Parties’ opinion is not the people’s opinion at all, is it?

By Contur.kz

Representatives of oppositional parties spoke out immediately regarding to new laws consolidating Nursultan Nazarbayev’s status as the Leader of the Nation. Principally, their buzzwords could be left without attention except for one thing.

“We appeal to begin the campaign on preschedule termination of presidential authorities as the Leader of the Nation, and if his servants will hinder to people will expression – then to start protest action”, — they stated at the press conference in Almaty, the 13th of May.

Who said that in such mood? They are: Communistic party of Kazakhstan, Social Opposition political party, Alga chronically unregistered political party, some representatives of Nationwide Social Democratic Party, Ak Zhol party, Patriots of Kazakhstan political party and some public associations.

What opinion these parties do express?

There are a lot of signers under that petition, but first that strike the eye is the following: 5 persons represents themselves only, 40 persons represents public associations or social funds. How many supporters are behind them – there’s impossible to check. Even if there are 20-30 men behind them at least, though it’s not always so, then we can say that they express the opinion around of 1200 men. Well, let it be 1500 or even 2000 men. It’s vanishing small range even if we take into consideration small size population of Kazakhstan.

So, we can say more or less that populace opinion express the representatives of political parties somehow. We can calculate the approximate range of citizens of the Republic, which these parties are covered (with all the conventions, since accurate data on the membership has not been updated):

Communistic party of Kazakhstan – 54.2 thousand of members,

Nationwide Social Democratic Party and Azat – 140 thousand of members,

Ak zhol political party – 175.8 thousand of members,

Patriots of Kazakhstan political party – 172 thousand of members,

Alga! Political party – 53 thousand of members.

It is 595 thousand of people in total. However, we need to keep in mind the fact that many parties have enough deadheads, which formally enlisted as members, but really don’t take any part in the life of the party at all. Such members were spoken as “he is keeping aloof himself from party life” in the All-Union Communist Party and it was the strong reason for expulsion.

Though even if we take the whole nominative list and assume that all members are agree with the opinion expressed in petition then it’s not enough any way. There are about 8.9 million people who can vote in Kazakhstan and the nominative list of abovementioned political parties are around 6,6% of this amount. If these parties come to a referendum and have mobilized all members without exception (which is seemed to be completely unbelievable), they still would have suffered a crushing defeat.

The usurpation of the views of the Party

However, do statements of the parties’ representatives and leaders really reflect the views of all members of the parties? It seems, that no, it doesn’t. The views of the majority of these parties could be expressed only in case when the petition was brought to the attention of all grassroots organizations of parties and discussed there with the coming to common decision and documenting in the minutes. The majority of party membership must vote for expression of this or that viewpoint.

There is another way, which is: to elect delegates for party congress; the delegates are vested with authority to express an opinion should fully consider any statement and then vote on it. The decision of party congress can be reason for any statement or petition.

Then, another question is raised: can abovementioned political parties represent the minutes of grassroots party organizations or documented decision of party congress hold with all chartered rules and regulations? No, they can’t. It’s not quite clear, who gave Gaziz Aldamzharov the right to speak for all communists in Kazakhstan and to sign the petition?

We see another picture, it’s quite back-alley in the light of the petition. They supposedly protest against Khan’s reign. Though, what form of regulating is in their own parties? Leaders of parties make the important policy statement without any discussion with the members, without any gathering meetings or congresses; they usurp the right of parties’ members to express their views. What is it? It’s Khan’s reign.

Besides that they are in absolute minority, the leaders of the parties act clearly and visibly in non-democratic way by assigning themselves the right to speak for parties members everything they were taken into their heads. We need to ask the members of the parties: you, please, call your leaders to follow the rules of party discipline, to listen their own members and to struggle for democracy, oh please, please….

So what claims we can raise to mazhilismen and senators? Mazhilis of the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan was elected at direct elections, their deputies were voted the majority of electorate in Kazakhstan; and we can say that it’s direct and merit of Nur-Otan National Democratic Party. Nur-Otan is not trying to usurp the views of their members and every important decision is taken through the congress also. For example, “Action Strategy NDP «Nur Otan» for 2009—2012” was adopted on the 12th party congress. The strategy draft was previously discussed, the party members elected 600 delegates who voted for this policy document.

