Party system formation in Kazakhstan: between formal and informal politics
Party system formation in Kazakhstan: between formal and informal politics
复制标题
哈萨克斯坦政党制度的形成：正式政治与非正式政治之间
DOI：
10.1080/02634937.2014.884736
复制
发表时间：
2014
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
R. Kadyrzhanov
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Kadyrzhanov
在 20 世纪 80 年代末和 90 年代初，哈萨克斯坦对即将到来的多党制的前景充满期待。然而，第一批政党的出现并没有带来民主变革。事实上，当众多政党在巩固的威权政权中退居二线时，许多专家认为有必要修改共和国的选举法以促进政党的发展。 1999年，当10%的议会席位分配给政党时，专家建议这还不够，应该提高到至少50%。 2007年的宪法修正案规定议会下院实行比例选举，但这既没有导致政党的发展，也没有带来民主。独裁政权利用政党和其他民主机构来谋取自身利益。结果，今天的哈萨克斯坦实际上只剩下一个亲总统的执政党（祖国之光）、一批虚幻的忠诚政党和少数濒临消失的边缘化反对党。这种情况该如何解释？一些当局将此归咎于庇护人和宗族关系；有些是传统的哈萨克游牧社会；其他人，苏联的过去。然而，这些解释忽视了非正式的赞助人-委托人关系如何与当事人的正式程序实践交织在一起的问题。在本书中，里科·艾萨克斯提出了一个基于新世袭主义的解决方案。
In the late 1980s and early 1990s there was much anticipation in Kazakhstan about the prospects for a coming multi-party system. However, the emergence of the first political parties did not lead to democratic changes. Indeed, when numerous political parties took a back seat in the consolidated authoritarian regime, many experts argued that it was necessary to modify the republic’s election laws to promote the development of political parties. When 10% of parliamentary seats were assigned to parties in 1999, experts suggested that this was not enough and that it should be raised to at least 50%. Constitutional amendments in 2007 mandated proportional elections to the lower house of the parliament, but this led neither to the development of parties nor to democracy. The authoritarian regime has used parties and other democratic institutions to its own benefit. As a result, today Kazakhstan has in fact only one pro-presidential party of power (Nur Otan), a number of illusionary loyal parties, and a few marginalized opposition parties on the verge of disappearance.What is the explanation for this situation? Some authorities blame patron–client and clan ties; some, the traditional nomadic Kazakh society; others, the Soviet past. However, these explanations overlook the problem of how informal patron–client relations are interwoven with the formal procedural practices of parties. In this book, Rico Isaacs proposes a solution to this problem on the basis of neopatrimonialism.