The whole power is in one hand

The reason for the next conference has become the visit of the world’s famous expert in Central Asia professor Roomer to Almaty. The chief editor of the magazine “Exclusive” Karligash Yezhenova, political scientist Dosim Satpaev, the Doctor of politics Konstantin Siroyezhkin, the Commissioner of Institute of philology and political science MON RK Rustem Kadirzhanov, the observer of the newspaper “Panorama” Yaroslav Razumov, the Director of National Researches  Institute Burlihan Nurmuhamedov, the Coordinator of Eurasian Club of Bankers Rasul Zhumali, the Director of CAR “Alternative” Andrei Chebotarev, the Editor of Politics Department of “Expert Kazakhstan” Nikolai Kuzmin, the Head of TRK “31 channel” programs Irina Musaeva and other representatives of the institutes, social organizations, mass media took part in the discussion.

Karligash Yezhenova
I would like to introduce Boris Roomer, the professor of Harvard University. He is one of the most competent western experts in Kazakhstan and Central Asia. I am sure that most of you are aware of his works. I don’t know any other foreign expert in the economies of Central Asia and Kazakhstan, who was cited so frequently in the international business editions, conferences, chats and etc. Moreover, Boris is the author of already eighth edition of “Green book”, the collection of analytical articles about our region.

Boris Roomer
It will be very interesting for me to discuss with you about some actual subjects, which are widely discussed in the publications, specialized in political science and economics. But first of all, I want to note that now the era of revision of many theories and even fundamental conceptions of social science, which were popular in the recent past but couldn’t endure the collision with real life, has come. So the most of publications denying the direct dependence of economic growth on the level of democratization of the country, disproving the spread views about the fact that more democratic the social arrangement is the better GDP per head appear. The subjects of “Undemocratic growth”, “Authoritarian modernization”, “the foundations of economic growth in the countries of “authoritarian capitalism” which includes Kazakhstan as well are discussed in the works of political philosophers. Actually the speech is about that the economic growth and the political liberty doesn’t depend on each other. In general, it is time for the revision of the advantages of democracy of western model, the doubts in that the Western model may become overall, universal form of social arrangement which can overcome the calls of other cultures and its own contradictions.
Although not the only, but the most important feature of the democracy-is the right for the election, the opportunity of each person to dispose of his destiny and take part in determining the destiny of group. However, such question as “exactly for what election?” appears here. For example, the OSCE, the opinion of which has begun to determine the position of the Western world, announced that the elections in Belorussia weren’t democratic. There have been violations, but even the opponents of the Lukashenko regime admitted that “father” has won.
The radical-islamites has won an election in Algeria several years ago, but the army, if I am not mistaken, didn’t allow them to come to power and the secular regime of governing has been saved. After the event in 1999, when the leader of the Austrian national party “Party of Liberty” Yorg Hider has become the governor of the province Carinthia in Austria, the European Union warned Vienna about the possible isolation of the country. Yorg Hider, who is described as a “fascist” by the European mass-media, didn’t bribe the electors, didn’t take the advertising time in mass-media from other candidates by means of “administrative resource”. Briefly speaking, he was elected legally. As a result of free elections in the Palestinian autonomy, the terrorist organization KHAMAS came to the power, which is rejected by the Western world because of quite clear reasons. I am not the supporter of Islamites, extreme nationalists or KHAMAS at all. However, by pushing our own ideological and political preferences aside, let’s speak objectively about the terms of the democratic election, about strict limitations, which are imposed on it breaking the confidence in the fundamental principles of democracy.
The famous American political philosopher Farid Zakariya writes in the book, published this year that democracy is not necessary and even not compulsorily desired form of governing for many, if not the most of the countries of the world. He explains that “now democratically elected regimes ignore the constitutional limits of their power routinely and deprive their citizens of the basic rights and liberties”. He names Russia and Kazakhstan among such kind of the countries too. At the same time, Zakariya uncovers the negative sides of the western model of democracy, the power of mass, to which the elite are made to submit. He contrasts this system with the power of elite, aristocracy per se and sticks the advantages of the government of aristocracy out, but of what aristocracy? It is not the aristocracy of the inherited, but the aristocracy of the special caste of educated and ideological people, whose motto is “The condition makes responsible”, the people with moral code, who are persuaded in the fact that the social activity-is the responsibility, and the power isn’t separable from the responsibility.
