By Alexei Vlasov, exclusively to VK
Russian, Kazakh and Kyrgiz experts actively discuss the possibility of their states becoming parliamentary republics instead of presidential ones. They said it is only logical that as the post-soviet era of ‘strong hand’ government is coming to an end the new democracies don’t need a strict presidential ‘chain of command’.
Presently, the governmental systems are required to be more flexible and dynamic, especially as the inner social challenges are concerned. Moreover, in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan the elites are bracing themselves for possible drastic changes in case Karimov and Nazarbayev are no longer capable of governing the countries. According to a recent interview of Kazakh presidential adviser Yertysbayev, the future President of Kazakhstan won’t have the same vast powers the current President has.
Practically, this means that in Russia, Kazakhstan and, possibly, Azerbaijan the Parliaments will be gaining more and more political influence, they will be able to control the cabinet formation. The parliamentary speakers will become the leading political figures while the presidential administration’s functions will be reduced.
At the same time, political parties and movements will have to assume the leading role in the political life of the post-Soviet states, and thus they will have to win wider popular support, especially among the young people.
It is most probable that the transitional period will last for several years, in which the ruling parties will gain a great deal of influence, becoming ‘collective heirs’ of today’s political national leaders. These parties are: ‘Nur Otan’ in Kazakhstan, the liberal-democratic party of Uzbekistan, and, if the process described above takes hold of Azerbaijan, the ‘Yeni Azerbaijan’.
Some experts say that the logic of the upcoming change has nothing to do with the notions of ‘democratic’ or ‘non-democratic’ government. It is more about boosting the efficiency of the legislative and executive powers – this need is most noticeable on the example of Russia, as the governmental system here can’t presently assure the necessary level of administrative efficiency.
The new model of administration won’t become stable right away, so the period of adaptation is likely to last for several years. It is possible that the process of Eurasian integration would help promote parliamentarianism on the post-Soviet space. So it is no accident that the experts have started pointing out the necessity of parliamentary integration on the post-Soviet space, following the EU model, some years ago, as this would help the legislative power exercise more efficient control over the countries’ executive offices. There are already some results of this integration project – the CIS Inter-Parliamentary Assembly is working efficiently within its competence.
However, such a transformation would require not only formal changes; it demands the formation of a whole new political culture, of an active civic society, which would be required to actively participate in the new model of government. And that is, as I think, the most difficult problem here: the instruments of the people-government dialog are still rudimental. Today we see that people can express their political opinion only via grass roots rallies while the bureaucrats are not ready to seriously pay attention to the demands of some civic activists they don’t recognize as valid political figures as they have no offices within the bureaucratic administrative system.
So it seems it won’t be easy for our states to turn to the parliamentary democracies after all. It will be a sort of maturity test for our governmental systems, and our whole future depends on the results of this test.
