Yet, the Central Asian states have experienced divergent political developments. While some of them succeeded to some extent in establishing a multi-party system, albeit with limitations, in some others, legal and political structures became more repressive than even those of the Gorbachev era. Whilst in the region totalitarianism is symbolized by Turkmenistan and authoritarianism is chiefly exemplified by Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan has recently witnessed the emergence of a chaotic democratic structure. Tajikistan has lived a totally different experience after the civil war of 1992-1997, and despite democratic deficiencies, it has accommodated opposition forces and parties in its power structure. Kazakhstan has had a different experience than all other countries in the region.In spite of the autocratic leadership centered on Nursultan Nazarbayev, the country has become a semi-authoritarian polity with partial democratization. Despite the autocratic structural constraints, political opposition has been permitted to a limited extent by the regime. Since the regime has followed a balancing strategy in its multivectoral foreign policy between Russia and the West, it has in practice responded positively to the criticisms of the West with regards to its democratic deficiencies, even though Kazakh rulers rhetorically opposed these criticisms. The forthcoming Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) chairmanship of Kazakhstan in 2010 has become a carrot towards more democratization in the country.
Political stability and vast natural resources have helped the country develop an economy larger than all the other Central Asian economies combined. The country has a territory larger than Western Europe. Ethnically, the country is diverse, with Kazakhs making up only just over half the population, Russians comprising over a quarter and smaller Ukrainian, German, Chechen, Kurd, Korean and Central Asian minorities. The Nazarbayev government has been trying to strike a delicate balance between developing a cohesive national identity and respecting the rights of both minorities and the majority.
The state respects people's religions, faiths and cultures. It stays away from a utopian homogenization rhetoric. And even more, Nazarbayev is proud to have different religions, ethnicities and cultures represented in the country. In that respect, he seems to be aware of the disastrous experiences of some other countries. Although several media outlets are dominated either by the state or by his relatives, he is regularly criticized in the media, sui generis as far as the Central Asian countries are concerned. There are regular elections and political parties are at least allowed to compete in the elections. Even though foreign observers have reported irregularities in the elections, which Nazarbayev's party has constantly won with landslide victories, I suspect that similar to Putin in Russia, even if there were non-flawed elections, Nazarbayev could easily win, as it seems that he is well aware of the spirit of times, does not oppress his people and thus there is no potential for a strong opposition. Several people I spoke to, including many Turks residing in the country, underlined that people like him and are happy to live in Kazakhstan. Although Russians resent that there aren't dual-nationality rights, ethnic minorities do not suffer oppression in the country, and what's more, nine out of the 107 Lower House (Mazhlis) members are elected by the Assembly of the People of Kazakhstan, a presidentially appointed advisory body designed to represent the country's ethnic minorities.
The level of economic, social, inter-ethnic and political development in the country in less than two decades is truly remarkable, and instead of comparing Turkey to Iran, Algeria or Malaysia, our anti-democrats and militarists should discuss if Turkey could one day achieve what Kazakhstan has achieved in terms of non-militarism, pluralism, diversity and being a non-ideological and faith-friendly state.
