Abstract
This is a very good book that, in a very innovative way, links literature on informalism and Central Asian politics, on the one hand, with the classic literature on political institutions and party and party systems formation, on the other. In this way, it is one of the more innovative works currently available on party politics in Central Asia, and an important contribution to our understanding the role parties play in neopatrimonial authoritarian settings.
In exploring the development of parties in Kazakhstan, the book addresses three central questions. First, what is the nature of the relationship between informal patrimonial political relations and behaviour and the formal institutional development of political parties? Second, how has this relationship influenced the formal structural constraints of parties in Kazakhstan, the types of party that are emerging, and their connections with wider society? Third, to what extent do parties have the potential to shape informal politics and political outcomes?
The main argument of the book is that although the political system in Kazakhstan can be best understood as a neopatrimonial system, it is an institutionalized form of neopatrimonialsm that reflects the relationship between traditional politics, patrimonial communism and new constitutional–liberal institutions. At the centre of the system is President Nazarbaev’s reliance on informal relations, and the creation of institutions that strengthen the patronage-based nature of the system, that suited the needs of Nazarbaev. Thus, party development has been managed from above, by the establishment of a dominant party, virtual parties, and the co-optation of the opposition.
Furthermore, the institutional framework that was created, with its focus on hyper-presidentialism and personality-based electoral rules, has created a party system in Kazakhstan dominated by personalist and clientelist parties (even the opposition parties). The institutional framework has created incentives for the creation of parties as vehicles for personal ambition without any reference to ideology. Thus, in many ways, the personalist nature of the systems has circumscribed the parties’ ability to develop as autonomous political institutions capable of undertaking functions typically associated with parties in a democratic environment. However, although political parties are weak in terms of performing functions typically associated with democratic consolidation, they are very good at facilitating the consolidation of the neopatrimonial authoritarian regime in Kazakhstan.
In terms of organization, the book is coherent. It is divided into seven chapters, where the introductory chapter outlines the basic question addressed in the book and a summary of the central argument is made. Chapter 2 lays out a conceptual and theoretical framework regarding informalism, neopatrimonialism and political party development. This succinct and parsimonious chapter very effectively lays out approaches to both traditional patrimonialism and neopatrimonialism, and integrates these literatures with the classic work on party development. Indeed, this chapter itself would make a very good summary of the existing work on neopatrimonialism and party development, and would thus be a good addition to any graduate seminar reading list on parties in authoritarian environments.
Chapter 3 provides a useful historical background of party system formation in Kazakhstan by examining the roots of the post-Soviet neopatrimonial system in the history of Soviet Kazakhstan. In particular, the chapter focuses on the formation of powerful elite formations during the Soviet period, formations that carried over to be the building-blocks of parties in the post-Soviet neopatrimonial political system.
Chapters 4, 5 and 6 are essentially the empirical parts of the book. Chapter 4 examines the influence of informal politics on the development of the formal political institutions that in turn affected the development of political parties. In particular, it examines the evolution of the system of ‘hyper-presidentialism’ that emerged in the post-Soviet period, the rules of electoral competition, as well as the laws governing the parties. These rules not only favoured pro-presidential parties, but also created the norm of personalism as an essential building-block of any party in Kazakhstan.
Chapter 5 is focused on a discussion of the types of party that emerged from the institutional context that was created in the early years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The institutional context creates parties that lack ideology and focus on personality – thus the parties in Kazakhstan are merely elite groupings that compete for access to the presidential patronage network. Chapter 6 examines the relationship between the parties and wider society. Given passive voters and a generally politically disinterested population, parties are essentially disconnected from social groupings. Rather, parties are seen primarily as channels for upward mobility to gain access to economic and political resources, rather than representing societal interests. Finally, Chapter 7 provides a summary of the argument presented, and speculates how this approach, which focuses on institutionalized neopatrimonialism in Kazakhstan, can be used to understand politics in other Central Asian countries, and beyond.
Overall, this is very fine book, which carefully lays out a coherent and plausible argument. However, there are two general points one can make about it. First, although it focuses on neopatrimonialism, the features of the system in Kazakhstan bear some resemblance to what Alfred Stepan and other scholars in the 1970s and 1980s referred to ‘inclusive corporatism’ in Latin America (which is not cited at all in the book). This omission is understandable, in that the author implicitly accepts the notion that neopatrimonial systems are inherently different from corporatist regimes. However, this is a debatable point: Is neopatrimonialism really very different from other forms of personality-based corporatist systems? At the very least it may be useful to distinguish the neopatrimonial system from inclusive forms of personalist corporatism.
Second, there is a strong sense conveyed in the book that the personalist features of the party system that was created in Kazakhstan are permanent. However, when considering the Kazakh case, one is reminded that elite parties also dominated party politics early in the history of Western parties – and that these elite parties eventually gave way to more programme-based parties, particularly after significant socio-economic societal changes had occurred that rendered the elite parties obsolete. Perhaps this will also happen in Kazakhstan and the rest of Central Asia as well?
In sum, however, this is a very important book, and provides a very good link between Central Asian studies and the broader political science literature on party politics.