MOSCOW, August 24 (RIA Novosti, political commentator Peter Lavelle). Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev said yesterday, during a three-and-a-half hour live nationwide phone-in, that the population of the former Soviet republic was too wealthy to act out a revolution like those that swept Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan.
Running for a third term, Nazarbayev has good reason to be confident Kazakhstan will not experience a "colored" revolution.
Kazakhstan is expected to hold a presidential election December 4, and Nazarbayev, who has ruled the energy-rich state since 1989 and already won two post-Soviet elections, has announced he will seek a new seven-year term. Most observers of Kazakhstan's post-Soviet elections claim they have been neither free nor fair. Unfair or rigged elections were the catalyst, along with grinding poverty and disaffection with being ruled by kleptocratic elites, for the "colored" revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. But Nazarbayev will most certainly win re-election irrespective of the fairness of the vote and avoid a popular uprising. So what makes Kazakhstan different from its post-Soviet peers?
Nazarbayev is confident that he will remain in power on the back of a quickly growing economy benefiting a majority of the population, his genuine popularity with voters, Kazakhstan's vast energy reserves being developed by international oil corporates, and having learned the important lesson of reining in Western NGOs promoting regime change.
Kazakhstan and Nazarbayev's political fortunes have benefited from rising oil output and prices, prompting the government to forecast a doubling of Kazakhstan's $37.6 billion economy by 2008, and to triple this figure by 2015. The country's GDP will have averaged 9% growth per year from 2000 though 2005, and per capita GDP has soared. Over the same period, Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan have experienced sluggish (or even negative in the case of Georgia) per capita GDP growth. Prudently and unlike many of Kazakhstan's post-Soviet peers, Nazarbayev has ensured the younger generation has benefited from the booming economy through investment in education and professional training. Young people who have a reason to support the status quo have little reason to go into opposition politics.
Nazarbayev is considered the "father" of modern Kazakhstan and is able to maintain a unified political elite to support his continued rule. Eduard Shevardnadze, Leonid Kuchma, Viktor Yanukovych, and Askar Akayev were leaders who did have a modicum of public support at one time, but clearly were unable to rein in competing political elites to continue their rule. Nazarbayev's family controls huge swathes of the economy, but he does not allow nepotism to threaten economic growth and alienate the rest of the population. Shevardnadze, Kuchma-Yanukovych and Akayev failed in this regard.
Kazakhstan produces 1.3 million barrels of oil per day (of which 80%-85% is exported), and is home to 3.3% of the world's total oil reserves. Its oil exports are critical to filling a number of geo-politically important pipelines in the region. Wisely balancing the participation of Russian, Chinese, European and American companies in the development and transportation of Kazakhstan's natural resource wealth, Nazarbayev can rest assured that the country's energy partners will not seek to undermine the political status quo and support opposition candidates and parties.
Nazarbayev has also learned the "logistic" lessons of the recent "colored" revolutions. Kazakhstan's political elite has taken precautions limiting the room for maneuver of Western NGOs, passed legislation banning protest demonstrations at election time, and hinted that it may use force if necessary to maintain order.
In contrast to some of Kazakhstan's post-Soviet peers who have experienced "colored" revolutions, Nazarbayev's "colorless evolution" faces few threats. Nazarbayev appears to believe that he understands the nature of political change in the post-Soviet space when quoting Victor Hugo, "Poverty gives birth to revolutions and revolutions give birth to poverty." For the time being he may be right, but historically the prosperity of the majority is often accompanied with demands for a more democratic society.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board.
