Prosecuted Activist Says Kazakhstan Has No Prospect For Now , To Have Freedom of Speech
 |
| Political activist Aynur Ilyashev was arrested in April |
On the surface, there have been many changes in Kazakhstan in recent years. On March 19, longtime President Nursultan Nazarbayev, who had ruled the country since independence in 1991, stepped down. His successor, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, promised to liberalise the political space and pursue reforms.
Yet the arrest of activist Alnur Ilyashev suggests that freedom of expression remains a distant dream under Kazakhstan's new president. On June 22, the activist and human rights defender was sentenced to three years of “restricted freedom” on charges of disseminating “false information.” Ilyashev was detained on April 17 after writing Facebook posts accusing officials from the ruling party Nur Otan of corruption and incompetence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He was eventually released from detention on the date of his verdict,on June 22.
If Ilyashev violates any of these restrictions, he is likely to face a prison sentence.
I interviewed Ilyashev to hear his thoughts on the Kazakh authorities’ approach to critics and the future of civic activism in this Central Asian state. The interview has been edited for brevity.
Madina Aimbetova (MA): Alnur, what are your impressions on what has happened to you?
Alnur Ilyashev (AI): It all started in 2018, when I sued several times the city government of Almaty [the largest city in Kazakhstan and former capital – ed.] for denying the right to hold demonstrations and on the issue of air pollution. Then in early 2019, the activist Sanavar Zakirova decided to establish the political party Our Right (Наше право in Russian), and we supported her, alongside the activist Marat Turymbetov. Yet the founding congress was disrupted; we were summoned to the police station and warned that should people gather again, it would be considered as a demonstration held without approval from the authorities, with all the consequences that meant. After that, we sued the city government, the department of police and Nur Otan.
MA: How was this related to the Nur Otan party?
AI: As we saw it, the Nur Otan Party was obstructing the creation of Our Right, as it feared competition from a new and inconvenient challenger. But our specific accusation, in which we mentioned head of the party Nursultan Nazarbayev and his deputy Bauyrzhan Baybek, who at the time was mayor of Almaty, was not accepted by the court. I also tried to have Baybek stripped of his title of honorary citizen of Almaty, based on two facts: he had actively promoted the construction of the controversial Kok-Zhaylau ski resort, and he renamed one of Almaty's main streets after Nursultan Nazarbayev, while the former president was still alive (this is usually done after their death). I argued that Baybek did not have the moral authority to bear the title, but that was also dismissed by the court; the issue really affected him personally. Then in the autumn of 2019, the Nur Otan party and four of its members sued us. They believed that an article in which we said that they had obstructed our party's registration constituted an attack of their dignity, honour, and professional reputation. The trial did not end in our favour: the court obliged us to withdraw our statements and pay each of the plaintiffs the sum of 1.5 million tenge (US$2,460). Then in April 2020 a pre-trial investigation procedure was initiated against me, based on this backstory with the Nur Otan party and its members.
MA: And how is that previous case related to your current legal issues?
AI: The prosecution claimed that I had not taken the court's ruling on that case into account and had continued to spread false information. In fact, I wrote three critical posts about Nur Otan on Facebook, which could have been the cause. On that basis, they sentenced me to three years’ imprisonment.
MA: You were also barred from participating in public activities for five years. How does that make you feel?
AI: I am cut off from any active engagement in socio-political life for the next election period — as we will soon have elections for our national and local parliaments, this is proof that my trial is politically motivated. I used to speak up via media platforms about violations of the principle of free and fair elections. The issue is that the result of parliamentary elections will influence the amount of financing available to each party from the state budget. According to existing rules, the state offers three percent of the minimum monthly salary, meaning 1,300 tenge or $3.2 for each vote received by parties which make it into parliament. For example, in 2018 the Nur Otan Party received over five billion tenge ($12.2 million) from the state budget thanks to this system. Thus any violations of the electoral code, such as ballot-stuffing, falsifying vote tallies or the ballots themselves, can also be tied to attempts by individuals to steal more funds from the state budget for their party. Perhaps because I was the one to come up with the idea of accusing the culprits of electoral fraud, they decided to render me inactive, so that I couldn't promote this idea and monitor elections. Moreover, because of the ban imposed on me and my criminal record, now I cannot participate in elections as a candidate. Beyond elections, even though I am a lawyer by training I cannot be a member of the Chamber of Legal Consultants and open a private practice. To do that, I need a certificate confirming that I do not have a criminal record. As a result, they have “clipped my wings,” shutting down any economic or political activities I might be involved in. Of course, I will survive. I am not the first to end up in this situation and I will not be the last.
