Values-based policy

by Adil Toiganbayev, the leader of the party the Kazakhstan National Congress

A rarity in our times

It is believed that the idea of the end of the world comes from warped superstition, while I increasingly see it as the only explanation for what is going on.

The Middle East, where the parties cannot make peace because of the ambitions of those who cannot consider the possibility of selling their territory, is a good example.

What does the United States have to offer? The signing of a peace treaty, a technical protocol, and it is a “condition sine qua non” that any talks must end in the signing of a treaty. The price of the peace is of secondary importance.

However, people do not want peace at any cost. They are ready to live in the state of war if this war makes them more secure compared to peace with an enemy they do not trust.

However, not everyone craves peace – some people desire victory.

What else is fundamental for the West, besides the invariable “peace”? Institutional democracy.

Multi-party elections have been held in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they did not become a historic milestone. The local elites played a game with the U.S. Administration – by its own rules and at its own expense. In fact, real politics still rests on clan and tribal divisions and is heavily influenced by elders. The most important thing is that despite the multi-party elections that have been held society failed to become liberal. The Afghan Taliban executed people for their religious beliefs, and this practice lives on under Mr. Karzai.

Francois Duvalier was elected at a general election, while Pol Pot was not. Still, is there a big difference between their regimes?

Democratic elections alone are not what former authoritarian states need for development. If Western politicians really want to contribute to their self-determination and development, but not to rear irresponsible native elites who boost incompetence, corruption and crime, they should decide between civilization and its total absence.

It may seem that the idea of democratic elections was historically discredited by the German Nazis, but they still live on, which means one thing for me: the West's policy is losing its sense.

What is the use for the West of Uzbekistan being recognized as an authoritarian regime while Turkey is seen as a ready candidate for EU membership? Is it just because Islam Karimov does not play ar free elections and Recep Tayyip Erdogan does (because he will be in a winning position playing this game)?

Based only on values, one must admit that with all his brutal security officials and lackeys Karimov is much closer to the strategic interests of civilization than Erdogan. Karimov made his choice before 9/11 and has been faithful to it ever since, while Erdogan is just a gentlemanlike advocate of  violence.

Democracy as a procedure and democracy as a value are not the same thing.

Yes, Karimov is a dictator, but Western allies are busy supporting his enthusiastic opponents instead of modernizing and encouraging the cultural growth of his system, and if these opponents come to power, it is the Taliban that will gain real power. It is because the political opposition in most Central Asian countries consists of a dozen elderly scholars who think their efforts and talents are underestimated, or hundreds of brainless drug dealers, or thousands of would-be Taliban hangmen. I know what I’m talking about – more than many others.

I lead a political party myself and along with my supporters have a vital interest in a transparent electoral system. We consider it important to curb the powers of the president and to introduce a parliamentary republic with the executive government formed by the parliamentary majority and working under the daily control of the public. Nonetheless, these fundamental aspects are still secondary against the background of national culture and human needs. If the balance shifted in favour of those who choose freedom and development, political techniques would inevitably improve. It is pointless improving them in an uncertain society.

The political regimes in Central Asia were not established by dictators – they are fragments of the collapsed authoritarian Soviet system, and they simply have not had have a chance to become anything different. There was a lack of qualified managers in the USSR and an abundance of nations with amputated political will. Similarly to others, the peoples of Central Asia suffered a lot from the communists, and these days some of them are not considered duly democratic, while others simply do not want to be.

This year my country – Kazakhstan – chairs the OSCE. It is very symbolic for us as this underlines our strategic European choice – the choice of competitive civilization, which unites various and diverse cultures and is grounded in diversity, freedom and development.

I stress again that the presence of democracy signs is not of paramount importance, it is much more important when the need for democracy is perceived by a nation and a civil society emerges in it. I believe Kazakhstan is on the right path in this sense, because it is obvious that Kazakhstan has the necessary potential of diversity and cultural interest in the outside world, which will not allow us to build a nation of hermits who reject everything around them.

Not all of our elite can be described as “advanced”, but its younger elements are advanced and their historical priority is obvious. We can and even must criticize the President inside the country, but his foreign policy strategy seems to me to be the best for the conditions under which he began his rule. The fact that he often follows recommendations and promotes former Soviet functionaries is unacceptable to us, albeit understandable. We see options which we think to be best but see no professional politicians who can implement them right now.

Nazarbayev has become the symbol of many positive trends. He has virtually set Kazakhstan up like a big testing ground. Deciding on a progressive economic programme, he laid the basis for forming an independent class of those who are willing to build their own lives rather than rely on public subsidies. He has established a system for training young professionals abroad and declared competitiveness to be the main requirement of the time, thus pushing the country further from the deadlock of Turkmenistan, Cuba or North Korea. He has created a new capital which was conceived to become the engine which pulls the ambitiously developing country along. He has suggested that new know-how for solving global religious conflicts be developed.

If Western countries go on forming their opinion of Kazakhstan on the basis of sporadic reports of corruption and not very funny comedies, this will undermine our valuable cooperation and make the positions of those who fundamentally oppose it much stronger.

This valuable cooperation must not consist of supporting the marginal opposition, whose ultimate aim is chaos and which continuously incites clashes between the rich and the poor, but of opening high-standard English language schools, arranging courses for film makers and organizing student and youth exchanges instead. I am convinced that there are few countries which so badly need the experience and knowledge of the outer world and which so sincerely and passionately long for learning and development as Kazakhstan.

The Kazakh National Congerss has decided for itself that it wants to become a motivating force for those who are romantically fascinated by the opportunities of life in am open world and those who only prefer it from a pragmatic point of view. To convince the latter is no less important than to inspire the former. This precludes the possibility of authoritarian development – “it is not profitable to be a cannibal” – and creates the necessary preconditions for a gradual reformation of the country and its final break with its Soviet past.

Adil Toiganbayev

Politician, the leader of the party the Kazakhstan National Congress.

Born on October, 12, 1966 in Alma-Ata, a Kazakh national, he is a descendant of Aytkesh Toiganbayev, a famous journalist and public activist.

In 1989 Toiganbayev graduated from Bauman higher technical school in Moscow where he got a diploma of mechanics engineer; and later on continued education in London. He is an MA in economics, speaks English.

Once a businessman Adil Toiganbayev these days is actively involved in public activities, organizing the party. He is the head of the Expert centre for national strategy (Almaty, Kazakhstan).

Toiganbayev is married to Bermet, a daughter of Askar Akayev, the first President of Kyrgyzstan, brings up two children.

Toiganbayev is the author of a series of articles in domestic and foreign media and the books: “Technology of the dream” (2008г), “Daily democracy” (2010).