Once again about the succession

Talgat Ismagambetov, independent political scientist, the candidate of political science, associate professor, especially for Exclusive

The transfer of power to successor is one of the peculiarities of the change of leadership in the states of modern East. We try to understand the phenomenon of succession in the present article. Is this phenomenon possible in Kazakhstan, in the country where the European and Eastern behavior, culture and policy coexist?

The institute of successor
In the eastern countries (India, China, Pakistan) despite their socio-political and economic systems, the institute of successor serves as a tool in minimizing the risks for political, economic and social systems, so the policy becomes more predictable. Along with this, the leader must transfer the knowledge of political intricacies including the ability to carry on political intrigues to the preparing successor.
Russia has got a selection of successors since 1999 but it doesn’t have a valuable institute of successor with a set of established rules and regulations. 
The succession of power is a subtle matter.
Insertion 1. In the east we deal with the institute of successor despite the fact whether the succession takes place within the bounds of the same family or the team-mate from one party, who doesn’t have ties of blood, is announced as a successor. In Singapore in addition to successor there is a position of senior Minister, per se the tutor which is occupied by Li Kuan Yu and in China in 1987-1997 years Den Syaopin had been appointed to the position of patriarch elder by the secret decision of the 13th assembly of Communist Party and this position had more power than all the other high officials.
On the contrary Russia has demonstrated the dependence of succession on the situation and the absence of formal rules again. In tandem Medvedev - Putin the evident leadership belongs to the latter although the power of President Dmitri Medvedev is higher according to his status. It is also paradoxical that Vladimir Putin has become the leader of the party “United Russia” at the end of his presidency although he is not the member of that party! It is notable that combination of the positions Head of the party with Head of the State hasn’t been observed since the times of Hrushev.     
In the Eastern countries including China, the institute of successor is specific institute acting in the environment of established modern (parties, labor unions) and traditional institutes (religious groups, local communities, the communities of merchants, craftsmen and etc.).
However these traditional institutes don’t have power and authority in Kazakhstan. Moreover the party which was bound with discipline stopped to exist in 1991 and the establishment of the institutes of modern civil society which are able to act by themselves and independently of government relates to the number of perspective projects, not to the number of realities of the present day. Kazakhstan is similar to Russia in this key point: the institute of successor cannot be the institute with clear rules in terms of the weakness of non-governmental institutes and absence of generally recognized “rules of the game”.

Kazakhstani realities
In Kazakshtani realities the matter of succession takes away from the direction and causes the phenomenon “the game not by the rules, but the game against the rules”. It is enough to note the appearance of Asar Party and strange for the East the competition of the parties, one of which had been headed by the daughter of the Head of State. The idea of Rahat Aliev about the need of introduction of constitutional monarchy also proves the “game against the rules” despite other things.
The domestic legislation puts forward the necessity of continuous habitation in the Republic of Kazakhstan for 15 years except such demands as birth in the territory of Kazakhstan, age not younger than 40, the knowledge of Kazakh language as the terms for the potential  presidential aspirants. The last regulation has been introduced during the recent constitutional amendments in May of 2007 when the following law was accepted: Clause 2 of the Article 41 of Constitution the words “not less than 15 years” should be changed with the words “the recent 15”.
In this way, those people who have been abroad for a long time for some reasons are cut off from the race for presidency. Businessmen and the people of free professions, who worked abroad despite of the fact whether it was their own initiative or the decision of the administration of Kazakhstani Company; scholars of the Bolashak program, other people from the number of migrant-workers and students who studied abroad can be added to this list. Diplomats including ambassadors are also out of the list of aspirants since the basic law doesn’t say exceptions in connection with long habitation outside the country. If citizen has been abroad continuously for 5 or 9 months then it is not clear how the Constitutional Council would interpret the regulation about “the recent 15 years”.
It is not difficult to remember who has been an ambassador from the list of high officials of Kazakhstani establishment. Some officials are due to be directed abroad. The ambitions of the most high-ranking political public servant can be limited by the ordinary direction to the position of ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary.
In May of 2007 one of the changes and amendments in Constitution allows the first president to run for the position of President without limiting him by two terms on end. The statements of some public politicians about the period of office of incumbent president N.A. Nazarbaev till 2017 are notable. The selection of successor is not on agenda.
So the talks about succession belong to the field of rhetoric though the Constitution of the country doesn’t fully close the way to the transfer of power. According to the changes and amendments made in the Constitution in October of 2008 the chairman of Senate is the first person to replace the position of the Head of State for the remaining time till next presidential elections. Following people in this replacing list are the Head of Madzhlis and Prime-Minister. The reasons for such kind of replacement can be the voluntary resignation, dismissal because of impeachment or disease. However, most of these reasons don’t relate to the number of “good” ones and don’t belong to the voluntary transfer of power to successor.
However we have got “but”. The person working till the end of previous president’s term of office doesn’t have rights to make changes in the Constitution.
Insertion 2. Will the politician who has become a leader unexpectedly for himself and others be able to solve the following basic political matters?
First. Will he be able to consolidate the achievements in the field of interethnic relations which are the fundamentals of political stability? Will he be able to give adequate replies to the defiance from the Islamic fundamentalism?
Second. Will he be able to expand the horizons of political and economic development by showing the features of real leader?
Third. Will he be able to end with the relations “power-property” when the obtainment of the powerful position stimulates its obtainer to acquirement of the property by means of corruption and property redivision?