MA: Were all your efforts in civic activism worth this?
AI: People say I am a new kind of politician. If that really is the case, I am most likely “a politician by obligation.” I was very loyal to the authorities for a long time: I voted for Nazarbayev, because I didn't see any alternative. But then I understood that those power have no way of carrying out their duties. Yes, there are many honest and well-educated citizens working in the government. But there is also a large number of incompetent people who are just there to enrich themselves. That can be seen in all the scandalous arrests, corruption allegations, and the general crisis affecting the country they rule. But if a political force is unable to cope, it must step aside and make space for others. And somebody has to say that aloud. I had enough awareness and courage to do so. And it seems I was quite efficient, given the authorities’ reaction. Sometimes people ask me: why do you need all this? Why risk your health, even your life? To that I say: in the current situation, it is impossible to remain silent.
MA: You mention the need to let others step in. But that's happened: we have a new president, Kasym-Jomart Tokayev. How do you assess his presidency?
AI: I have certain expectations, particularly given his background. Tokayev is a diplomat. He knows human rights mechanisms very well, and knows their importance. He knows how important they are in maintaining peace and stability not just in Kazakhstan, but around the world. He is very well-educated, and comes from an intellectual background, so I hope that he can achieve something. But we must understand that this is not always possible, given the current situation. He himself signed an order which means that all appointments to high government posts have to be approved by the head of the Security Council, that is Nursultan Nazarbayev. By doing this, he makes it clear that Nazarbayev, who remains the head of the Nur Otan, is still the person in charge of this country. Tokayev plays a representative role. That's normal under certain forms of governance; for example in Germany the Chancellor governs, and the president is there just to sign papers. Of course, Tokayev does take his own decisions, but he has himself acknowledged that he asks for Nazarbayev's input on key issues. A truly independent politician would not act like that.
MA: Is the time ripe in Kazakhstan for civil society to start a dialogue with the authorities?
AI: In the early 2000s, the price of oil and other raw materials rose, and Kazakhstan's economy grew along with them. At the time, these systematic problems were not so apparent. But it was a short period of good fortune, and it all came tumbling down. We have been in a state of permanent crisis since 2009. The situation has become more and more difficult, to the point that government officials have had to ask citizens to contribute money to the fight against COVID-19. What has become of the country's financial reservers that were praised for many years? Some of Kazakhstan's National Oil Fund is frozen as part of a lawsuit between our government and the Moldovan businessman Anatol Stati. That money belongs to the people, earned from Kazakhstan's national resources, and yet we can't use it! All of these economic problems are forcing people to open their eyes. Social media also plays a key role. In his book “The End of Power” Moisés Naím writes that activists, bloggers and journalists can be considered a micro-power in their own right — meaning that those citizens who are deprived of large resources can influence the political process. The internet and social media provide them with this opportunity, allowing people to find out things by themselves, checking facts, and expressing their opinions. In this context, changes are inevitable, given that the number of people wanting change grows every year. The nature of those changes will be defined by whether there is cooperation or a conflict between the state authorities and civil society.
MA: So what does the future hold for Kazakhstan?
AI: I believe that society is capable of helping the president launch real reforms when the demand for them is ripe. This is why the time has come to start an equal, fully-fledged, and open dialogue between all the forces in the political arena. I believe that that if there are any issues affecting governance, they have to be debated honestly and openly.
Comments