In his another book published earlier, Zakariya states that most of the countries aren’t ready for the original democratic arrangement. It would do them well in case of dictatorship, “the liberal autocracy” as he calls it. He relates the term “liberal” to the economic liberalization. He considers that almost all the countries in the developing world achieved success in terms of liberal-authoritarian regimes. At that, economic liberalization is not connected with the liberalization of social life at all. He brings Singapore, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand and etc as an example. Zakariya justifies that only authoritarian governments were able to make a difficult choice, avoid populism for the long-term development leading to the economic modernization. We should say that these arguments are fully grounded by him. The result: all the transit economies governed in authoritarian way are successful. If we agree with this statement, then we should admit that authoritarian regime is not only desired but also necessary for the transit countries, for the transitional economies, to which the post-soviet countries including Kazakhstan are related for becoming the Statehood and economy.
One of the famous propagandists of the advantages of “liberal authoritarianism” is former president of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew, who has become a model for Nazarbaev according to Kazakhstani press. Singapore under the thirty year authoritarian governing of Lee Kuan Yew who passed the presidency to his son, but saved the control over the political life of the country as a “Minister-mentor” deserves to be a model of socio-political arrangement. The ideas of Singapore leader about the possibility and the terms of existence of democracy make a great impression on Nazarbaev and other post-soviet autocrats as well: “The democracy can win in the long-term perspective, but this process won’t be easy… The world is too diverse. The different races of culture, religions, languages and different historical backgrounds require different approaches to democracy and free market. The choice of the best for the given people in the given period of social system should be made by the people themselves without intervention of influences from outside”. Such kind of ideas are widely used by the post-soviet autocrats as the objective justification of the imitational democracy in their countries, as the confirmation of the objective natural laws and propriety of the mutant political systems which have arisen in the place of the collapsed empire. At that, they say that political modernization according to the Western standards-is unavoidable but unpredictably long process.
As it is known, Singapore is populated predominantly by the English-speaking Chinese with their all Confucian peculiarities. The right of ownership is absolutely ensured, the business ethics in this former colony of the British Empire is based on the Anglo-Saxon norms, which doesn’t have anything common with the practice of “rollback” “patronage” or raiding, which have become the norms in Kazakhstani business field. Singapore-is one of the less corrupted countries of the world. Can “Singapore democracy” exist on the Kazakhstani ground? Does it conform to the essential peculiarities of Kazakhstani society?
Whatever the answer is, in any way, the personal style of behaving of Singapore’s mentor which is modest and not aggravated by the compromising, the manner of giving yourself to the people which is deprived of pomposity deserves to be imitated. The same long-ruled Indonesian authoritarian president Suharto can serve as a contrast to Lee Kuan Yew in this meaning. The economic growth of Indonesia, which is rich for oil, was considerable. The top layer of business elite grew rich. The family of the president was on top of it, which seized the control over more profitable sectors of economy. The palatial life was rich for the scandals and society was excited by the escapades of the members of the presidential family. The destiny of Suharto and his relatives are widely known, and Indonesian drama of 1990s has become case study in learning the post-colonial political history of Asia.
South Korea can serve as a persuasive illustration for promoting the advantages of the authoritarian regimes in forming the effective market economies. The country was in ruins after the War. The corruption developed incredibly during the regime of Lee Sin Man. The general Pak Chzhon Hi who was single-minded and not corrupted personally, strict autocrat, came to the power and during his regime the base of consequent economic achievements was founded and the elements of corruption were subdued fully. There was no democracy during his government. He has ruled, if I am not mistaken, for 18 years and was killed at the end of 1979. Two more military authoritarian presidents — Chon Du Hvan and Ro De U ruled after him. The latter was forced to hold free elections in 1992 and give the power to democratically elected government. In 1995 both of them were brought to justice for corruption and murders of the political opponents.
Korea is the canonical sample of realization of the model of overtaking development. It has mastered production of the modern output of the imported technologies and used openness of the markets of the West. The qualified and cheap labor force has compensated the lack of its own capital mostly. The Koreans are strikingly hard-working, disciplined and gifted people with the great craving for knowledge. The poorest Korean family is ready to invest money in the education of the children first of all. The cheapest and qualified labor force-is the initial competitive advantage. The first Korean TV-set was produced in 1964 and after 40 years the world is filled up with the first-class Korean TV-sets. The Koreans have mastered mainly the Western or Japanese technologies till the recent time. Now they built their own base of the applied researches. The Korean cars compete with the Japanese successfully.
Let me stop here and let’s pass to the discussion of this quite indifferent subject for you. Maybe you have questions?

