Explaining the Electoral System Used in Kazakhstan (1900–2025)-Dr. Raju Ahmed Dipu

Kazakhstan’s electoral system has undergone significant transformation, shaped by imperial rule, Soviet centralism, and post-independence reforms. From non-existent electoral institutions in the early 20th century to a more complex hybrid system in recent years, Kazakhstan's electoral journey reflects both autocratic tendencies and tentative democratic experiments.

Early 20th Century (1900–1917): Under Tsarist Russia

During this period, Kazakhstan was part of the Russian Empire. Elections as we understand them today were largely absent. The 1906 and 1907 Russian Duma elections had limited impact in the Kazakh territories, as suffrage was severely restricted. The system was neither proportional nor majoritarian in a modern sense, but a layered electoral college favouring landowners and elites.

Soviet Period (1917–1991): Single-Party Control

From 1920 onwards, as part of the Soviet Union (first the Kirghiz ASSR, then the Kazakh ASSR, and later the Kazakh SSR), Kazakhstan adopted the Soviet model of indirect, non-competitive elections. Deputies were chosen through a top-down process dominated by the Communist Party. The system nominally used majoritarian voting within single-member constituencies, but all candidates were pre-selected by the Party, making the elections non-democratic in substance.

For example:

1948 Elections in the Kazakh SSR:
These were majoritarian in format but not in practice. Voters had a single candidate to approve or reject. The Communist Party exercised total control, and the concept of political competition or alternative representation was absent.

Early Independence Period (1991–2007): Mixed System Experiments

After independence in 1991, Kazakhstan introduced multi-party elections, though heavily managed. The initial parliamentary elections in the 1990s experimented with a mixed electoral system:

1995 Constitution & 1999 Elections:
Introduced a mixed electoral system – part first-past-the-post (FPTP) in single-member districts and part proportional representation. However, the process remained highly centralised, with presidential dominance limiting genuine pluralism.

Political parties existed, but legal and political constraints meant that true competition remained weak.

2007–2020: Proportional Representation Dominance

A major reform came in 2007, shifting the system to closed-list proportional representation for all seats in the Mazhilis (lower house of parliament). The 107-seat chamber included:

98 seats via party-list proportional representation (with a 7% threshold until 2021).

9 seats indirectly elected by the Assembly of People of Kazakhstan (representing ethnic minorities).

This system favoured the ruling party Nur Otan (later Amanat), which dominated parliament with minimal opposition. The shift away from FPTP diluted local representation in favour of stronger central party control.

Electoral Reform Post-2021: Return to Mixed System

In response to public dissatisfaction and political stagnation, the 2022 reforms reinstated a mixed electoral system:

70% of seats filled through proportional representation.

30% of seats through majoritarian (FPTP) voting in single-member constituencies.

These reforms were tested in the 2023 Mazhilis elections, allowing for more independent candidates and regional representation, though political competition remained skewed in favour of the incumbent elite.

Summary Table: Electoral System Evolution in Kazakhstan (1900–2025)

While Kazakhstan has made procedural changes to its electoral laws, the substantive nature of democracy remains limited. From a Soviet-style single-party structure to a tightly managed multi-party system with a dominant executive, elections in Kazakhstan often serve as tools of controlled pluralism rather than genuine representation. The mixed system introduced post-2022 offers some promise but is yet to demonstrate a full departure from authoritarian tendencies.

Kazakhstan’s Transition to a Multi-Party or Democratic Electoral System

Kazakhstan’s political evolution from a Soviet republic to a multi-party electoral system is a complex and gradual process that began in the early 1990s, following the collapse of the Soviet Union. While significant reforms were undertaken to adopt the trappings of democracy—such as multiple political parties, competitive elections, and constitutional amendments—the journey towards a fully democratic electoral system has been marked by constraints, controlled pluralism, and persistent authoritarian tendencies.

The Early Steps: 1990–1995

Kazakhstan declared its independence from the Soviet Union on 16 December 1991, but the groundwork for political change began a little earlier. In 1990, Nursultan Nazarbayev, then the First Secretary of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan, was elected as President by the Supreme Soviet of the Kazakh SSR. This period saw the abolition of the one-party system and the legalisation of other political parties.

In 1993, Kazakhstan adopted its first post-independence constitution, which recognised a presidential republic and allowed for multi-party competition. However, this constitution was replaced in 1995 by a new version that significantly enhanced presidential powers. That same year, the bicameral Parliament (Mazhilis and Senate) was established.

Introduction of Multi-Party Elections

Kazakhstan's first multi-party parliamentary election under the new constitution took place in 1995, though it was marred by procedural shortcomings and limited political competition. While technically open to multiple parties, these early elections were dominated by pro-government candidates, and opposition parties faced administrative and legal hurdles.

In 1999, the Otan Party (later renamed Nur Otan, then Amanat) emerged as the dominant force in parliament. President Nazarbayev, who had remained in power since 1991, continued to exert overwhelming influence over the political system, blurring the line between party politics and executive authority.