The West: No need of successor’s institute
The West doesn’t have interest in succession at all. The Western democracies have no necessity in special institute even in such cases as when the most of the party members know who is indisputable favorite in the struggle for leadership. In the 1950s Anthony Eden was considered to be the undoubted leader of the party by conservators after the resignation of aged Winston Churchill from the policy. Long before the resignation of Great Britain’s Prime-Minister Tony Blair in summer of 2007, there were no doubts that Gordon Brown, who has been the second person in the party of laborites for a long time, would become its leader and next Head of State.
However the major element of succession-personal confidence, the element of the purposeful transfer of power to the “reliable hands” was absent in this replacement.
In much the same way, the vice-presidents of USA and Latin America acceded to the position of president repeatedly before the end of his term of office. In the American conditions the speech is not about the succession, but about the desire of the party administration and presidential candidate to offer vice-presidency to the person who can bring the victory nearer by attracting more votes. So in the election campaign of the northerner John Kennedy the southerner Lyndon Johnson was the person who swayed the balance in his favor by providing the votes from Texas, Louisiana, North and South Carolina. In 1952 the votes of youth attracted with the help of young candidate for the vice-presidency Richard Nixon helped the republican Eisenhower.

Which way should we select?
So the succession is moved to remoter perspective. The peculiarities of our society and its institutes don’t allow speaking about the establishment of successor’s institute with precisely formed “Eastern” rules in the near future. The “Russian” succession is shelved as well. In Russia the first operation “Successor” has demonstrated surprises for the leading participants of this movement. Who could expect that Boris Berezovski, the previous participant of this operation, would become a political emigrant? No one could expect the redivision of power and property.    
The version of “Russian” succession means that risks for the representatives of elite are quite great and less foreseeable. The system risks of political and economic nature are unavoidable if the political and social institutes are weaker than influence of the leader. If we take into consideration the fact that the role of Head of State in Kazakhstan is quite great and the parties are systematically weaker than in Russia, then we come to the conclusion that the risks are supposed to be higher.   
Here we come to the paradoxical situation: we cannot achieve our aim according to the Eastern rules, it is not real according to the Russian rules in the near future, and we haven’t developed enough yet for the competition “according to the western rules”?
The old good, but forgotten tradition comes to our help. The khans Abulkhair and Ablai didn’t come from rich families. Both of them became orphans early. There were gentler and richer sultans, whose fathers were the ruling khans. However it was these two chingizs who were noticed and supported by the “people from side”- batirs and beys. According to the legend, Ablai was noticed by Tole-biy. Abulkhair couldn’t pay bride price for his beloved Bopay. Batir Zhanibek helped him in becoming the person of policy and creating his family hearth. And then the “matrix of support” started, the abilities and talents were noticed by other chiefs of clans and tribes. They needed “reliable sword” and it was obtained first in the person of Abulkhair and then in the person of Ablai.
But what interferes? If someone is inclined to the mutual blames, passing from the division into mambets and mankurts to the division into “these” and “those” Kazakhs then he just shows inability to join. His predecessor could be called Barak, who envied the authority of Abulkhair. In the end, the matter of succession brings us to the statement: “Which way should we select?” We should select the way in which “the general rules of the game” would arise, under which the western competition of the politicians or the eastern institute of successor or their combination is possible.