Irina Musaeva:
What are the major signs that authoritarian regime stops to be the tone of economic development?

Boris Roomer:
I don’t think that there are universal indicators. It is extremely individual for each country, for each specific political and economic situation. There are many factors which determine it: How much adequate the power is to the real calls of the current moment, how much it is informed about the real condition of things, how well the macroeconomic dynamics is, the market conditions in the world market of exported goods, energy resources as in your case. Certainly, many things depend on the perfect qualities of the leader, his flexibility, political intellect and understanding the economic realities, his intuition, which will give him a hint that it is a moment and what he should do in order to avoid the social outburst. Speaking of Kazakhstan, I will venture to disagree with the statement of your president which he said, if I am not mistaken, in May of last year: “Our principle is economy first and then the policy has proved its value fully”.
Up to the relatively recent time, Kazakhstan was seen as an island of stability in the region, and even in the whole post-soviet space. Now, it seems to me that it is not so stable. Judging the publications in Internet, presentiment of internal political destabilization, as growing underground boom preceding seismic waves are capturing people and it is reflected in the media space which is not under the control of power. And it is imposed on the unstable condition of economy, on the rise of prices in the consumer market. At the present time, namely the political factor should stand in the first place.    

Irina Musaeva:
Why do you think that situation must burst out? Why isn’t the succession, the soft transition to some oligarchic forms affecting economy already in another level possible?

Karligash Yezhenova:
In other words, can this “underground boom” entail some social shocks?

Boris Roomer:
Well, I don’t consider that outburst, serious social shocks are unavoidable. However, if something of that kind happens in the near future, then I think that it wouldn’t be more than three-four Richter numbers. The seismic stable construction has been built within the years of independence. It would survive the waves, made with the change of the leader and save the system forming feature. The soft transition is possible. Samples? We shouldn’t travel so far-Russia. In Chile Pinochet, who, we should note here, did many things for improvement of the Chilean economy, and gave the power voluntarily to the government elected by the parliament. It is the same with South Korea about which I have mentioned. Here is the freshest sample: Malaysia. The country has been headed by the Prime-Minister Mahammat, extremely strict, authoritarian leader, who pressed any beginnings of opponents for 30 years. It should be noted that material welfare of Malaysia is achieved no by the Malaysians, but by the ethnic minorities — mainly by the Chinese and small numbers of Hindus. However, the Chinese and Hindus in Malaysia are the second-rate people and discrimination with respect to them has been very clear, all the governmental posts, good scholarships in the universities, business privileges, were all meant for the Malayans. Mahammat has retired from the post because of his age and left the power to his successor. After the retirement of Mahammat, the ruling party fostered by him lost the control over parliament and the united opposition came to the power in the main economically developed states of Malaysia absolutely in a peaceful way. I think that it is useful to learn this experience.

Rustem Kadirzhanov:
I have got doubts about the benefit of authoritarian government. For example, in the early 90s the post-communist countries of the Central and Eastern Europe such as Czech Republic and Hungary were absolutely the same as Kazakhstan in the institutional plan that is there were institutes of centralized planned economy, institutes of the communist party of the government in the political plan. However, the time passes, these countries don’t take the authoritarian form of government and we see very big difference between our and their achievements within these 17 years. In my opinion, it is not necessary for the transit societies to use the authoritarian form of governing.     

Boris Roomer:
I don’t say that it is necessary. This thesis is related mainly to Asia, South America, and African countries. As for the countries of the Eastern Europe, then too many results have been achieved there. The reforms in Poland and Czech Republic didn’t require authoritarian government because of their ethnic and cultural peculiarities, but take another sample -Yugoslavia. Tito was so defamed in the soviet press! I even remember the cartoon “the bloody dog Tito” although he wasn’t so cruel dictator. However, only autocrat, even dictator Tito could prevent what has begun after his death and entered in the political slang as “balkanization”. The layers accumulated from the age’s hatred have come to the movement. Now most of the people in Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia remember the era of Tito as the “Golden Age”.

