Kazakhstan - 2022 Election
In early January 2022, demonstrations, initially caused by rising fuel prices, turned into nationwide demands for significant economic and political reforms. Official reports following the 'January events' referred to 238 deaths, including of 19 law enforcement officers. In the 2022 early presidential election, six people were registered as presidential candidates, including the incumbent head of state, Tokayev. He won the election with 81.31% of votes. The total turnout reached 69.44%.
The initiated reforms and statements by the President were seen by some as a move towards a more pluralistic and competitive political environment. Nevertheless, the ability of citizens to participate in political life continues to be significantly constrained. This was the sixth consecutive direct national election to take place early.
The US State Department concurred with the findings of an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe observer group that judged the election seriously deficient. The OSCE observers noted that Tokayev, who took over in 2019 from post-Soviet strongman Nursultan Nazarbayev, "stood as the joint candidate of all parliamentary parties and, in effect, was not meaningfully challenged in a low-key campaign."
Tokayev will now serve a seven-year term at the helm of the strategically located Central Asian nation bordering Russia and China. The OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) assessed political participation in the election as "significantly constrained, with limitations on fundamental freedoms." The group's preliminary statement noted that democratic safeguards were disregarded in voting and counting, undermining transparency.
The 20 November 2022 early presidential election took place in a political environment lacking competitiveness, and while efficiently prepared, the election underlined the need for further reforms to bring related legislation and its implementation in line with OSCE commitments to ensure genuine pluralism. The incumbent stood as the joint candidate of all parliamentary parties and, in effect, was not meaningfully challenged in a low-key campaign. The ability of citizens to participate in political life remains significantly constrained, with limitations on fundamental freedoms which narrow the space for critical voices.
The election administration provided extensive voter information in the media, but scarce campaign coverage by the media and the virtual absence of analytical reporting, including online, limited voters’ ability to make an informed choice. While election day was calm and voting procedures were largely followed, important safeguards were disregarded and substantial procedural errors and omissions were observed during counting and tabulation, undermining transparency.
The Constitution, the Election Law and other election related legislation were revised several times in recent years. While including notable technical changes on electoral participation of persons with disabilities, procedural basis for dispute resolutions by the election administration, and the introduction of administrative courts, previous ODIHR recommendations remain unaddressed and the legal framework is not fully consistent with international standards and OSCE commitments for democratic elections.
Fundamental human rights and freedoms are constitutionally guaranteed, but continue to be restricted by subordinate legislation and in practice. Notwithstanding the introduction of measures aimed at limiting presidential powers, legislation still grants the head of state significant control over the electoral process. The September 2022 constitutional amendments altering the electoral system for the presidential election were not preceded by any public consultation.
The Central Election Commission (CEC) managed the electoral preparations efficiently in line with the legal deadlines. The CEC held open live-streamed sessions and published its resolution on the day of their adoption. Some ODIHR EOM interlocutors noted that the composition of election administration is not politically diverse and questioned its independence, in particular given the lack of genuine political differentiation between the nominating political parties. The ODIHR EOM positively assessed the attended training sessions organized for lower-level commissions; commissions were experienced and well equipped. The CEC conducted a nationwide comprehensive and inclusive voter awareness campaign in Kazakh and Russian. Several welcomed provisions facilitating access of persons with different types of disabilities were put in place.
Some 11.9 million voters were registered. Voter lists were available for public scrutiny. Restrictions on the right to vote for those with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities and all prisoners remain, contrary to OSCE commitments, international standards and prior ODIHR recommendation. Overall, ODIHR EOM interlocutors raised no major concerns with accuracy of the voter lists. Voters could be added to the voter lists on election day at polling stations without prior judicial oversight, at odds with international good practice. Nevertheless, for the first time, with the aim to prevent multiple voting, voters’ registration status had to be verified through the eGovernment portal.
The eligibility requirements for presidential candidates are overly restrictive, unreasonably limiting the constitutionally guaranteed right of citizens to stand for elections. Among others, requirements concerning education, residency, experience in the civil service or elected government office, are at odds with OSCE commitments and other international standards. Contrary to OSCE commitments, independent candidates are not allowed to run for election. Out of 12 nominees, the CEC registered 6 candidates, including 2 women. Four nominees, out of whom one was denied registration, did not meet the eligibility requirements, and two prospective candidates failed to collect the required number of signatures.
The online and in-person campaign was low-key, generated limited public engagement and lacked a genuine competitive nature. None of the contestants convincingly challenged the incumbent’s policies, limiting the choice for voters. Messages related to ‘Fair Kazakhstan’ dominated the campaign discourse; on social networks, topics were more diverse. Legislation provides for specially designated places for outdoor campaigns, nevertheless their numbers and capacity are limited. No registered candidate raised concerns regarding freedom of assembly but civil society and some opposition representatives noted lack of opportunities to engage in peaceful assemblies of political nature.
All three parliamentary parties, including those that identify themselves as “constructive opposition”, jointly nominated the incumbent, further reducing the non-pluralistic nature of the campaign environment. Many ODIHR EOM interlocutors noted that all candidates, with the exception of Mr. Tokayev, were largely unknown to the public. In general, the incumbent did not face significant opposition from the other candidates and no contestant meaningfully challenged or spoke critically about the President’s policies, limiting the choice for voters. Even though all candidates toured the regions, the campaign generated limited public engagement. Some contestants informed the ODIHR EOM that their primary aim was to increase their personal and their party’s visibility ahead of the early parliamentary elections scheduled for next year.
Campaign outreach methods included billboards, posters, and TV and social media advertisements in Kazakh and Russian languages. Most campaign events were small-scale, indoor gatherings oftentimes conducted at places of work, including in industrial enterprises, hospitals, libraries, and cultural centers. This potentially raises concerns about exerting pressure on voters to attend the campaign events. More than half of the campaign venues observed by the ODIHR EOM were accessible for independent access for persons with physical disabilities.
The tone of the campaign, both online and in-person, was positive or neutral. No discriminatory rhetoric against national minorities during the campaign was reported or observed by the ODIHR EOM. The campaign focused on three main topics: fair state (political modernization and the rule of law), fair economy (competitive economy and agriculture), and fair society (accessible education and healthcare). Security and stability were also prominent in the discourse. Other campaign messages referred to social protection, public administration and judiciary reform, and support for business and agriculture.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
