to admit that while I have been trying to follow this story, I am completely lost because it seems like Parliament and this initiative group’s petition have been working simultaneously. And because the law-making process has moved much faster than it usually does.

As far as I understand, an initiative group proposed a referendum to extend the President’s term, which requires 250,000 signatures. Then Parliament proposed the referendum and the President vetoed it. Then the group collected 5 million signatures. Then this proposal went to the President. Now Parliament has overturned the President’s veto. But there has been no reaction thus far on the people’s initiative.

Is there an expert on Kazakhstan law that can explain this to me and the other readers? It seems like they might have put the cart before the horse a few times. I’m also not clear on why this requires an amendment to the Constitution. Can’t they just hold the referendum without changing the Constitution?

Note that, as far as I understand, all that has been approved is the decision to hold a national vote on whether to extend his term or not. So it is theoretically possible that people will vote against the proposal. There have also been rumors of aggressive measures by people collecting signatures, including banging on doors late at night and teachers telling parents of pupils to sign. It would be interesting if the positive vote on the proposal itself fell far short of the 5 million signatures collected in favor of the referendum.

The Central Election Committee in a record 3 days checked all 5 million signatures and found only 194,000 were invalid. They have sent the petition on to the President. The President has already vetoed a proposal by Parliament to hold a national referendum. However it is unclear whether he can or will veto this proposal that has come from the initiative group. In any case, many expect the Parliament to vote to overturn that veto today. It’s all a bit confusing and from listening to the rhetoric of many politicians and advisors, it seems that both the Parliament’s proposal and the signed petition are being used as weight to get the President to agree to a referendum. But the exact legal status and procedures seem a bit confusing since both the Parliament and the initiative group went ahead at the same time. The extension to 2020 instead of 2017, as described in the Constitution, is also a bit confusing.

In any case, Yermukhamet Yertysbayev, advisor to the President, assures us that Nazarybayev wants elections. However, according to Yertysbayev, there is a lot of pressure on the President to approve the referendum.

As if to underscore that point, a coalition named “Kazakhstan 2020″ has been formed of groups that support the extension of the President’s term. At the moment it seems to include only NurOtan, Adilet, and the Assembly of the People of Kazakhstan (a group that reports to the President) and is headed by Nurlan Nigmatulin, who is also first deputy chairman of NurOtan.

He issued a decree today: “On the rejection of the proposals of the Parliament of Kazakhstan for an all-nation referendum amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan,” in which he official rejected the Parliament’s proposal for the referendum to allow him to stay as President until the year 2020, adding another 7 year term to his Presidency (although Constitutional amendments in 2007 had reduced the next Presidential term to 5 years).

However Nazarbayev as First President will still be able to run in the next elections, which are scheduled for 2012, and few doubt that any other candidate will be successful against him.

Now on to the speculation as to whether the Parliament can veto the President’s rejection in some way and whether or not the proposal was made in the first place to allow the President to reject it, thus showing his democratic credentials. Personally I suspect that the President realized that such an edict would tarnish the reputation of the country abroad, particularly in the West, and also set a bad precedent for the next President.

Meanwhile, a group of journalists were detained by police while protesting the referendum in Uralsk.

Following up on the referendum to allow Nazarbayev to remain in power until 2020, which requires 200 000 signatures to be approved, one group in Almaty reports that they already have 300,000 signatures in support of the referendum. However they will continue to collect signatures until 11 Jan and predict that they will have 2 million signatures by then.

Note that these signatures are just to hold the national referendum. Once the signatures are confirmed by the Central Election Committee, the President has the power to issue an edict to hold the referendum and the people will vote on the question of whether to extend the President’s term or not. From my reading of the Constitution of Kazakhstan, it is unclear whether the President must approve the referendum or whether he still has the power of veto.

I have heard from several people that signatures are being collected in the Ministries and other national companies as well as at schools with employees, teachers, and parents of students being told to sign the petition or suffer the consequences.

Meanwhile, members of opposition parties have condemned the measure as either unnecessary or undemocratic. The US Embassy in Astana also made a statement claiming the measure would be “a setback for democracy in Kazakhstan.”.

And interestingly, Yermukhamet Yertysbayev, the President’s political advisor believes the measure will intensify political rivalry rather than stabilizing it. Conventional wisdom might suggest that if Nazarbayev is to remain in power until 2020, rival political groups would stand down. Yertysbayev suggests that in fact the move will force the opposition to unite in order to gain some ground in Parliament at least.

However he supports the motion as a guarantee of stability, a stable Central Asia being good for the world.

The initiative is supported by the Akim of Almaty Akhmetzhan Yesimov, and well known poet and linguist, Olzhas Suleymenov. The rationale appears to be that there is no other contender for the post and that everyone knows Nazarbayev will win anyway.

For the referendum, which has no precedent as far as I know, the group would need to be registered with the Central Election Committee and they would have to collect 200,000 signatures in support of their idea. Whether the people themselves would vote on this, or the Mashlikhats or who exactly, is unclear.

This initiative comes after this year’s amendments to the Constituion which among other things allow Nazarbayev to run for President without any term limits.