Yaroslav Razumov:
Unfortunately, I am not absolutely sure that there will be no outburst in Central Asia and think that we look carelessly to that side again and do not estimate the coming threat.
You have noted thesis that authoritarian regimes are beneficial for the transitional countries, for their societies. I agree with it fully. On the other hand, someone from the Western analysts or writers of political essays(unfortunately, don’t remember exactly who)said that by the end of 20th century the capitalism has felt so strong that it decided it can handle without democracy. So the similar moods are the nature of not only the developing Asian countries, but maybe it is the common trend.
As for Kazakhstan, then you said that prices on the raw materials are so high that most probably there will be no social outburst. I read such interesting thing during the government of Gorbachev in the late 80s; it has become a discovery for me. The historian, writer of political essays, wrote in a very justifying way that revolutions happened not in the period of social cataclysms, not in the period of some socio-economic failures, but on the contrary, in the period of sharp growth. He brought the Russian empire of the last 10 years of the 19th century as an example. At that time the economic growth made up 10-12.5% annually, but the problem was in uneven distribution of the high profits. Maybe people live better now if we remember the times of Brezhnev. In principle, they are not ready to come out to the streets tomorrow, but theoretically such possibility has already born in their minds. The problem is again in colossal class stratification.

Dosim Satpaev
Boris Roomer has touched very important subject about where the point of bifurcation, which transforms authoritarian regime into more liberal form, is located, but as the world’s practice shows, there are no places for the templates. The democratic regimes of various countries differ from each other. It is the same with autocracy. The factors which will affect the further development of these systems are very different. If we speak about Kazakhstan, then I think that these factors will differ from the factors in Uzbekistan in some way. Many political predictions aren’t realized any more because there are subjective factors except the objective internal and external factors as well. Most of the processes of the political scale are frequently initiated by the specific person. For instance, let’s take Russia where Yeltsin has given the power to Putin per se selecting him from the long list of successors or the countries of South-Eastern Asia, where the leaders decided to leave the power themselves and give it to the democratic government. It is one more evidence that subjective factor should be considered too. If we return to the bifurcation then most probably we will talk about the growing conflict between economic liberalism and political conservatism. As a result, the situation becomes so that authoritarian political superstructure starts to threaten the elite itself. If it realizes it, then abdication happens, if it doesn’t realize it, then the system collapses.

Burihan Nurmuhamedov:
I think that we can study three factors on the post-soviet space. The first is globalization at the end of 20th and the beginning of 21st centuries. The second is terrorism and its worsening in the late 90s. The third-is economic growth and demand for the energy resources. These three factors played a role in saving the authoritarian regimes on the post-soviet space. I think that resource security of the power is the determinant in stability of regime and now we see that there is no resource security in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan at the present time.
I would like to note that the territory of the country, density of population, the ethnic structure, political traditions (history, religion, experience) have also got the important meaning. For example, let’s take Kazakhstan. Let’s count the number of office employees, teachers, doctors, students, retired employees. Does the power have resources to feed such number of people? We have half-million retired-employees, and the political tradition is so that man gives his destiny to the State mentally. The transformation will take place in case of serious and long-term economic crises, in case of the change of political tradition and the appearance of the subject.    

Karligash Yezhenova
According to the representatives of our large business it is already the limit of economic growth in Kazakhstan.

Rustem Kadirzhanov:
The more democratic country is, the higher is GDP. This viewpoint is doubtful. However, the correlation remains: the free countries-are rich countries and on the contrary rich countries-are free countries. Generally, this principle is kept. You brought Singapore and Korea as an example when the authoritarian regime helps the economic growth. The theory says that most of the countries which select the authoritarian method of development (let’s say, the countries of Africa and Latin America) aren’t economically effective. Let’s take Zimbabwe with inflation of 100 000% per year as an example. In the 80s when the English left and Mugabe came to the power it was prosperous country. Now Zimbabwe has turned into the poorest country of the world, and it is the result of authoritarianism and dictatorship. The danger of authoritarianism is in that State turns into predator. The State, in which the private interests, private policies dominate over the social interests is the State-predator. It is the first reason, and the corruption is the consequence.   

Boris Roomer:
The corruption always existed and will exist. If we address the letters of ancient roman senators, then we can see that the corruption of those times in the roman provinces were terrifying. The corruption in America has been colossal and in 19th century and in our times. It is enough to bring the company “Boeing” where they obtained the huge sums of money from the military boards by means of corruption as an example. The director of the company has lost his job with shame.
Rustem Kadirzhanov:
You brought Singapore as an example where the large means are assigned to health care and education. The values of nation dominate over the private values there. It is not surprising that Singapore is related to the number of countries with the lowest level of corruption. Consequently, nationalism, which puts the interests of nation above everything, above the interests of separate individuals, separate clans and groups, has a positive meaning for economic development.  