Gradual Reform and Controlled Pluralism

Reforms in the 2000s and 2010s introduced measures such as proportional representation and electoral thresholds. In 2007, constitutional amendments reduced the presidential term from seven to five years and introduced a fully proportional electoral system for the Mazhilis. This was seen as a move towards strengthening party competition, but in practice, opposition parties struggled to gain meaningful representation.

The 2012 parliamentary elections were notable as, for the first time since 2004, more than one party entered the lower house—though all remained broadly supportive of the government.

Recent Shifts: Post-Nazarbayev Era

Nazarbayev resigned in March 2019, handing over power to Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, though he retained significant influence until 2022. After the violent unrest in January 2022, Tokayev initiated a wave of political reforms under the banner of creating a "New Kazakhstan."

This included reforms such as:

A reduction of the Mazhilis electoral threshold from 7% to 5%.

Allowing independent candidates to run for parliament.

Transitioning to a mixed-member electoral system (majoritarian and proportional representation) in the 2023 elections.

A constitutional referendum in June 2022, limiting presidential powers and ending Nazarbayev’s privileged status.

The March 2023 parliamentary elections were thus hailed as a step towards greater political openness, though international observers noted continued flaws in transparency, candidate registration, and media freedom.

Kazakhstan’s transition to a multi-party electoral system formally began in the early 1990s, but the democratic nature of its system remains limited by authoritarian practices. While constitutional changes and electoral reforms have introduced elements of pluralism, real political competition and civil liberties are still constrained. As of 2025, Kazakhstan remains a hybrid regime, where democratic institutions exist, but are often subordinated to executive power.

Sources:

OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Reports

Kazakhstan Constitution (1993, 1995, 2022)

Central Election Commission of Kazakhstan

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

National Election Results in Kazakhstan (1900–2025): An Overview of Political Outcomes and Parliamentary Composition

Kazakhstan’s electoral landscape has transformed significantly from the early 20th century under Russian Imperial and Soviet rule to a post-independence multiparty state. The following overview outlines the national election results in Kazakhstan from 1900 to 2025, focusing on party representation, seat distribution, and voter turnout during key electoral years.

Pre-Soviet and Soviet Era (1900–1990)

1900–1917: Under Russian Empire Rule

Kazakhstan was part of the Russian Empire and did not conduct independent elections. Kazakh representation was limited to the State Duma, and voting rights were restricted.

1920–1936: Kirghiz ASSR / Kazakh ASSR within Soviet RSFSR

No multi-party elections. The Communist Party controlled all candidate lists under a one-party framework.

1937–1990: Kazakh SSR within the USSR

All elections during this era were controlled by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), with pre-selected candidates.

Example Year: 1977 Kazakh SSR Supreme Soviet Election

System: One-party state under CPSU.

Dominant Party: Communist Party of Kazakhstan (branch of CPSU).

Seats: All 500 seats allocated to CPSU nominees or non-party citizens loyal to the regime.

Voter Turnout: 99.9% (as officially reported).

Opposition: None – no legal opposition or competitive elections.

Independence and Democratic Transition (1991–2025)

Kazakhstan gained independence in 1991. The political system was initially dominated by President Nursultan Nazarbayev's Nur Otan (now Amanat) party. Competitive multiparty elections evolved gradually.

1994 Parliamentary Election (First Post-Soviet)

Seats: 177 (135 Majilis + 42 Senate by presidential appointment).

Major Parties:

People's Union of Kazakhstan Unity (pro-Nazarbayev): ~30 seats

Other independents and minor parties

Turnout: ~79%

Controversy: Declared unconstitutional and annulled by the Constitutional Court in 1995.

1995 Parliamentary Election

System: Mixed (party-list and majoritarian)

Seats: 67 (party list), 33 (single-member districts)

Dominant Party: People's Unity Party of Kazakhstan (pro-government)

Turnout: 79.8%

Opposition: Weak and fragmented

2004 Mazhilis (Lower House) Election

Seats: 77

Party Results:

Otan: 42 seats

Asar: 4 seats

Ak Zhol: 1 seat

Others and independents: remainder

Turnout: 56.5%

Note: OSCE reported irregularities.

2012 Parliamentary Election

Seats: 107 (98 elected by PR, 9 appointed)

Results:

Nur Otan: 83 seats

Ak Zhol: 8 seats

Communist People's Party: 7 seats

Turnout: 75.4%

Opposition: Limited representation; genuine competition questioned.

2021 Parliamentary Election

Results:

Nur Otan: 76 seats

Ak Zhol: 12 seats

People’s Party: 10 seats

Turnout: 63.3%

Observation: Lacked real opposition; international observers cited lack of competitiveness.

