Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Republic of Kazakhstan on its continued--and steady--progress toward building a democracy. In particular, I note the recent parliamentary elections held in Kazakhstan on September 19. While the…
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Republic of Kazakhstan on its continued--and steady--progress toward building a democracy. In particular, I note the recent parliamentary elections held in Kazakhstan on September 19. While the elections show that Kazakhstan has work to do in order to more fully meet international standards for democratic elections, they were a significant improvement over past elections.
Earlier this year, I was visited by members of the Kazakhstan Embassy. Among other information I learned that Kazakhstan gained its independence in 1991. It held its first multiparty election in 1994. In 1999, the republic conducted parliamentary elections that were widely criticized by the international community. Since that time, Kazakhstan passed a much-improved law on elections, held twelve televised debates, conducted effective voter education, permitted more than 1,000 election observers to monitor the elections, and registered 12 parties-- including an opposition party that had been refused registration in prior elections. These are all positive steps forward for Kazakhstan-- steps that were unthinkable in past elections. I thanked them for their visit--and assured them that as Chairman of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, I looked forward to working out mutual energy thrusts helpful to both Kazakhstan and the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight to my colleagues an essay published by United Press International on September 25, 2004, and written by Gregory Fossedal, entitled ``Outside View: Big progress in Kazakhstan.'' The essay provides a balanced assessment of the recent Kazakh election.
Unlike many of his colleagues, Mr. Fossedal examines the elections within the context of Kazakhstan's young history. He looks at how far Kazakhstan has come since its independence and how it compares with its neighbors. Moreover, the essay makes a compelling case that, considering Kazakhstan's geographic and demographic position, its steady progress is important to U.S. security.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read this essay and I would like to have the text of this essay placed into the Congressional Record following my statement.
[From United Press International, Sept. 25, 2004]
Outside View: Big Progress in Kazakhan
(By Gregory Fossedal)
Washington, DC, Sept. 24 (UPI).--Kazakhstan held national
elections on Sunday, prompting comments from a number of
outside observers, and all the local opposition, that the
vote was a step backwards for democracy. Was it that--or was
it just not as much progress as democracy-lovers around the
world, including me, might hope for?
To answer that question, we need to decide what
Kazakhstan's admittedly sloppy democracy today is being
compared to: the Kazakhstan of several years ago, other
countries in the region 10 years ago, or Russia, China, Iraq
or Florida?
By most of these standards, the country seems to have made
mild but steady improvement. Progress, that is to say, motion
towards a goal. Furthermore, considering Kazakhstan's
geographic and demographic position, it's a steady
improvement that's important to U.S. security and democracy
in general.
Measuring a democracy's progress at the low end of
development is a tricky matter, but Kazakhstan's recent vote
appears to have at least two positive signposts.
First, the vote was held, and with numerous international
observers. Some of these, especially as covered in the major
press, had complaints about both voting mechanics and the
social backdrop against which the vote took place--especially
including reports of ``intimidation'' of some voters on
Election Day, and the lack of a paper trail from voting
machines used by about 20 percent of the voters.
In fact, to an extent, that's the point. Kazakhstan has now
held a competitive election, with a largest number of
international observers per capita compared to (say) recent
votes in Venezuela, Indonesia or the Philippines. Critics can
point out flaws, document the ruling party's heavy-
handedness, and urge future improvements.
The most balanced report to emerge, by the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe, generated Western
headlines saying the election ``failed the democracy test''
(The New York Times) and even was ``fraudulent'' (The
Washington Times). But the report itself noted positive areas
of ``progress'' as against previous Kazakh elections--the
relevant unit of comparison.
Professor Frederick Starr of Johns Hopkins, who was in
Kazakhstan as an observer, judged the voting to be
fundamentally improved over recent Kazakh standards.
``Overall . . . the election was ``a step forward, not
withstanding the imperfections,'' he said in a statement
issued in Astana on Monday. Unfortunately, such views were
not widely quoted in the international press.
Second, and more important, if the results hold up, at
least one opposition party will be seated in the Kazakh
Parliament. This is an important signpost in democratic
development--as the evolution of Mexico, the Philippines,
Pakistan, Turkey, and other countries shows. Looking back at
countries that have completed a successful democratic
transition, opposition seating is normally a key inflection
point.
This doesn't mean that Kazakhstan will be a full democracy
shortly, or even in five or 10 years; the government could
always crack down and reverse direction. It is, however,
forward motion.
In social terms, Kazakhstan also parallels some of the
developments seen in Mexico or the Philippines in the 1980s.
Income is surging, the economy has grown at an 8 percent to
12 percent pace each of the last five years. This, in turn,
is generating a middle class with greater access to
information, and insistence on freedom of expression.
