Articles
22 November, 2004
30.09.2004
www.club.kz
in Kazakhstan
Independent information agency the “Politon” has conducted its next expert poll among public figures, activists of political parties, political scientists, journalists and representatives of civil society to find out what they think about the CEC’s activity as a whole and in particular, the CEC’s chairperson Mrs. Baliyeva’s activity.
Experts agree that the CEC’s objective to conduct fair and transparent elections “was failed”. Almost all respondents think that the CEC’s activity as technical, executive organ that organizes and controls arrangement processes and counts the elction’s results was meant for reaching the main goal to realize interests of supreme power. The CEC managed to implement this objective quite successfully.
Experts point out that the CEC in its activity has overstepped limits of its function defined by Constitution and legislation of Kazakhstan. Most likely the CEC is being directed by the political will of supreme powers. You can tell it from the way the CEC organized pre-election debates. Contradicting the world experience, the CEC developed and approved themes, format, time and regime of TV debates as well as regulated and controlled their competitive part.
However, political parties had to cover a part of broadcasting time themselves that is paying their own money. The CEC played ”by rules set by someone else”. Political scientists say that it is quite legal to bring forward claims to the choice of themes, quality of arrangements, professionalism and objectiveness of the TV debates.
All respondents agree that the CEC did not provide equal opportunities to all 2004 parliament election participants.???????. None of the respondents could set an example where the CEC would initiate court cases against organs of executive power that created obstacles to conduct election campaign of this or that candidate or political parties.
As for the head of the CEC, Mrs. Balieva’s activity, then assessment varied from” satisfactory” up to “ sharp negative”. In general her organizational activity was assessed as satisfactory. “the fact that the “system works” on the whole territory with a low level of communication nets tells us that Mrs. Balieva has managed to organize the election process” says a famous correspondent whop wished to remain unknown.
Along with that, almost all experts feel political engagement and dependence of the CEC and it’s chairperson. “She carried out a specific political directive” thinks a popular lawyer. “Mrs. Balieva earned her piece of bread not because she was afraid but she did it consciously” are sure two political scientists. “Mrs. Balieva’s name has become a common noun and her resignation from the post of the first leader of the CEC is being considered as one of society democratization criteria because fair elections and personality of the CEC’s chairperson have become incompatible.
All experts agree that Mrs. Balieva expresses the supreme power’s interests and all political parties and people do not trust her. Some experts consider her as “an odium figure”. One of the experts compares her to the Russian’s Federal Security Service in terms of odium that shows stunning self-control, cynicism hidden behind mask that leaves a sense of dirt and unreadyness of government to fairly compete with opponents”. Two of the respondents think that a negative attitude towards her personality is excessively personalized and that she “works by the CEC’s rules”.
All respondents think that Mrs. Balieva and her committee did their best to implement a political order [ as one of the popular political scientists put it” using any methods and ways”]. But from Constitution, law, logics and responsibility point of view, activity of the CEC and its chairperson “undermines the essence of election process”.
All experts agree that the CEC should have a neutral attitude towards all participants of election process and towards the process of parliament elections itself whereas majority of respondents thinks that this principle has not always been maintained.
All experts express their critical attitude towards principles of the CEC’s arrangements and election committees on all levels. “These principles should not be like these” is convinced a respondent. Another respondent thinks that the overall scheme should be able to minimize reproaches of political parties and public organizations for being biased.
All respondents share the basic principle – the principle of complete trust of citizens of the country in unprejudiced actions of election committees of all levels. Opinions of experts regarding this issue are as follows:
- In order to provide a full independence, the CEC must be formed by Parliament for a long term and it must also consist of fully independent people who would represent neither power nor politics but who would have a moral authority with the people. It must take into consideration opinions of all political parties and leading public organizations taking part in elections and report to Parliament. “Besides, the CEC must have sophisticated lawyers and function by “jury” principle and must represent a model of society in miniature” adds one of the most popular Kazakhstan political scientists.
- Principle of party formation of low election committees is a step forward but the Maslikhat must not approve their lists because Maslikhat is mainly formed by representatives of pro-government parties;
- Candidates for the CEC’s membership must take a test;
- Members of the CEC must be well paid for the job done;
- CEC’s activity on all levels must be transparent and available for a tough public control in all spheres and stages of an activity.
Majority of experts think that reforms on the CEC’s activity of all levels must have a systematic political character including introduction of necessary amendments to Constitution of Kazakhstan and the law regulating elections. “The country’s security is put on stake because elections carried out this way are able to provoke an outburst” says a political scientist.
All experts think that the head of CEC must be selected by Parliament by the President’s proposal but with opinions of all political parties taken into. As a necessary condition, Parliament must be independent to be able to reflex a general picture of Kazakhstan’s society. “We could also invite an authoritative foreign specialist to take part in selection of a head of the CEC” says a correspondent.
Terms of tenure: Half of respondents think that the CEC’s head and members should be rotated within 2-3 years until Parliament is staffed by new members. Another half thinks that Parliament could prolong the CEC and its head’s authority especially if political minority trusts a chairperson but the terms should not exceed 2-3 years that is fixed by law.
Questionnaire:
- How do you assess the Central Election Committee and Mrs. Balieva’s activity as head of it?
- Do you think that the CEC is dealing with issues it should not have to?
- Do you agree that CEC should be neutral to all participants of election process?
- What principles should the CEC be based on?
- Does the chairperson of the CEC have to be elected by Parliament or appointed by the President?
- Do you think political parties, candidates trust Mrs. Balieva?
- Do you think that Mrs. Balieva and the CEC fulfill their obligations with responsibility?
- Does a chairperson of the CEC have to have a limited term of tenure?
- Did the CEC provide equal opportunities to all participants of the 2004 elections?
- Do you know any case when the CEC would initiate court cases against organs of executive power that would make obstacles to run pre-election campaign of any candidate or political parties?
- What changes, do you think, the CEC needs to introduce?
Fokina N.
Date: 22 Nov 2004
include "footer-1.html"; ?>