Konstantin Siroyezhkin
I think that speaking about the existence of classic authoritarian regimes in the territory of post-soviet States isn’t right at all. The major term of authoritarian regimes-the growth of the level of economic development is performed nowhere in the territory of post-soviet States. The classics of authoritarianism-everything is allowed except the policy. The authoritarian regime creates the understandable rules of game; we don’t see any such processes in the post-soviet territory. I don’t agree with the fact that economic reforms are implemented somewhere in the post-soviet space. The structural reforms which poured out to elementary redivision of ownership have been carried out. The reforms have ended on this stage the agriculture, industry, trading didn’t start work well. The soviet feeling in us is ineradicable and that is where the problems of political system, corruption, bureaucratic organs come from. The basic law, the law about the firmness of rights for the private property, has been passed nowhere in the post-soviet space.
This law was passed in authoritarian China last year although de-facto approach to the private owner began to change in 1986. It was passed immediately in Singapore; therefore, reforms began there.
The authoritarian regime creates the rules of game and where they aren’t observed becomes Zimbabwe or the post-soviet space. That is where the economic criteria come from.
Now let’s talk about the Eastern Europe. Initially, it has another base. The question is not in the mind but in the economic base. The economic reforms in Poland began in the early 1980s and were implemented successfully. All the rest was built on this base.
Secondly, all these countries are former countries of the popular democracy which means that they had another political regime and we came out from the Soviet Union with its government ownership of not only the property but also all the social life.

Nikolai Kuzmin
I consider that current Kazakhstani regime has all the chances of existing in such way further in the future. First of all, it is more or less supported by society. As Hose OrtegaiGasset said no regime can be kept on bayonets, the regime is kept on the social opinion. This regime satisfies social opinion so far; therefore, it exists now. I will venture to note that current situation satisfies all of us; otherwise it would begin to change. Secondly, and Kazakhstani regime and any other authoritarian regime is convenient for the foreign democratic regimes and all the international partners. The authoritarian regime is very convenient partner. Once an article was published in the magazine “Atlantic Monthly” in which the “G7” was called as a “club of eunuchs” which meant that these people can only discuss but cannot decide anything and only such leaders of the modern world as the Chinese president, Russian president, Kazakhstani president, who aren’t accountable before their people, can keep any of their promises. They are very convenient partners for negotiations. That is all. It means that current Kazakhstani regime has the foreign and the internal support as well.

Rasul Zhumali
I wouldn’t agree with the previous opinion that as if the existing regime satisfies everyone. I have occasions to speak to the representatives of different layers of our society frequently because of my occupation and I don’t have an impression that people are delighted. Therefore, in our case we shouldn’t confuse the patience with satisfaction. I will say more, the society has the protest potential and it accumulates. It is the same concerning the foreign support. Yes, the oil factor leaves its mark on the relations of foreign States with Kazakhstan, but there is also a criticism from side of the same OSCE and Council of Europe which shouldn’t be kept silent. As for the authoritarianism, then it isn’t so bad as the form of governing. We can bring as an example some Arabic countries, which being the authoritarian create quite favorable economic and social conditions, ensure the basic freedom of their civilians. They don’t have corruption, shady economy and other negatives, which as a rule, go together with the most of the authoritarian regimes.

Andrei Chebotarev
I would like to cite an interesting idea of the foreign researcher. In economic theory of election he proved with some number methods that economy at any presidential government develops a little lower than at the parliament regime. I think that it is mostly right for the authoritarian regimes. However, we should understand again what regimes are authoritarian and what are not although the character and forms of governing are the same. For instance, the regime of Chile was different from the regime of Nicaragua. In one of them the economy was prosperous, but there was a grip in politics. In another one there was a grip of economy and politics which led to revolution. It seems that the situation is the same here, but we cannot say that we came to the level of Zimbabwe or Nicaragua. Maybe we came according to corruption, but not according to the level of life. Our people live fairly well as compared with the 1991-1992 years.

Boris Roomer
Summing up this meeting, I’d like to say that I’ve listened to all the speeches with a great interest. I don’t think that my understandings should be the truth of the last instance at all. My aim was to provoke you to discussion and I think that it was successful and productive.

• 24
• 23