Kazakhstan president proposes reforms to limit his powers
aljazeera.com
aljazeera.com
(I don't know anything about Kazakhstan politics so the similarities may be superficial.)
That said, I know little about Finnish politics.
The last statement is correct. For the most part, Kekkonen did whatever the USSR wanted. He was the architect of Finlandization.
The USSR was in a totally different state in 1945 than during the Winter War. It could have rolled into Finland at the end of the Nazi funded Continuation War, reinstated as the government the losing side from among the worker parties of the Finnish Civil War, and Finland would have been another Warsaw Pact Comecon country. But the USSR did not. Because Germany and the buffer states between were seen as a possible threat but Finland was not. Finland had no means of standing up to the USSR, and Kekkonen did the opposite.
> Kazakhstan will not help Russia to evade Western sanctions imposed on Moscow over its ongoing invasion of Ukraine, a top Kazakh official has said.
> Kazakhstan is not part of this conflict. Yes, we are part of the Eurasian Economic Union but we are an independent state with our own system, and we will abide by the restrictions imposed on Russia and Belarus. We don't want and will not risk being placed in the same basket.
> Kazakhstan respects the territorial integrity of Ukraine, did not recognize and will not recognize the Crimean annexation, nor the independence of the two separatist-controlled territories in eastern Ukraine.
If you ever do visit, please do it in late spring or early autumn. The climate here is a bit extreme, especially for someone from milder ones. (I've always lived here, and you don't pay much attention to -40°C winters and +35°C summers after living with it for a few decades.) It's not that bad all the time, but if you do happen to arrive in the middle of such an event, it's not a fun experience.
Nomads were doing the logical thing and moving around with seasons. We, not so much.
If I have learned anything in the last couple weeks, it is that the former soviet republics are commodity powerhouses. Kazakhstan exports 50% of the worlds uranium exports. So some people definitely do care what's happening to them. But as always probably less about the population and more about what value it provides.
They also talked about what happened in January: https://astanatimes.com/2022/04/kazakhstan-eu-relations-on-t...
Russia will be occupied for the next year's and i doubt they have much to offer anymore.
There are threats with bordering to Russia, Finland is in a similar position atm. But has more borders with EU.
But it is quite extraordinary to see parts of the government lead by Tokayev, eject an autocrat (Nazarbayev) and begin the process of democratisation. And it does seem to stem from a lack of willingness to carry out a crackdown on the people.
It is not likely to become a liberal democracy soon if ever (not that is needs to be a goal at all). A hybrid regime is very likely though.
You love to see it.
Eg. This was co-ed with their president 11 years ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kazakhstans-steady-p...
Many signs that they have good-will for democracy, but I don't think it's easy in their position ( member of the CSTO and in Russia's "sphere of influence").
I have seen signs that they aren't just a puppet of Russia for example and I wasn't sure what was going on. But the article somewhat explained it.
But the ( natural) direction seems to be set either way.
The natural process of democracy seems to be: Dictatorship -> industrialisation -> democracy. Does any one knows any books talking about this?
e.g. I’m pretty sure Loui didn’t expect in his worst nightmares that his head will be chopped of a couple of years later).
The only successful exceptions I can think are is Spain after Franco died, Taiwan and South Korea but these are all rather modern.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/38521576
Probably not exactly what you’re looking for, but it tackles the somewhat bumpy transition from industrialization to democracy (or rather why it didn’t exactly work out that way)
Absolutist monarchy -> violent jacobin style revolution -> ??? (a lot of war and dead people)-> reactionaries come back to power -> a more moderate revolution/coup which brings a more balanced regime which establishes some kind of a rule of law based constitutional order.
Britain only had a single cycle of this, while France needed 2/3.
It not like the goal of Prussia was to establish a democratic regime in France, that was just side effect and arguably Napolean brought that war on himself (just like his uncle did with Russia)
Many other monarchs gave up their "divine" rights under pressure, but without being really overthrown.
What about the UK?
Mexico is another modern example; it became democratic gradually and peacefully in the late 90s or early 2000s. There was no sudden regime change, and the formerly ruling PRI is still a major political party that runs in the (now fair) elections.
Read this section:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_revolutions_of_1848%E2%...
Summary: The King gave half the population what they wanted and then he used good old military force to struck the rest down and then he regained all of his powers.
England had a head start thanks to the Magna Carta (which established the Parliament) and the Civil War (which gave it teeth); by the time the steam engine was invented, the rule of law was well established and industrialists didn't need to worry about having their work confiscated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism#Traje...
"Capitalism, Alone" by Branko Milanovic discusses that, amongst other things.
Watch this video ("The Rules for Rulers" from CGP Grey)[0], it's a summary of a book from de Mesquita ("The Dictator's Handbook")[1]. The video explains this process very well, imo.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11612989-the-dictator-s-...
What really brought it home to me, was a podcast of two boardgame designers working on the "tech" trees of a Civilization type game. One was for religion, which had to start with mysticism, to move on to theology. When my offense about this line of thinking passed I had to wonder: since Judaism -> Christianity -> Islam, are they going to stop the monotheistic track at Christianity or Islam?
At the end of the day they are buying time and what is given by decree can also be taken way by decree either formally or in practical terms.
Let’s hope I’m wrong or they really get what they just pretended to want.
> As he was then constitutionally limited to two consecutive terms as president, Putin served as prime minister again from 2008 to 2012 under Dmitry Medvedev, and returned to the presidency in 2012 in an election marred by allegations of fraud and protests; he was reelected again in 2018. In April 2021, following a referendum, he signed into law constitutional amendments including one that would allow him to run for reelection twice more, potentially extending his presidency to 2036.