Kazakhstan doesn't enjoy much of a domestic free press, for
example. But foreign newspapers and magazines are available
in most cities. Mobile telephone usage has more than tripled
over five years. In 1997, there were as paltry 15,000
Internet users. This rose to more than 70,000 in 2000, more
than 150,000 last year, and probably exceeds 200,000 today.
That's still small for an emerging middle-income country
with 16 million people. But of course, every such user has
family, friends, and business associates. In emerging
democracies, as in Poland in the 1980s, information can
spread quickly. As well, Kazakhstan now has a number of
independent service providers less amenable to direct
government control.
The government has tried to block access to critical news
sources at home and abroad. Such efforts, however, are
generally doomed to failure unless one goes all the way and
imposes direct, government-controlled net access only--
something the government has stepped back from doing.
Sergei Duvanov of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting
outlined how Kazakhs were able to get around many of the
blocks
in an interesting 2001 report. As well, President Nazarbaev,
stung by international criticism of his efforts to regulate
speech, has rescinded a number of the 1998-2000 decrees.
This is not to say that immutable economic or social forces
will bring about a full Kazakh democracy no matter what the
authorities do. Countries like China, for example, have much
wider Internet access and a larger middle class--but still no
elections, and no substantial opposition parties.
In Kazakhstan, however, the Internet and other information
sources act in combination with independent parties, muddy
elections--but elections nevertheless--and what should be a
parliamentary opposition. And the government has moved
gradually (tortuously gradually; perhaps) towards more
freedom; not less, since the country achieved independence in
1991.
The election itself raised several problems. For example, a
Monday item in The New York Times, ``Intimidation Alleged in
Vote in Kazakhstan,'' starts with a quote harshly condemning
the elections from Dos Kushyn, who is described as ``the
director of the Network of Independent Monitors,'' which
placed 2,000 observers around the country.
This caught the attention of at least one seasoned Kazakh
observer who sent me a number of pre-election clips referring
to approximately 1,000 accredited election observers in the
country--total, from all outside groups. How could one
fellow, running an organization never mentioned before, have
2,000 observers?
It turns out that Dos Kushyn is an opposition figure and
whatever 2,000 ``observers'' he fielded, few were accredited.
This doesn't mean their opinions should be dismissed. But
neither should his complaints be taken at face value, still
less as coming from a wholly disinterested group.
Most Western press quoted only Kazakh officials defending
the election or putting it in context. In other words, they
presented criticism from independent sources, and praise only
from the government, whose motives are likely to be
questioned by any skeptical reader. What they didn't do was
refer to the numerous independent observers, some cited
above, who said that on balance, the election didn't meet
Western standards--but was an improvement.
The government also used voting machines, which are,
indeed, a problem--especially given that the computers
Kazakhstan deployed, like some of those coming into use in a
number of U.S. states, left no ``paper trail.'' This is not a
best practice. One can sympathize, however, with the
government's decision to go with expensive, high-tech systems
from the West, thinking this would buy some credibility.
The United States--which in contrast to Kazakhstan is
allowing a total of 20 (that's right, 20) independent
observers for its 2004 vote--should be a little reticent
about raising this complaint.
Still less should U.S. policy aim at punishing the country
with economic aid restraints and sanctions, as some in
Congress have proposed.
Unlike other countries in what one observer has called
``the scud belt,'' Kazakhstan doesn't need piles of aid
(Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq) to hold votes or stay on the
democratic path. It hasn't built or tried to build nuclear
weapons (Pakistan, India, China). It seems, knock on wood, to
be moving the right way--as opposed to Iran, Saudi Arabia,
and others.
This is said not to criticize the other countries
mentioned, but to point out that the Kazakhs are building
democracy quietly and by tugging their own bootstraps, and
without evident imperial ambitions or terrorist-nationalist
resentments.
Kazakhstan is an important potential ally to the United
States, Russia, and its neighbors in the ``war on terror.''
It's also a potential bulwark for the faintly democratic tide
among countries with large (about 45 percent) Muslim
populations. There is a prospect of a ring of democracies on
the borders of China and Iran, the better to raise the heat
on those undemocratic states. And large Muslim-population
states--Turkey, Indonesia, the Philippines, Mongolia, and
potentially Iraq and Afghanistan--serve as examples and proof
that Islam need not be anti-democratic.
Thus Kazakhstan is moving in a democratic direction--too
slowly, but not going the wrong way. The right response for
friends of democracy is to offer encouragement. If matters
reverse, it's time for some mild sticks. Working slowly by
contrast, should bring soft applause and some small carrots.