Among all the others only Green Party Rukhaniyat hold the congress there it formed the changes in the party management and represent it’s new platform. It was exactly representing because we cannot find no any signs of previous discussion of the subject. Delegates were gathered and they were represented new prepared platform with words: you can something like vote, comrades…. We may not talk at all about management of other parties; they manipulate with the views of their parties members as they want.

However, for fairness’ sake, we must say that there are opposite examples in the activity of parties: it’s the leader dissociation from party activity. It’s about the senator and leader of Patriots of Kazakhstan party – Gani Kasymov. He’s settled in Senate of Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan so well that he almost forgot about his party duties. He everywhere speaks just like Senator but not the as leader of political party. He only can be recommended to hand over management of the party to somebody else within the moving to another job.

Disciplinary question

On a discipline, by the way. Among the signers of the petition we see some strange surnames: G.Y. Vlasov – Kostanay region branch of NSDP; E.I. Svintsova – the 1st Secretary of Kostanay’s region branch of Patriots of Kazakhstan party; I. Bulgakov – Ust-Kamenogorsk, NSDP Azat branch; Otegenov Zhanysbek, Shymkent, Azat party branch; A.F. Fazylov – Karaganda’s region branch of NDP Ak Zhol; etc.

It was more logic somehow if the petition signers were leaders of region branches of the parties, if they were the leaders of the parties; though, there are no any signatures, neither the co-chairmen NSDP Azat, nor the leader of Patriots of Kazakhstan party – Gani Kasymov.

This affects not only the parties but public organizations also. In the petition there are signatures of Zambyl and Pavlodar region branches of Shanyrak Republican Public Organization (last signature is twice in mystically way). It’s interesting on the basis what decision do they act? Does the chairman of Shanyrak RPO, Asylbek Kazhakhmetov, know about such position of his followers? Does he support them? It’s interesting to know too, does certain A.F. Dokuchaeva (the twice signer as well) act on her behalf or not, because there is no any mention on Pavlodar’s region branch in Shanyrak RPO website?

Who did authorize them such action? Let’s repeat: on the basis what decision do they act? Does the position of those who signed match the position of leadership and other members of these parties? It seems that these signers have imagined themselves as «a great politician», and decided to put signatures under the petition in flagrant violation of their charter and authority. Such persons have small understanding on elementary party discipline; what can we talk about with them then?

It’s interesting to look at their parties’ leaders’ reaction on partisan’s actions of its region branches. Principally, such flagrant violations can be a reason to remove the signers from their office and to exclude them from the party. Such members can bring only harm to party. If we see, the disciplinary punishment wasn’t implemented to the signers then we may consider leaders of the parties agree with the lack of discipline in their party’s ranks, or even they connive at the party’s violations.

Bees against honey

What do they oppose, at least? They oppose against of giving to Nursultan Nazarbayev the status of Leader of the Nation. What do they do in their own parties? They do the same thing, interestingly! Recently honorary members appeared in several parties. Rukhaniyat party congress passed the authority of chairman to Serikzhan Mambetalin in March, 2010; whereas the party’s founder and until recently chairman of Rukhaniyat party – Altynshash Dzhaganova became the honorary member. Communistic party of Kazakhstan passed the authority to Gaziz Aldamzharov; whereas the 1st Secretary of the party until recently – Serikbolsyn Abdildin has became the honorary member as well.

Why does Abdildin oppose Leader of the Nation status for Nazarbayev when he’s got the same status from his members of party? Generally, if there is the fashion to give to the retired party’s leaders the title of «honorary member», then why not to give to Nursultan Nazarbayev the status of «Leader of the Nation»?

We see double standards, it’s amazing!

Generally, oppositional parties and public organizations supporting them next time proved their own extreme narrow-mindedness in combination with extremely non-democratic way to take decisions in their organizations and Khan’s reign in it, flagrant violations of party discipline and direct usage of double standards.