A well-known political analyst has unleashed scathing criticism against the Prime Minister for refusing to introduce progressive democratic innovations. On his Facebook page, Satpaev, with barely contained anger, wrote:
«Prime Minister Alihan Smailov has spoken out against the adoption of a law related to the introduction of parliamentary investigations, a practice that exists in many countries around the world. In doing so, the head of the government made a foolish statement by claiming that the introduction of this institution is characteristic of parliamentary republics, and since Kazakhstan is a unitary state with a presidential form of government, there is no need for parliamentary investigations here.
By the way, perhaps the prime minister will explain why, if Kazakhstan is a unitary state, we have two chambers of parliament, which are mainly characteristic of federative states?
This is an astonishing political illiteracy. Firstly, a parliament, whether in parliamentary or presidential republics, is a priori the highest representative body, meaning it represents the interests of different electoral groups, all of which will always be interested in the transparency of the political process.
Public parliamentary investigations are one of the tools to enhance such transparency. The only difference is that in a democratic political system, as opposed to systems with a rubber-stamp parliament, this function, though not perfectly, is fulfilled.
Secondly, it’s no secret that active parliamentary investigation practices can be observed in the United States, which is a presidential republic but with a strong system of checks and balances. The U.S. Congress has extensive powers and capabilities for parliamentary investigations, including those related to the President’s activities.
In fact, this practice has even become a favorite subject in many American political thrillers, where, during such investigations, specially established committees and commissions from both houses of Congress can summon any official, including the President.
Could this be the main reason for the refusal to introduce the mechanism of parliamentary investigations in Kazakhstan? After all, it’s easier for government members to present beautiful reports in parliamentary sessions, where the speakers of the Majilis and the Senate act as overseers appointed by the President, regional akims (governors) can indulge in expensive failures of various state programs in their regions without accountability, and heads of national companies can feel beyond any control. And then, collectively, no one has to bear responsibility for numerous failures.»
