OPPOSITION IN KAZAKHSTAN PRESS CAMPAIGN TO DILUTE PRESIDENT'S AUTHORITY
Aldar Kusainov: 3/19/02

Emboldened opposition politicians in Kazakhstan are conducting a broad campaign to dilute the authority of President Nursultan Nazarbayev. A new opposition coalition, which enjoys considerable backing from the country's private financial sector, is pressing a campaign for the direct election of regional governors. And posing perhaps a greater threat to Nazarbayev's authority, government critics are reviving corruption allegations against the president and his family.

Parliament deputies Boris Sorokin and Serikbolsin Abdildin sent a letter of inquiry March 13 to Prime Minister Imangali Tasmagambetov seeking explanations for financial activity that some local observers have dubbed "Kazakhgate." The deputies say they possess documents that show Kazakhstani government funds were improperly deposited in Swiss bank accounts controlled by Nazarbayev, as well as by his associates and family members.

"We understand that in this case it is a matter of large amounts of money, which belong to our country, and which, for some reason, turned out to be distributed to the accounts of various offshore companies, headed, actually, by very high-ranking officials and relatives of the president," the opposition deputies said in the letter of inquiry.

Both Sorokin and Abdildin are prominent members of the political opposition. Abdildin, the Communist Party leader, garnered 12 percent of the vote in the 1999 presidential election, won by Nazarbayev. The OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights found serious flaws in the conduct of that election, including governmental manipulation of mass media and restrictions placed on freedom of assembly. [For background see EurasiaNet's Kazakhstan Election Watch archive].

The corruption allegations date back to 1999, and have a connection to the presidential campaign. In an attempt by Nazarbayev to discredit his main rival in that election, former Prime Minister Akezhan Kazhegeldin, Kazakhstani officials pressed Swiss authorities to investigate illicit bank accounts controlled by the presidential challenger. The investigation, however, ended up implicating Nazarbayev himself in the utilization of a Swiss account for shadowy purposes.

The controversy centers on an account opened at Credit Agricole Indosuez that reportedly totals up to $85 million. Swiss authorities froze the account in August 1999 on suspicion that the account was linked to a money-laundering operation. At the time, Nazarbayev publicly stated that he maintained no foreign bank accounts. Presidential aides have denied all allegations of corruption.

The investigation spread, however, with the US Justice Department conducting a probe to see whether major American oil conglomerates had made secret payments to high ranking government members. An American entrepreneur named James Giffen, who acted as an adviser to Nazarbayev, emerged as a central figure in the probe. He was suspected of helping to arrange the allegedly illicit payments, according to a Washington Post report in September 2000.

At the same time the Justice Department was conducting its probe, Nazarbayev helped push a law "On the First President of Kazakhstan" through parliament. The legislation, adopted in June 2000, effectively grants Nazarbayev immunity from prosecution for all potential criminal acts, excepting treason. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

In their letter of inquiry, Sorokin and Abdildin imply that attempts by Nazarbayev and others to persuade Swiss authorities to unfreeze money held in suspected accounts are indicative of a government cover up. Abdildin is a leading member of the new opposition movement Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan (DCK), which emerged in January. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive]. DCK leaders say that Kazakhstan's growing economic prosperity, and the corresponding rise of an entrepreneurial class, require that Nazarbayev share political power.

A major element of the DCK's strategy is constitutional reform to permit the direct election of regional governors. At present, Nazarbayev appoints governors. The DCK is agitating to hold a nationwide referendum on the question. The popular election of governors has the potential to significantly erode Nazarbayev's authority over government on all levels.

At first, the DCK appeared reluctant to directly confront Nazarbayev, instead expressing a desire to work with the president to reform the political order. However, Nazarbayev's administration has not responded to the DCK's political overtures. For example, authorities in Almaty refused to grant the DCK permission to hold a rally in Almaty on March 17.

The letter of inquiry sent by Abdildin and Sorokin - along with a confrontational letter issued by the political council of the DCK that calls on Nazarbayev to clarify his stance on the governors' issue - indicates that the opposition is embracing more aggressive tactics.

Nazarbayev has sought to frustrate attempts to hold a referendum on the direct election of governors. The March 11 DCK letter to Nazarbayev assailed the president for failing to address the issue, and called on him to "publicly expound" his position. "Tell us, Mr. President, whether it is acceptable for a country that considers itself a democratic state to deny its citizens the right to take part in debating the most important issues of the state system?"

Editor's Note: Aldar Kusainov is a Central Asia-based reporter who employs a pseudonym out of fear of government reprisals.

Email this article
Posted March 19, 2002 © Eurasianet
http://www.eurasianet.org

	The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, politcal and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.