Ms. Margarita Assenova

Institute for New Democracies
Independent International Observer Mission
for the Presidential Election
Mr. Randy Bregman
Salans Law Firm
Republic of Kazakhstan
3 April 2011
Mr. Janusz Bugajski
New European Democracies  
Center for Strategic and
International Studies Kazakhstan’s Democratic Roots Deepen
Post-election statement
Dr. Sergei Gretsky
Georgetown University
Central Asia and the Caucasus
Journal In our pre-election statement we noted that Kazakhstan’s presidential election would test the
country’s capacity to evolve toward open democratic politics. Specifically, we aimed to assess
Mr. Vladimir Socor whether this election comes closer to meeting international standards, and most importantly,
Jamestown Foundation
whether the overall trend is positive, with distinct improvements over past elections.

Ambassador Douglas
Townsend
International Tax and
Investment Center
Former Australian Ambassador
to the Republic
of Kazakhstan
Dr. Richard Weitz
Center for Political-Military
Analysis
Hudson Institute
From March 30 through April 3, our independent observation team in Kazakhstan met with the
leaders of nine political parties and their staffs, Central Election Commission officials, and NGO
representatives.
On election day, members of our team fanned out to four oblasts -- Karaganda, Pavlodar, Aqmola,
and Almaty oblast – as well as in the cities of Astana and Almaty. We visited 65 polling stations to
observe the balloting. At five of these stations we also observed the vote-count and closing
procedures. And we engaged in spontaneous conversation with hundreds of voters inside and
outside polling stations after they had cast their ballots.

Mr. Daniel A. Witt
International Tax and
Investment Center
Unlike past elections, there were no visible signs of centrally directed administrative mobilization
of voters to show up at the polls. Conversely, as we noticed, voters seemed motivated by a sense of
civic consciousness and patriotism to cast their ballots.

For more information: From our observation of this election, and based on the experience of most of our members
Washington DC: observing elections in Kazakhstan and elsewhere since 1999, we assess the April 3 presidential
Elena Novak
Phone: 1 202 530 9799 election as successful on three levels.
Fax: 1 202 530 7987
Email:
Washington@iticnet.org First, it clearly reflects the political choice of Kazakhstan’s voters. Second, it marks a definite
advance in the transparency of the electoral process, compared with previous elections. And third,
Kazakhstan:
Moukhit Akhanov it opens the prospect for the formation of a more pluralist parliament in the next legislative
Phone: 7 7272 67 69 02 elections.
Fax: 7 7272 50 73 84
Mobile: 7 701 953 10 87
Email: President Nazarbayev’s re-election with 95.57 percent of the votes cast according to early exit
Akhanov.mm@gmail.com
  polls is consistent with his pre-election approval ratings. The turnout rate for this election was
*Organizations are listed for extraordinarily high at 89.9 percent of registered voters (up from 76.8 percent in the 2005
identification purposes only. The
views expressed are those of the presidential election).
individuals, and not necessarily
their organizations. Such a turnout bespeaks a yearning to maintain national stability and political continuity in
All observers will be accredited
by the Central Election Kazakhstan under the leadership that has delivered growing prosperity to all Kazakhstanis. Many
Committee of the Republic of
Kazakhstan.
voters told us that they valued Kazakhstan’s stability, security, and steadily increasing living
standards in their country. They contrasted that with the chaos engulfing many Muslim countries,
 
from North Africa and the Middle East to Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan next door.
 We assess the electoral process as generally well-administered and transparent at all the 65 polling
stations we visited. Organizational errors were rare and could not detract from the overall
impression of an efficiently run electoral process. Electoral commission members were invariably
open and forthcoming with information about technical aspects of the process.

Almost everywhere we found that commission members had attended trainings and seminars,
ahead of the presidential election. The next parliamentary elections will, by their very nature, pose
more complex organizational challenges, necessitating appropriate preparations.

Several Kazakhstani parties declined to enter their candidates in the presidential election, arguing
that the 30 days allocated for the pre-election campaign were insufficient for them to organize a
proper campaign effort.

All the registered parties, whether involved in this presidential election or not, will have the
opportunity to participate in the next legislative elections. From our meetings with party leaders,
we understand that they expect to compete for parliamentary seats on the basis of specific
programs and constituent interests in those elections. This would mark a further step in
Kazakhstan’s hard work of democratic institution-building and evolution toward an open,
democratic polity. The scope and pace of this process is best determined by the Kazakhstanis
themselves.

In sum, we found the context and conduct of the presidential election to be consistent with those in
other states that continue the process of national consolidation and democratic institution building.
Commitment of the Kazakhstanis to a democratic future of their country was evident on election
day.