Promoting Democracy Sometimes

With regards to my questioning of the lukewarm condemnation by the Bush administration of the less-than-free and fair Kazakh elections last week, the Christian Science Monitor has a different viewpoint. It is convincing, but I'm not sure I buy it.

The most prosperous and stable nation in Central Asia, a Muslim -majority country that practices religious tolerance and free-market principles, this oil gusher is a potential democratic model in the region.

But it's precisely for these attributes that Washington is choosing to see a glass half full in this election, instead of emptying it out with a barrage of criticism. US diplomats acknowledge the vote's shortcomings, but point to this multiethnic giant bordering Russia and China as a democratic work in progress. That long-view emphasis is a wise one.

Sixteen years ago, when Kazakhstan gained independence from the Soviet Union, Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev inherited a dirt-poor dumping ground for Soviet populations, gulag camps, and harmful nuclear tests.

Now, it's producing 1.3 million barrels of oil a day (the Kashagan field is bigger than Alaska's North Slope), and is expected to become a top-10 oil exporter within a decade. It's reduced its poverty rate to 12 percent (the regional rate is 44 percent). By sending young people to study in the West, Russia, and China, it's cultivated a talented civil service. And it's one of the best performers in nuclear nonproliferation.

Mr. Nazarbayev is popular. Reliable surveys showed 60-70 percent support for him before the election, and the same range in exit polling. The vote may be inflated, but it reflects popular will. True, the elections were flawed (ballot stuffing, harassment of campaign staff, intimidation of voters). But they were also the most progressive to date, allowing accurate voter registration lists and free media time for the opposition.

Looking ahead, Central Asia is becoming an ever more tense geopolitical battleground over energy and ideology. Islamic jihadists see it as a target to radicalize Muslims; the US, Russia, and China want the oil. The first Kazakh-China pipeline is set to open soon.

Meanwhile, Russia, acting more and more like the old Soviet Union, is circling its regional wagons against popular demand for democracy. The latest country to hitch itself to Moscow's circle: Uzbekistan (which massacred protesters in Andijan in May).

Russia has deep economic and cultural roots in Kazakhstan. It's spreading chilling, anti-US disinformation there amid growing anti-American sentiment.

Nazarbayev promises political, democratic reform. Indeed, that's the only way he can maintain stability and wealth in the long run. But his diplomats also warn the US not to act as the world's "democracy police." Encouragement, not a lecture, please.

The point that the Christian Science Monitor misses is that, regardless of how life in Kazakhstan is better now than 14 years ago, the reality is that for it to ever truly democratize, whether it's now or in the future, Nazerbayev (or his heirs, if his daughter does indeed take over after he steps down due to health concerns) will have to go. Nazerbayev has indeed improved the standard of living in the country, but that has rarely served as the impetus for democratic change. As many, such as Fareed Zakaria, have pointed out, democracy needs more than just a popular election to survive; it needs the institutions of democracy and the economic wherewithal to provide for its citizens. Nevertheless, many have used the argument, particularly in reference to China, that "engaging" a country economically will eventually bring about a demand for democracy. What we've seen in China, however, is a state that has grown exceedingly wealthy and has spent that money by building a powerful military that could pose a future threat to the United States, and by repressing any demands for democratic participation by its citizens. Just today, 20 people in China learned that "engaging" a state economically to allow for democracy can just as readily backfire.

Arguing that Kazakhstan's Western educated civil service will promote future democracy is equally as baseless in historical fact. The Chinese civil service is likewise full of Western-educated elites who have made little puch for democratic reforms. The reason is obvious: they benefit from the status-quo! How many terrorists and dictators have been Western educated? Did that make them any more likely to respect the ideals of democracy, minority protections and human rights? The West has done a bang-up job transferring its technical knowledge and expertise to foreign students, but perhaps not quite as good a job at transferring knowledge of its moral philosophy and democratic norms. One possible explanation for why this is is that it is no longer politically or culturally sensitive to think of the Western style of government as morally superior to any other type of government. "What works for us might not work for them" has become the oft-repeated mantra.

Finally, while Nazerbayev might be setting the stage for a transition to democracy, it is unlikely that such a transition will happen under his rule. How common is it for a state to truly democratize under the same regime that has ruled in an authoritarian manner for years? Not very. There are usually two types of transition to democracy. There's the Zakarian transition, whereby everything needed to democracy, short of the actual elections and respect for human rights, is put in place by an illiberal regime. Although Zakaria doesn't get into this next aspect, when this is the case, the transition to democracy usually ends with that regime being ousted from power. This is what happened in Chile, where Pinochet liberalized the economy, but killed 3,000 people in the process. So convinced was he of the people's desire to see him remain in power, he held a referendum, which was promptly rejected and Pinochet fell from power. More common, however, is that the regime in power will ignore the needs of the state, enriching itself through policies of corruption and only falling by popular demonstration. This is what happened in Central Europe at the end of the Cold War, and in Ukraine and Georgia in recent years. Neither of these cases involve a corrupt and authoritarian leader willingly giving up his hold on power and transitioning to democratic rule. The reason for this is because it's simply not a common occurrence.

Nazerbayev seems to fit into the former category, in that the standard of living has improved, but democracy will only come when he is gone. The Bush administration should have the foresight to recognize this.

Update: For the state of democracy in Kazakhstan, consider this story of an opposition leader's "apparent suicide" - by shooting himself twice in the chest (including once directly in the heart) and once in the head.

THE wife of a leading opposition figure in Kazakhstan found him sprawled in a pool of blood in the billiard room of his villa in Almaty.

Zamenbek Nurkadilov had been shot twice in the chest, piercing his heart, and once at close range in the head, investigators say. By his side lay a cushion with two bullet holes in it. Yet three weeks on, police in the city are still treating the case as a suspected suicide.

“It’s unbelievable,” his wife, the popular singer Makpal Zhunusova, told The Times. “How does a man shoot himself in the heart, then in the head, and then throw himself on the floor?”

That is just one of many awkward questions being asked of the Government in this former Soviet Central Asian nation before Sunday’s presidential election.

The Opposition has linked Mr Nurkadilov’s death to his criticism of President Nazarbayev, who has ruled since 1989 and is standing for a third seven-year term.

Mr Nurkadilov was the Emergencies Minister and a close friend of Mr Nazarbayev until he switched sides last year and became his harshest critic. He once compared the President to Nicolae Ceausescu, the late Romanian dictator.

“I see no other explanation for his death other than a political one,” said Zharmakhan Tuyakbai, 58, a former Speaker of parliament who is the main opposition candidate. “It is dangerous to get involved in politics in Kazakhstan.”

It's hard to look at that and think "glass half full."