2023 Snap Parliamentary Election

Seats: 98 elected; 9 presidential appointees

Party Results:

Amanat (formerly Nur Otan): 62 seats

Auyl: 8 seats

Respublica: 6 seats

People’s Party: 5 seats

Ak Zhol: 6 seats

National Social Democratic Party: 4 seats

Baytaq: 1 seat

Turnout: 54.2%

Significance: Greater party diversity, seen as a step toward pluralism

Outlook for 2025 General Election

Scheduled for late 2025, with expectations of:

Continued dominance by Amanat

Rising participation from newly formed parties

Increasing public demand for genuine political reform

Kazakhstan's electoral journey reflects a gradual evolution from authoritarian control to limited competitive politics. While progress has been made, particularly in post-2022 reforms under President Tokayev, international observers still call for improvements in transparency, opposition access, and electoral fairness. Voter turnout has remained relatively high but varies depending on political engagement and trust.

Sources:

Central Election Commission of Kazakhstan

OSCE Election Observation Reports

Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU)

Kazakhstan Government Archives

Kazakhstan’s Electoral Landscape (1900–2025): Major Parties, Leaders, and Outcomes

Kazakhstan’s electoral and political journey from 1900 to 2025 mirrors its broader historical evolution—from a Tsarist imperial territory to a Soviet republic and eventually an independent nation with tightly managed elections under a presidential system. The country’s multiparty framework has expanded in form, if not in substance, particularly since independence in 1991. This article offers a chronological overview of the major political parties, key leaders, and electoral outcomes shaping Kazakhstan’s political narrative.

Pre-Independence Period (1900–1990)

During the Russian Empire (before 1917) and subsequent Soviet era (1917–1991), Kazakhstan did not hold independent elections in the modern democratic sense. The region was ruled by the Tsarist administration until 1917, followed by integration into the USSR as the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) in 1936.

From 1917 onwards, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) was the dominant—and indeed the only—legal political force. Local leadership within the Kazakh SSR was appointed from Moscow, not elected democratically.

Key Leaders:

Dinmukhamed Kunayev (First Secretary of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan, 1960–1986)

Gennady Kolbin (appointed from Moscow, 1986–1989, unpopular)

Nursultan Nazarbayev (appointed as First Secretary in 1989; later led Kazakhstan to independence)

Independence and the Nazarbayev Era (1991–2019)

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Kazakhstan declared independence. A new constitution was adopted in 1993 and revised in 1995, establishing a super-presidential system with elections at both presidential and parliamentary levels.

Dominant Party: Nur Otan (formerly Otan Party)

Founded in 1999, this centrist, pro-government party quickly became Kazakhstan’s political hegemon. It was later renamed Amanat in 2022.

Key Leader:

Nursultan Nazarbayev (President from 1991 to 2019)

Widely viewed as the architect of modern Kazakhstan.

Won repeated presidential elections (1991, 1999, 2005, 2011, 2015) with over 90% of the vote each time amid claims of electoral manipulation and repression of opposition.

Election Outcomes:

Presidential elections: Nazarbayev faced nominal opposition; OSCE and other observers often labelled elections as uncompetitive.

Parliamentary elections: Nur Otan dominated the Mazhilis (lower house), often winning over 80% of seats; only pro-regime “loyal” parties such as Ak Zhol and the Communist People’s Party occasionally entered parliament.

Post-Nazarbayev Transition and Tokayev Presidency (2019–2025)

In 2019, Nazarbayev resigned, naming loyalist Kassym-Jomart Tokayev as interim president. Tokayev won the June 2019 snap election with around 70% of the vote.

New Political Landscape:

Amanat Party (formerly Nur Otan) continues to dominate.

Respublika, a new technocratic party, and People's Party of Kazakhstan (formerly Communist) also participate.

Opposition remains weak, with independent candidates and genuine challengers either barred or marginalised.

Key Leader:

Kassym-Jomart Tokayev

Elected President in 2019, re-elected in 2022 snap elections (early due to constitutional changes), with over 80% of the vote.

Election Outcomes:

2022 Presidential Election: Tokayev re-elected amid promises of reform. However, the process lacked full transparency, and credible opposition was absent.

2023 Parliamentary Election: Slightly more pluralistic, with seven parties entering parliament. Still, Amanat retained the majority.

Major Parties (Post-1991): Summary

Kazakhstan’s electoral outcomes from 1991 to 2025 reflect the resilience of an authoritarian-modernising regime with dominant-party control. While multiparty elections are regularly held, real political pluralism remains limited. Despite promises of reform, Kazakhstan continues to balance authoritarian stability with selective political liberalisation—under tight executive control.

As of 2025, President Tokayev and the Amanat Party remain firmly in power, and while some new parties have entered the scene, the overall structure remains reminiscent of a managed democracy rather than a competitive one.

