Political Scientist Dosym Satpayev: Double Standards

In an article for Orda.kz, Dosym Satpayev analyzes the President's address, noting several trends impeding Kazakhstan's economic and political development. The political scientist calls double standards a unifying feature of several issues. 

Last year, the government admitted that limited resources prevented it from simultaneously financing all necessary projects, such as road repairs, heating networks, and school construction. Thus, they seek to increase budget revenues. If one examines the Supreme Audit Chamber data, then every year, tens of billions of budget funds are either embezzled, used ineffectively, or are even dead weight in the Akimat, ministry, and quasi-governmental structure budgets.

At the same time, officially, a source of supplementary income is the return of assets siphoned out of the country. As stated in the President’s address, these assets are used to invest in constructing "schools, hospitals, stadiums, museums, and other socio-cultural facilities.” 

The idea is certainly good. But the devil is in the details. For example, the address has specified that those who return the assets will be included in the "philanthropist golden list." For those who do not, there will be "another conversation." Everything seems correct. Yet, the authorities themselves will determine who will or will not be on this list, as the work of the Asset Return Commission is not public; many things there will be in the shadows, beyond the control of society. And this is always the basis for abuse and behind-the-scenes negotiations.

Incidentally, there was another phrase the President uttered about the need to "organize all information about assets returned to the state and their intended use ." Oddly, this is said only now, after the Commission has worked for over a year. That is, the President himself does not know who has collected what and where it has all been sent. If this is a blind spot, suspicions arise about oh-so-simple asset redistribution.

The same question about double standards - regarding who should serve a prison sentence and who can be released on parole. These double standards were laid out under Nazarbayev but have practically not changed. Those convicted under political articles are imprisoned to the fullest extent because they do not express remorse publicly; they have nothing to apologize for. Aron Atabek was released from prison only when he was already terminally ill. And this was not humanity or mercy. The authorities feared he would die in prison, which would have impacted their image. 

Meanwhile, those accused of corruption crimes usually do not remain in prison. According to the authorities' logic, the threat to security is not the one who stole but the one who was engaged in opposition activities. This is unsurprising: corrupt officials and state property plunderers are closer in mentality to many in power.

Those who confessed to stealing billions are only asked to undergo financial liposuction, express remorse, and purchase an act of grace to allow them, slightly thinner, yet not impoverished, to squeeze through the prison bars without serving their full term. Committed a foul, remorse expressed, absolved. For the authorities, it is now more key for some of the first president's entourage to thin out financially so that his other family members surrender their assets voluntarily, sidestepping prison. 

While the thinning out of some oligarchic groups has begun, the current government also does not eliminate the patron-client system itself. As before, there is an exchange of loyalty for security. It is like in one joke. If under Nazarbayev, geneticists established that the ability to do big business was best passed on from father-in-law to son-in-law, then under Toqayev, the geneticists made changes and established that the ability to preserve big business is best passed on to the one who began to share. 

The same situation with double standards is not only with oligarchs but in general with various authorities, whose relatives, despite various crimes, are either still free or get off with a slap on the wrist. All this confirms the preservation of the old rules: Those who are right are not the ones who are correct but the ones possessing more entitlements, power, and connections. 

For quite some time, there was another joke that the Kazakh elite and oligarchs had two other capitals aside from Astana: the northern one, London, and the southern one, Dubai. Moscow also emerged. This is evidenced by data from the Ministry of Finance. It named the top five countries where Kazakh civil servants and employees of the quasi-public sector have real estate: Russia, Türkiye, Kyrgyzstan, Bulgaria, and UAE.

Also, 100 billion tenge were in foreign bank accounts. Most were opened in Russia, the USA, and France. Presumably, there is much more real estate and accounts. Only what was declared was announced. So how much more was undeclared? All this suggests that many government officials, having assets abroad, did not and do not attach their future to their country. And they consider all these foreign assets as backups in case of issues in Kazakhstan. 

Read the full version in Kazakh, original version in Russian.