Global Insight Perspective
Significance	The snap election created a one-party parliament fully under presidential command.
Implications	International observers criticised the election as falling short of international standards, but the criticism was muted and will not affect trade and business relations with this strategically important country.
Outlook	By creating a "democratic façade" to his regime, however imperfect, Kazakhstan's leader indicated the aspiration to enter the circle of important international players on their own terms. Investors will not consider "democratic shortcomings" a serious obstacle given the country's substantial economic potential, but have to prepare to face even more corruption and state administrative voluntarism.

The only surprise in the 18 August parliamentary election in Kazakhstan was the unashamedly absolute victory of the pro-presidential party Nur Otan that swiped all 98 seats, with 88.05% of the vote. The opposition independent Social-Democratic Party and the less critical Ak Zhol party fell far short of even the 7% threshold for entering the parliament, managing 4.65% and 3.27% of the votes respectively.

International observers registered breaches of electoral legislation and voter counting irregularities at some 40% of the polling stations they visited, and found the election as falling short of the international democratic standards. The opposition promptly upheld these findings to challenge the results, although they themselves must admit any serious re-counting or organisation of a new vote can be fully ruled out.

Paradoxically, while the elections were undoubtedly flawed, they also have given much transparency to the workings of the Kazakh political machine. The opposition is weak indeed, for both objective and subjective reasons, and cannot have any meaningful influence either within the parliament or outside it. The ruling elites have the administrative, economic and political resources to run the country, with the population being supportive at most and complacent at the very least. In that sense, Kazakhstan is stable in the short to medium term, and with all the chessmen put in their places, there is no reason to shake the board.

The Kazakh leadership put on the electoral show to claim membership of the club of internationally respected states, and to win the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) 2009 presidency in particular, a matter of image and recognition for President Nursultan Nazarbayev. With a truly Machiavellian cunning, however, he used the pretext of democratising the political system of Kazakhstan through a widened and marginally emancipated parliament, to sneak in the amendment allowing him presidency for life; this has given democratic legitimacy to his well-recognised authority within the country.

International players cannot effectively challenge the state of affairs in Kazakhstan, let along help change it. Moreover, Kazakhstan with nearly a full spectrum of chemical elements in its depths is tempting investors. Politically, it may be seen as possible counterweight to Russia as energy exporter, and the United States and European Union (EU) are wooing the country's president to direct its oil and gas through the Caspian Sea to world markets bypassing Russia. Given the internal omnipresence of the ruling elite, the meagre chances of popular revolt and the economic and political importance of the country, any objections to the quality of Kazakhstan's democracy and elections will remain mere observations rather than calls for action.

Outlook and Implications

Nazarbayev has hailed the election as the "start of a new era" in the development of Kazakhstan. From the political angle, this statement was a hypocrisy, as nothing has changed in principle in the country's political system. The words can carry some weight, however with respect to the international standing of the country, as the election de-facto, if not de-jure, legitimised the current power configuration in the short and medium term. Investors willing to benefit from exploration of Kazakhstan's resources will be glad to hear that. However, they need to be aware that as the Kazakh elite have strengthened their grip on the country, the number of forces able to challenge them formally and openly will diminish. The country's already high-handed bureaucracy will only deepen its corruption, as all decision-making processes have fully moved out of the public sphere. Kazakhstan will remain a place to invest, and increasingly so, but the risk, and economic and moral cost of foreign investment is certain to grow proportionately. With the democratic façade fixed by elections and the new constitution, the corridors of real decision-making have further darkened and become trickier for investors to navigate.