Electoral Violence & Irregularities in Kazakhstan (1900–2025)

Kazakhstan’s electoral history, particularly from its post-Soviet independence in 1991 to 2025, has been marked by frequent allegations of electoral irregularities, suppression of dissent, and in some instances, targeted political violence. While full-scale election-related violence has remained limited, systemic violations and undemocratic practices have marred many electoral cycles.

Reported Electoral Irregularities and Violence

Post-Independence Elections (1990s–early 2000s):
Following its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Kazakhstan adopted a presidential system under Nursultan Nazarbayev, whose tenure lasted nearly three decades. Elections during this period were regularly criticised by international observers—particularly the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)—for lacking transparency and fairness.

1999 Presidential Election: Widely condemned for media bias, restrictions on opposition candidates, and lack of genuine political competition. Notably, opposition leader Akezhan Kazhegeldin was barred from running due to a minor legal infraction, interpreted by critics as politically motivated.

2004 Parliamentary Elections:
Despite being framed as a step toward pluralism, the 2004 elections were again criticised by the OSCE for ballot stuffing, voter intimidation, and biased media coverage. Although several opposition parties participated, their access to resources and media was severely limited.

2005 Presidential Election:
This election saw the incumbent, Nazarbayev, win with an overwhelming 91% of the vote. Though largely peaceful, reports of state control over media, misuse of administrative resources, and pressure on public-sector employees were common.

2011 Presidential Election:
Marked by similar irregularities, this snap election saw Nazarbayev win again with 95.5% of the vote. The OSCE reported a lack of genuine opposition and systemic limitations on civil liberties. Some localised protests occurred, but were quickly suppressed.

Zhanaozen Tragedy (2011):
While not directly linked to a national election, the Zhanaozen massacre—in which at least 14 striking oil workers were killed by police—exposed Kazakhstan’s authoritarian reflexes. Occurring in December 2011, just weeks before the 2012 parliamentary elections, it fuelled public distrust and was followed by heightened repression.

2019 Presidential Election:
Following Nazarbayev’s resignation, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev assumed office and called early elections. The vote was accompanied by mass protests, particularly in Almaty and Nur-Sultan. Hundreds were detained. Activists alleged voter fraud, ballot stuffing, and orchestrated turnout figures. This election marked a rare public display of civil unrest during an electoral process.

2021 Parliamentary Elections:
Once again, OSCE monitors highlighted the absence of real opposition and the dominance of the ruling party, Nur Otan. The run-up to the election included restrictions on public gatherings and tightened controls over media and civil society.

Annulled, Delayed, or Boycotted Elections (1900–2025)

Though no major national election in Kazakhstan has been formally annulled or declared invalid by domestic authorities, there have been boycotts and questions over legitimacy, particularly by opposition groups.

Kazakhstan's electoral history, particularly since 1991, reflects a pattern of controlled elections under strong presidential rule. While large-scale violence has been rare, the suppression of opposition voices, curtailing of media freedoms, and public disillusionment have been recurring features. The post-2019 era has seen rising public mobilisation, but structural reforms to ensure genuinely competitive and transparent elections remain elusive as of 2025.

Democracy Index & Reform in Kazakhstan (1900–2025): A Historical Assessment

From its early 20th-century autocratic rule under the Russian Empire to its post-Soviet independence and modern semi-authoritarian regime, Kazakhstan's democratic development from 1900 to 2025 has been marked more by centralised control than by pluralistic reform. The nation’s journey through empire, socialism, independence, and modern governance reflects a complex pattern of limited electoral democracy, intermittent reforms, and frequent backsliding.

Pre-Independence Period (1900–1991): From Empire to Soviet Authoritarianism

Kazakhstan in the early 20th century was under the firm control of the Russian Empire, and later the Soviet Union, with no democratic institutions or electoral freedoms. Elections under Soviet rule (1917–1991) were symbolic exercises, where one-party domination by the Communist Party rendered genuine electoral competition non-existent. The Supreme Soviet elections were tightly managed, with pre-selected candidates and turnout rates often artificially inflated to over 99%.

There were no democracy indices or independent electoral rankings applicable to Kazakhstan during this era. Political reform, in the democratic sense, was entirely absent until the glasnost and perestroika period of the late 1980s.

Post-Independence Developments (1991–2025): Controlled Pluralism & Limited Reform

Kazakhstan declared independence in 1991. Since then, its political system has remained under highly centralised presidential rule, with limited opposition and constrained electoral freedom.

Key Democracy Indicators:

Freedom House has consistently ranked Kazakhstan as “Not Free” throughout most of the 2000s and 2010s.

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s (EIU) Democracy Index has categorised Kazakhstan as an “Authoritarian Regime,” typically scoring between 2.3 to 3.0 out of 10 from 2006 onwards.

V-Dem (Varieties of Democracy Project) classified Kazakhstan’s political system as a closed or electoral autocracy with heavily skewed elections.