Interestingly at the moment, the people only vote directly for the Mashlikhats, which are local advisory bodies, and for the President. Local executive heads are appointed by the President. The Prime Minister is appointed by the President. Ministers are appointed by the Prime Minister. Senators are voted for by the lower house of Parliament and appointed by the President. The people do vote for parties now in the lower house of Parliament but not directly for the MPs themselves. So objectively it will reduce the people’s voice in the running of their government, for better or for worse.

Others have pointed out that in 2020, Nazarbayev will be 80 years old and have been in power since 1989, almost half of his life.

Commentators have also noted that this initiative came to the public after the OSCE summit, possibly to avoid embarrassing questions from foreign leaders and journalists. And it would be hard not to connect it to http://www.kzblog.net/?p=3503 Besides the appeal to scientists to to stop the effects of aging, which made world news, Nazarbayev did have other things to say in his speech to students at Nazarbayev University last week.

Kazakhnomad has some of her notes up and it’s worth going through. I think the admissions that Kazakhstan is behind in the areas of education, innovation and scientific research are notable. I do think the general “pick-the-winner” strategy that Kazakhstan tries to follow in innovation, which the President hinted at in referring to the need for more practical science, is misguided. One never knows where the next practical breakthrough will come from so -you need basic research as well as commercial-minded research. But overall it’s nice to hear some criticism of Kazakhstan coming from up to.

Also, as someone involved in education in Kazakhstan, I was happy to hear reference to people learning problem-solving skills. I don’t know if it’s the Soviet-inherited mentality or Kazakh culture, but planning for the worst and having a back-up plan are not generally part of people’s or organizations’ skill sets here.

While he cited economic reasons in his speech to students at Nazarbayev University, where he introduced the new Center for Life Sciences, he also joked that, ” people of my age are really hoping all of this will happen as soon as possible.” And earlier this year when a member of Parliament, who is a citizen of Kazakhstan but of Korean heritage, suggested that he should remain in office until at least 2020, the President told him, “Maybe, then, you’ll offer me an elixir of youth and energy – maybe you have such potions in Korea … I’m willing to go on until 2020, just find me an elixir.”

So there is some suggestion that the President is hoping to put off his own end for a little bit, at least.

CBS also notes that a research team at Harvard may have already discovered how to stop or even reverse symptoms of aging like loss of hair, infertility and mental degeneration. So Kazakhstan may already be late to the game.

So here is my take on the OSCE summit. First though let me point out that it is worth looking at Upyernoz‘s post for links to some good articles about the summit and the measures Kazakhstan took. And for the primary sources, check out the the OSCE Summit site, which is full of transcripts and videos and so on.

From my point of view, if the goal of the summit was to put Astana on the map and increase the reputation of Nazarbayev, then it was more or less a success. Nothing bad happened. Diplomats took it seriously. There were no embarrassing questions from the press or serious gaffes by the President or Saudebayev (although whether it was necessary for Saudebayev to congratulate President Nazarbayev on his election in 1991 in his opening address, the first words out of the Chairperson-in-Office’s mouth, is a valid question I believe). The opposition didn’t steal the limelight nor did the West overly criticize Kazakhstan’s human rights record. Bad timing on the Wikileaks leaks, but that’s for another post. The only slight to the reputation of the capital of our country was that Obama didn’t come, but Hilary Clinton is pretty high-level. And Obama is a bit busy at the moment.

On the other hand, outside of Kazakhstan, the consensus seems to be that nothing really good happened either. The Nagano-Karabakh dispute is no closer to being resolved. Challenging words were spoken about the Georgia-Russia war of 2008 (although nothing overly aggressive and certainly nothing new), little was said about Kyrgyzstan, and no Action Plan was signed. The Astana Declaration, much hailed in the domestic news apparently because it has the word Astana in it, is a pretty vague document and contains no surprises. Apparently the world leaders are all for peace, security and prosperity and worried about Afghanistan and the Middle East. And they think the OSCE is doing a good job but could be doing a better job. Now to be fair, most declarations of international organizations look like that.

I have read analyses (none of which I can find now of course) that indicate that part of the problem was that the agenda for the summit was not agreed upon until July. So there wasn’t enough time to really prepare for the meeting. It does seem that Kazakhstan spent a great deal of its time and energy as Chairman of the OSCE using political capital to get the summit approved in Astana, as opposed to ensuring that the summit would be a success or paying attention to other things. Now Kazakhstan has done a lot and drawn international attention to critical issues like Nagano-Karabakh. It also has made some nice gestures like allowing Afghan students to come study in Kazakhstan and Nazarbayev suggested at a press conference that this program might continue in the future. But one wonders how much more might have been accomplished if Kazakhstan had spent time concentrating on Kyrgyzstan or Armenia and Azerbaijan instead of trying to increase the prestige of the capital city. And one wonders if there will be blame spread around for the fact that the second day of the summit was the first day of a cold snap, and a small blizzard here.

One also wonders what other countries really think about the way the city was shut down (Seoul was not shut down for the recent G20 conference and New York is never shut down for UN meetings) in the name of security.

Overall, I would give the summit a solid C+/B-. Everything went fine. But so much more could have been done.