ind_kazakh_elections
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/7/2019 IND_Kazakh_Elections
1/2
Ms. Margarita Assenova
Institute for New Democracies
Mr. Randy Bregman
Salans Law Firm
Mr. Janusz Bugajski
New European DemocraciesCenter for Strategic and
International Studies
Dr. Sergei Gretsky
Georgetown University
Central Asia and the CaucasusJournal
Mr. Vladimir Socor
Jamestown Foundation
Ambassador Douglas
TownsendInternational Tax and
Investment Center
Former Australian Ambassador
to the Republic
of Kazakhstan
Dr. Richard Weitz
Center for Political-Military
Analysis
Hudson Institute
Mr. Daniel A. WittInternational Tax and
Investment Center
For more information:
Washington DC:
Elena Novak
Phone: 1 202 530 9799
Fax: 1 202 530 7987Email:
Kazakhstan:
Moukhit Akhanov
Phone: 7 7272 67 69 02
Fax: 7 7272 50 73 84
Mobile: 7 701 953 10 87
Email:[email protected]
*Organizations are listed foridentification purposes only. The
views expressed are those of theindividuals, and not necessarily
their organizations.
All observers will be accredited
by the Central ElectionCommittee of the Republic of
Kazakhstan.
Independent International Observer Mission
for the Presidential Election
Republic of Kazakhstan
3 April 2011
Kazakhstans Democratic Roots Deepen
Post-election statement
In our pre-election statement we noted that Kazakhstans presidential election would test the
countrys capacity to evolve toward open democratic politics. Specifically, we aimed to assess
whether this election comes closer to meeting international standards, and most importantly,
whether the overall trend is positive, with distinct improvements over past elections.
From March 30 through April 3, our independent observation team in Kazakhstan met with theleaders of nine political parties and their staffs, Central Election Commission officials, and NGO
representatives.
On election day, members of our team fanned out to four oblasts -- Karaganda, Pavlodar, Aqmola,
and Almaty oblast as well as in the cities of Astana and Almaty. We visited 65 polling stations to
observe the balloting. At five of these stations we also observed the vote-count and closing
procedures. And we engaged in spontaneous conversation with hundreds of voters inside and
outside polling stations after they had cast their ballots.
Unlike past elections, there were no visible signs of centrally directed administrative mobilization
of voters to show up at the polls. Conversely, as we noticed, voters seemed motivated by a sense of
civic consciousness and patriotism to cast their ballots.
From our observation of this election, and based on the experience of most of our members
observing elections in Kazakhstan and elsewhere since 1999, we assess the April 3 presidential
election as successful on three levels.
First, it clearly reflects the political choice of Kazakhstans voters. Second, it marks a definite
advance in the transparency of the electoral process, compared with previous elections. And third,
it opens the prospect for the formation of a more pluralist parliament in the next legislative
elections.
President Nazarbayevs re-election with 95.57 percent of the votes cast according to early exit
polls is consistent with his pre-election approval ratings. The turnout rate for this election wasextraordinarily high at 89.9 percent of registered voters (up from 76.8 percent in the 2005
presidential election).
Such a turnout bespeaks a yearning to maintain national stability and political continuity in
Kazakhstan under the leadership that has delivered growing prosperity to all Kazakhstanis. Many
voters told us that they valued Kazakhstans stability, security, and steadily increasing living
standards in their country. They contrasted that with the chaos engulfing many Muslim countries,
from North Africa and the Middle East to Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan next door.
-
8/7/2019 IND_Kazakh_Elections
2/2
We assess the electoral process as generally well-administered and transparent at all the 65 polling
stations we visited. Organizational errors were rare and could not detract from the overall
impression of an efficiently run electoral process. Electoral commission members were invariably
open and forthcoming with information about technical aspects of the process.
Almost everywhere we found that commission members had attended trainings and seminars,
ahead of the presidential election. The next parliamentary elections will, by their very nature, pose
more complex organizational challenges, necessitating appropriate preparations.
Several Kazakhstani parties declined to enter their candidates in the presidential election, arguing
that the 30 days allocated for the pre-election campaign were insufficient for them to organize a
proper campaign effort.
All the registered parties, whether involved in this presidential election or not, will have the
opportunity to participate in the next legislative elections. From our meetings with party leaders,
we understand that they expect to compete for parliamentary seats on the basis of specific
programs and constituent interests in those elections. This would mark a further step in
Kazakhstans hard work of democratic institution-building and evolution toward an open,democratic polity. The scope and pace of this process is best determined by the Kazakhstanis
themselves.
In sum, we found the context and conduct of the presidential election to be consistent with those in
other states that continue the process of national consolidation and democratic institution building.
Commitment of the Kazakhstanis to a democratic future of their country was evident on election
day.