Phases of Reform & Backsliding

Early Post-Independence Optimism (1991–1995)

Initial constitutional developments introduced a multi-party system and presidential elections, but with weak checks and balances. The 1995 referendum, which extended President Nursultan Nazarbayev’s term and introduced a new constitution, consolidated executive control.

“Kazakhstan held presidential elections in 1991 and 1999, but international observers noted the absence of fair competition and press freedom.”

Era of Centralised Authoritarianism (1999–2015)

During this period, elections became increasingly predictable and dominated by pro-government parties. President Nazarbayev won with over 90% of the vote in several elections (1999, 2005, 2011), often amid accusations of fraud and suppression of dissent.

2004–2012 Parliamentary Elections: Opposition parties were either banned or failed to win seats.

Media restrictions and the arrest of opposition leaders deepened concerns of backsliding.

Managed Transition & Superficial Reform (2019–2025)

Following Nazarbayev’s resignation in 2019, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev assumed the presidency. While a Peaceful Transition of Power occurred, real democratic reforms were limited.

Key developments:

2021–2023: Electoral law changes allowed more parties to contest elections.

The 2022 constitutional referendum included promises to reduce presidential powers, but observers criticised the reforms as cosmetic.

The 2023 snap parliamentary elections saw marginal gains for opposition-leaning groups, but Tokayev’s Amanat party maintained dominance.

“Despite official claims of reform, international monitors noted that elections lacked meaningful competition and were marred by irregularities and media control.”

From 1900 to 2025, Kazakhstan’s journey toward electoral democracy has been cautious, centralised, and often superficial. While there were moments of reform—particularly in the wake of independence and again in the early 2020s—these have not translated into sustained democratic progress.

Kazakhstan continues to rank low in most global democracy indices, and while it has avoided violent political upheaval, the lack of genuine pluralism and persistent authoritarian tendencies suggest that substantial democratic consolidation remains a distant prospect.

Major Electoral Reforms in Kazakhstan (1900–2025)

tan declared independence and began to establish its own political institutions. However, the transition was heavily dominated by President Nursultan Nazarbayev.

1991 Presidential Election Reform: Nazarbayev was elected as the first President of independent Kazakhstan. A new law permitted direct presidential elections, but opposition and civic oversight were absent.

1993 Constitution: Established a presidential republic with a strong executive. The Parliament was weak, and the judiciary lacked independence.

1995 Referendum and Constitution: A major step that consolidated presidential power. The new constitution dissolved the existing Parliament and introduced a bicameral legislature (Mazhilis and Senate), but elections remained tightly managed.

Electoral Law and Parliamentary Reform (1999–2007): Party System and Proportional Representation

As Kazakhstan aimed to present a more democratic image, it introduced reforms to its electoral framework—though critics argued these changes often favoured the ruling elite.

1999 Election Law: Introduced a mixed electoral system—some deputies were elected via proportional representation, others via single-mandate districts. The threshold for parties to enter Parliament was set at 7%.

2007 Constitutional Reform: Strengthened the party-list proportional system for Mazhilis elections. All 98 deputies were now elected from party lists. This was hailed as a democratic reform, but in practice, the ruling party Nur Otan dominated.

Reforms under Nazarbayev’s Later Rule (2007–2019): Stability over Competition

Despite periodic reforms, elections remained largely uncompetitive.

Reduced Presidential Terms (2007): The term was reduced from 7 to 5 years, though Nazarbayev was exempt due to his special status as “Leader of the Nation.”

Introduction of Assembly of People of Kazakhstan Representation: Nine seats in the lower house were reserved for this presidentially controlled body, reducing direct public influence.

2017–2018 Decentralisation Reforms: Amendments shifted certain powers from the president to the Parliament and government. While symbolic, they were seen as groundwork for eventual political diversification.

Post-Nazarbayev Reforms under Tokayev (2019–2025): Towards Political Pluralism?

After Nazarbayev stepped down in 2019, his successor Kassym-Jomart Tokayev promised a “Listening State” and began introducing more visible reforms.

2020–2021 Electoral Code Revisions:

Lowered Party Threshold: In 2021, the threshold for parties to enter Parliament was reduced from 7% to 5%.

Mandatory Party Quotas: Political parties were required to include at least 30% women and young candidates in their party lists.

Legalisation of Protests: Simplified procedures for holding public demonstrations—though implementation remained cautious.

2022 Snap Referendum on Constitutional Amendments:

Abolished the former president’s special privileges.

Reduced presidential term to a single, non-renewable 7-year term (from two 5-year terms).

Restored the Constitutional Court and rebalanced institutional powers, improving judicial oversight.

Introduced mixed electoral system again: combining proportional and single-mandate seats for the Mazhilis.

2023 Parliamentary Elections under New Mixed System:
For the first time in over a decade, voters elected some deputies directly. The return of single-mandate districts allowed independent and opposition-leaning figures to stand.