Well, some people say that under Medvedev Russia was a bit friendlier with USA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset
I'm not sure that points highlighted in that article would happen if Putin was president (allowing U.S. forces fly over Russia, supporting Iran sanctions, reducing nuclear arsenals, U.S. dropping plan to build a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe).
The other stuff - seems just like Putin thought "well let them think Russia has changed".
AFAIK Medvedev was wholly controlled by Putin so why would he bother limiting presidential power?
It seems everyone had already forgotten that, though.
But things aren't always as simple as they appeared then either.
There is a push of Central Asian people toward a form of de-colonial thinking and praxis, but in my humble opinion, it's another colonization with a different color - from the west.
What is true is that democracy mostly exists in the west currently. But it's not colonisation if a country becomes a democracy. That could happen without "the west".
Ps. A sign of not a democracy is leaders in control for > 20 years.
Russia is a terrible partner. Russia sympathizer in Ukraine brought destruction on that country from Russia. It's really tragic that Russia is obliterating people that considered themselves Russians living in Ukraine.
There is zero comparison between modern western projects and Russia imperialism that did not change in the last 300 years.
No state is perfect, and one can always find this or that to pick at, but most of democratic ones have not unleashed armies of state-employed goons on their own people to keep them from speaking up.
You should work on your boot-licking addiction (and I am telling you that as a Soviet-born russian-speaking citizen of one of the former republics).
You could've studied and worked in Belgium/Netherlands/Finland and many other countries much richer than Poland even with the Iron Curtain in place.
Millions of people did just that.
- You werent able to cross to the west unless on official Government delegation.
- You werent able to cross the border _at all_ unless Government decided to let you. It was a political decision by a party committee.
- Vacations abroad were only possible as an official reward from the Government, and never outside ~Comecon.
- You couldnt even keep a passport in your own house. It was given to you before departure, and you had 7 days to return it after crossing back.
You know who did work and study in the west? People who ran away https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_Miles_to_Heaven https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ferry
My uncle actually planned stowing away on a ferry to Norway in 1981, but got caught in the port and landed in penal company.
Large parts of Eastern Europe had a choice after the collapse of the Soviet Union and chose the way of the west/Europe, with all its challenges and shortcomings, because almost any system is better than living under the thumb of autocratic leadership.
I hope one day, not that many years from now, I can once again visit a prospering Ukraine, which will be a member of the EU. If that is what the Ukranian people want, that is.
Yeah but wait: Russia today is very capitalist and market based. Yet very autocratic. The two can well go together. And that is the case of Kazakhstan as well.
> Large parts of Eastern Europe had a choice after the collapse of the Soviet Union and chose the way of the west/Europe, with all its challenges and shortcomings, because almost any system is better than living under the thumb of autocratic leadership.
No, they had no choice, because there was no alternative, not even in Russia. And today we are dealing with this lack of alternative. I think you are prone to believe that Putin is the Soviet Union 2.0: that's far from reality. Putin is the product of this lack of alternatives of the 90s.
That's one way to you find your post-soviet country attacked by Russia's army in order to "protect Russian minorities there" and "liberate your country from nazis".
Though Russia is currently too busy in the west right now to register Kazakhstan on the radar, so now is probably the golden opportunity to break your chains from them if you have any.
Everybody has seen how actually weak their army is. Before that, counties and people were afraid of them mostly because of soviet era fame. Now they've shown they are incapable on anything except missile hits with a great failure rate.
Any sources for this?
> Citing U.S. intelligence, three U.S. officials said the United States estimated that Russia's failure rate varied day-to-day, depended on the type of missile being launched, and could sometimes exceed 50%. Two of them said it reached as high as 60%.
But this blog post is a bit more informative [2]
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/exclusive...
[2] https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2022/04/ukraine-...
google "russian missile failure rate" and you can find many more articles
Russia's performance was certainly underwhelming, especially their logistics and general appearance of disorganization, but weak might also be a bit of a stretch.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/28/russia-central-bank-hikes-in...
Russia is bankrupting itself to prop that number up and if they let up for even a week the currency flight would crater the exchange rate.
But they've succeeded in pummeling Ukraine into stone age. These "unsuccessful" strikes last I heard caused just over half a trillion of damage - so far :(. Ukraine economy is anticipated to be down 40% in 2022 - and that's an optimistic estimate. And 4-5mil of their own people have already fled the country.
I think it's one thing for us to speak how "weak Russian army is" from far away. Inefficient as it may be, it still makes your day pretty lousy. And your country. And the convenient thing about authoritarian regime and culture that's enjoyed sense of martyrdom for centuries is they can bear far far greater losses than most in the west.
I don't think people around Russia are drawing the same conclusions as "Russia will think twice". A different conclusion may be "Russia Will attack a country if it really wants ti, and pummel it to rubble, consequences be damned". If I were their neighbour, I would think of Russia as pissed, not weak, right now.
With what money? The west will hardly make any significant loans or investments to Ukraine, when Russia can always steamroll in, and shell everything to pieces whoever they feel like it. If Ukraine were under the NATO protection like the Baltic and EE states, then yeah, investors can expect their money is safe there. But until Ukraine gets any real protection against future Russian aggression, not much will change.
Rebuild and come back stronger is one possible path out of this. There are many others that are possible or likely.
I’m not sure it’s quite as easy to just “use” Western law as Kazakhstan seems to think. The black letter law doesn’t matter so much as how it’s interpreted and whether it’s consistently applied in court. It’s an interesting idea, though. And if they can get it off the ground it seems like a good strategy to take advantage of their unique geo-political position.