Kazakhstan: New Constitution Raises Concerns for Human Rights and Rule of Law.

Photo by Uladzislau Petrushkevich on Unsplash.com 

On March 15th, Kazakhstan held a national referendum to approve a new Constitution. The draft provides for changes to a total of 77 articles, equivalent to approximately 84% of the current Constitution. Through the March 15th referendum, whose turnout exceeded 70% of citizens, 87.15% of participating voters approved the constitutional changes. The new Constitution is set to take effect on July 1st of this year.

The draft Constitution was promoted by current president Tokayev, as a “long-term framework” providing a foundation of stability for the state and facilitating its future development. The main changes advocated for by the current government have to do with structural elements of the current institutional composition and powers. Tokayev believes the State should be the “chief arbiter of public life and prioritise stability over freedom”.

Stability comes in the form of a new parliamentary structure, with the current parliament’s two chambers being merged into a unicameral system, but also in the form of new powers to the executive, with the president being granted the right to appoint key government officials (though subject to the parliament’s approval).

Other, less publicised changes, are however a source of worry for their potential restrictive effects on fundamental rights. Certain constitutional restrictions on foreign entities financing trade unions and political parties are reminiscent of similar “foreign influence” legislation being passed in other countries with repressive effects on civil society. Moreover, the Constitution notably lacks a mention of the fundamental right to strike. The rights of certain communities are also limited, such as the rights of LGBT+ people through the definition of marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman.

This constitutional reform has been advocated as necessary to ensure “law and order” in the country, hence the focus on stability. Some see the reforms as positive insofar as they help to “streamline governance” by making it more efficient, and to modernise the country’s institutional structure. Signals of worry come, however, from many directions. Some have defined the new constitutional configuration as an investment on stability at freedom’s expense.

Others critique the drafting process of the Constitution, which did not foresee inclusive public consultations or independent oversight from civil society. Political commentaries forecast a dangerous expansion of presidential powers and a rapid acceleration of a process of autocratisation, though some counteract that these claims are overly alarmist. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International warn against the repressive effects of this reform on the rights to freedom of expression and association, to peaceful assembly and to protection from discrimination, and critique the vagueness of clauses allowing for restrictions in the interest of public order or morality. 

written by Alessia Milillo