Reform with Reservations

Between 1900 and 2025, Kazakhstan’s electoral reforms moved from a tightly controlled one-party system to a cautiously pluralist structure. Key milestones include the shift to a party-list system, subsequent reintroduction of single-mandate seats, lowered electoral thresholds, and constitutional reforms limiting presidential dominance. However, while institutional frameworks have improved on paper, genuine political competition and civic participation still face structural constraints.

Global Comparison: Analysing the Electoral System of Kazakhstan (1900–2025)

At first glance, the prompt to compare the electoral systems of Kazakhstan and Kazakhstan between 1900 and 2025 might seem redundant. However, it offers a unique lens through which to assess the nation’s internal political evolution—from imperial periphery to Soviet republic, to post-independence authoritarian state, and towards tentative reforms. This article investigates the electoral frameworks throughout Kazakhstan's historical epochs, evaluating which period, if any, demonstrated more democratic characteristics.

Kazakhstan under Imperial Russia and Early Soviet Control (1900–1936)

In the early 20th century, Kazakhstan was a part of the Russian Empire. Elections, if any, were conducted within the constraints of autocratic Tsarist rule. Kazakh representation in the Russian State Duma (1906–1917) was minimal, indirect, and subject to Russian oversight. Democratic participation by native Kazakhs was symbolic at best.

Post-1917, the Bolsheviks consolidated power. The Kazakh Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (formed in 1920) functioned under a one-party Marxist-Leninist system. "Elections" during this period were neither competitive nor democratic. Candidates were chosen by the Communist Party, and outcomes predetermined.

Democratic rating: Minimal to non-existent

Soviet Kazakhstan (1936–1991): Institutional Control through One-Party Elections

As a full Soviet republic from 1936, Kazakhstan followed the USSR’s strict one-party model. Universal suffrage existed on paper, but all candidates were pre-approved by the Communist Party. The Supreme Soviet of the Kazakh SSR held regular elections, though they were ceremonial rather than substantive.

Notable features included:

No independent political parties

No competitive elections

State-controlled media and institutions

Despite high voter turnouts (often exceeding 99%), these were artificial figures meant to reinforce the regime's legitimacy.

Democratic rating: Authoritarian façade of democracy

Post-Independence Kazakhstan (1991–2025): Authoritarian Consolidation and Limited Reforms

After gaining independence in 1991, Kazakhstan declared itself a democratic republic. However, political practice diverged sharply from constitutional ideals.

1990s – The Nazarbayev Era Begins

Nursultan Nazarbayev, former Communist leader, was elected President unopposed in 1991. A 1995 referendum extended his term and introduced a strong presidential system. Elections during this time were widely criticised for lack of competition, ballot-stuffing, and media censorship.

2000s – Managed Pluralism

Kazakhstan introduced a multi-party system, but real power remained centralised. Major opposition parties were often barred or marginalised. The 2007 reforms abolished single-member constituencies in favour of a party-list proportional system, further entrenching the ruling Nur Otan party’s dominance.

2019–2025 – Post-Nazarbayev Adjustments

After Nazarbayev’s resignation in 2019, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev assumed power. Elections continued under tight controls, though slight liberalisation (e.g., allowing independent candidates in local elections and easing registration rules for new parties in 2022) has occurred.

International observers, including OSCE/ODIHR, consistently rated Kazakh elections as falling short of democratic standards, noting:

Lack of genuine opposition

Restricted media

Arbitrary candidate disqualifications

Democratic rating: Hybrid regime with authoritarian dominance and minor democratic trappings

Which Kazakhstan Was More Democratic?

While comparing Kazakhstan to itself across time may seem tautological, it reveals a clear trajectory:

Verdict:
Kazakhstan of the post-1991 era, while still deeply authoritarian, has introduced more formal democratic mechanisms than any prior period. However, in practice, its elections have largely remained tightly managed. Thus, the Kazakhstan of 1991–2025 was technically more democratic than its predecessors, but democracy in a substantive, liberal sense has yet to be achieved.

Pioneers of the Ballot: Nations Holding Their First Democratic Elections in the 20th Century

The 20th century witnessed an unprecedented wave of democratic experimentation, as empires collapsed, colonial states gained independence, and revolutions redrew political maps. For many countries, it was during this period that they held their first democratic elections, marking a shift—however uneven—towards representative governance. This article surveys some notable cases, examining the context, electoral systems, and legacy of their initial democratic outings.

India (1951–52)

System: First-Past-the-Post (FPTP)
Context: After gaining independence from Britain in 1947, India drafted a new constitution and held its first general election in 1951–52. Over 170 million people were eligible to vote, many of them illiterate.
Significance: It became the world’s largest democracy overnight and has continued with regular elections under a parliamentary system.

Germany (Weimar Republic, 1919)

System: Proportional Representation (PR)
Context: After the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II, the Weimar Republic was born. The first truly democratic national election occurred in 1919, electing a constituent assembly.
Significance: Although plagued by instability, this marked Germany’s first experiment with democracy, preceding the Nazi era.

