Adaptation or Transition? Authoritarianism in Kazakhstan

Since the fall of the USSR, Kazakhstan has been considered in transition from authoritarian rule, with the assumption that it was in transition to democracy. However, twenty years on, despite these optimistic expectations, Kazakhstan is far from being democratic. Given these observations, how should we understand Kazakhstan? Is it a form of ‘new authoritarianism’, for example, ‘competitive authoritarianism’ or ‘electoral authoritarianism’? Or is it something else – perhaps something much simpler? This paper argues that considering Kazakhstan in transition is a non-starter, that is, rather than being a regime in transition, Kazakhstan is a regime that responded and adapted to a crisis, namely, the fall of the Soviet Union. Kazakhstan’s declaration of independence was not a break with its authoritarian past. Instead, it was a necessary response to an unforeseen and unfortunate set of circumstances. The political culture remained unchanged, and the rulers of Kazakhstan remained in power. Furthermore, the president has since found himself in a position to use the country’s independence to his own advantage, adapting the Soviet apparatus to consolidate and manage his political power and the country’s vast natural resources through traditional kinship relations, exemplifying the resilient character of authoritarianism. In short, despite the efforts and predictions of international donors, Kazakhstan is not now nor ever was in ‘transition’. It merely experienced an ‘adaptation’.