Japan (Post-WWII, 1946)

System: Mixed; SNTV (Single Non-Transferable Vote) and later Mixed-Member
Context: Following Japan’s defeat in World War II, the American-led occupation introduced democratic reforms, including women’s suffrage.
Significance: The 1946 election was the first under a democratic constitution; Japan has since developed a stable party system.

South Africa (1994)

System: Proportional Representation (Party-list)
Context: After decades of apartheid and racial exclusion, the 1994 election was the first to include all races. Nelson Mandela’s ANC swept to power.
Significance: It marked the peaceful end of apartheid and the beginning of majority rule.

Indonesia (1955)

System: Proportional Representation
Context: Indonesia declared independence in 1945 but only held its first democratic legislative election in 1955, following years of struggle.
Significance: A brief democratic interlude followed before authoritarian rule returned under Sukarno and then Suharto.

Nigeria (1959)

System: FPTP, Parliamentary
Context: As part of the decolonisation process, Nigeria held its first national election in 1959 before gaining full independence in 1960.
Significance: The Westminster model was adopted, but military coups soon disrupted democratic governance.

Argentina (1916)

System: Male suffrage under secret ballot, majority run-off
Context: After reforms in 1912 (Sáenz Peña Law), Argentina held its first fair and competitive election in 1916, electing Hipólito Yrigoyen.
Significance: A milestone in Latin American democracy, though cycles of military rule would interrupt progress.

South Korea (1948)

System: Presidential, direct voting
Context: Following liberation from Japanese rule, South Korea held its first general election in 1948.
Significance: Marked the birth of the Republic of Korea. However, democracy would suffer under authoritarian regimes until reforms in the 1980s.

Ghana (1951)

System: Limited franchise, Legislative Assembly
Context: Though under colonial rule, Ghana (then Gold Coast) held an election with limited suffrage. Full democratic elections followed independence in 1957.
Significance: Set the tone for sub-Saharan Africa’s gradual shift toward democracy.

Israel (1949)

System: Proportional Representation
Context: Following independence in 1948, Israel’s first general election established the Knesset.
Significance: The PR system created a highly pluralist parliamentary democracy that endures today.

Summary Table

The 20th century was a crucible of political experimentation. Many nations embarked on democratic journeys shaped by colonial legacies, wars, and internal struggles. While some sustained their systems, others faltered under military or authoritarian reversals. Nonetheless, their first democratic elections served as important national milestones—moments when citizens were, at least temporarily, given a voice in shaping their future.

Timeline of Major Elections and Political Turning Points in Kazakhstan (1900–2025)

Kazakhstan’s electoral and political trajectory from the early 20th century to 2025 reflects its transformation from a peripheral territory of the Russian Empire to an independent republic navigating the challenges of post-Soviet governance. The timeline below highlights key elections and critical political events that shaped Kazakhstan’s evolving political landscape.

1900–1990: From Imperial Rule to Soviet Control

1900–1917: Under the Russian Empire, Kazakhstan (then part of the Steppe region) had no independent political activity or elections. The population was subject to imperial rule without democratic participation.

1917: Russian Revolution – Collapse of Tsarist rule; brief emergence of Kazakh nationalist movements such as Alash Orda. However, the Bolsheviks soon took control.

1920: Kazakh ASSR Formed within Soviet Russia. Elections existed only within the framework of Communist Party structures—non-competitive and centrally controlled.

1936: Kazakhstan became a full Soviet Socialist Republic (Kazakh SSR). Elections to the Supreme Soviet were held periodically, but all candidates were vetted and endorsed by the Communist Party.

1979–1989: Stagnation and Limited Dissent – No major electoral change; the Communist Party remained unchallenged.

1991–1995: Independence and Presidential Consolidation

16 December 1991: Kazakhstan Declares Independence from the Soviet Union.

1 December 1991: First Presidential Election – Nursultan Nazarbayev elected with 98.7% of the vote in a non-competitive race. Opposition parties were marginal or suppressed.

1993: New Constitution Adopted – Created a strong presidential system but led to tension with Parliament.

March 1994: First Parliamentary Elections – Widely criticised for irregularities. Later annulled by the Constitutional Court.

1995: Constitutional Referendum – A new constitution dissolved Parliament, reinforced presidential power, and introduced a bicameral legislature (Mazhilis and Senate). This marked the beginning of an executive-dominated system.

1999–2007: Institutionalising Authoritarianism

January 1999: Presidential Election – Nazarbayev re-elected with 81% in a vote criticised by OSCE for lacking fairness.

October 1999: Parliamentary Elections – Introduced a mixed electoral system (party-list and single-mandate districts). However, Nur Otan and pro-government candidates dominated.

2004: Parliamentary Elections – Opposition made limited gains, but the 7% threshold barred smaller parties.

May 2007: Constitutional Amendments – Shifted Mazhilis elections entirely to party-list proportional representation. Raised concerns over declining competitiveness.

2011–2015: Democratic Façade, Limited Pluralism

April 2011: Presidential Election – Nazarbayev re-elected with 95.5%. No genuine opposition candidates allowed to run.

January 2012: Parliamentary Elections – For the first time since 2004, more than one party (including Ak Zhol and Communist People’s Party) entered Parliament. Still, Nur Otan took 83 seats.

April 2015: Presidential Election – Nazarbayev secured 97.7%, amid criticism over lack of real contestation.

2019–2022: Leadership Transition and Reform Promises

March 2019: Nazarbayev Resigns – Kassym-Jomart Tokayev becomes interim president. Nazarbayev retains significant influence as “Leader of the Nation.”

June 2019: Presidential Election – Tokayev elected with 70.9%. Marked by protests and mass detentions of demonstrators.

January 2021: Parliamentary Elections – Conducted under pandemic conditions; Nur Otan won 76 out of 98 seats. The electoral threshold was still 7%.

January 2022: Bloody January Protests – Sparked by fuel price hikes, these protests turned violent and led to a crackdown. Tokayev announced major reforms to reduce Nazarbayev’s lingering powers.

2022–2025: Constitutional Reform and Political Liberalisation

June 2022: Referendum on Constitutional Amendments – Approved with 77% support. Key changes included:

Abolition of Nazarbayev’s privileged status.

Creation of the Constitutional Court.

Ban on presidential relatives holding top positions.

Shift back to a mixed electoral system (70% party list, 30% single-mandate).

November 2022: Presidential Election – Tokayev re-elected with 81.3% under the new rule of a single, non-renewable 7-year term.

March 2023: Parliamentary Elections under Mixed System – Marked the return of single-member constituencies, allowing for greater participation by independents and minor opposition figures. Viewed as the most open election in two decades, although dominant party rule continued.

Summary Table of Key Elections and Events

Kazakhstan’s electoral evolution from 1900 to 2025 is a journey from symbolic Soviet ballots to the current hybrid regime balancing authoritarian legacy with cautious reform. While early post-independence elections entrenched one-man rule, the 2022–2023 reforms under President Tokayev suggest a potential—albeit limited—opening of the political space. Whether this leads to genuine pluralism remains to be seen.

Major Global Electoral Events that Reshaped Democracy in Kazakhstan (1900–2025)

Kazakhstan’s political landscape from 1900 to 2025 has been profoundly influenced by major global and regional electoral events, revolutions, and reforms. These moments have shaped its path from imperial subjugation to an independent state grappling with the challenges of democracy. Below is a concise list of the most significant events that marked turning points in Kazakhstan’s democratic development.

The Russian Revolution (1917)

The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia ended imperial rule and led to the creation of the Soviet Union, under which Kazakhstan became the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic by 1936. This revolution abolished all forms of electoral democracy, replacing them with a single-party communist regime where elections were controlled and non-competitive.

Soviet Constitution of 1936 and 1977

Though nominally providing for elections to the Supreme Soviet, these constitutions entrenched one-party rule. Kazakhstan’s electoral processes were strictly managed, offering no real political pluralism but shaping its political institutions under Soviet norms.

Perestroika and Glasnost Reforms (Mid-1980s)

Under Mikhail Gorbachev’s leadership, the USSR introduced political openness and restructuring. In Kazakhstan, this period saw the rise of limited electoral competition, public political discussion, and nascent nationalist movements — the earliest signs of democratic reform after decades of authoritarian control.

 Declaration of Independence (1991)

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan declared independence on 16 December 1991. This event was pivotal in shifting the country toward sovereign electoral governance, introducing multiparty elections and a new constitution, though presidential power remained strong.

Adoption of the 1995 Constitution

The 1995 referendum approved a new constitution, strengthening presidential powers and extending Nursultan Nazarbayev’s term. This constitutional change shaped Kazakhstan’s hybrid political system, combining nominal electoral democracy with authoritarian tendencies.

Post-9/11 Global Emphasis on Democracy (2001 onwards)

International focus on democratic governance and electoral transparency, especially from Western organisations and observers, influenced Kazakhstan to adopt certain electoral reforms. Nonetheless, these changes remained limited, with persistent restrictions on opposition parties and media.

Arab Spring and Regional Impact (2010–2012)

The wave of democratic uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa led Kazakhstan’s government to adopt tighter controls on political dissent to prevent similar unrest. This period marked a phase of electoral backsliding and increased authoritarianism, with harsh responses to protests.

Nursultan Nazarbayev’s Resignation (2019)

The voluntary resignation of Kazakhstan’s long-time leader sparked hopes of political reform. The peaceful transfer of power to Kassym-Jomart Tokayev was unprecedented in the region, symbolising a controlled shift that included promises of electoral improvements.

2022 Constitutional Reforms and Referendum

A nationwide referendum introduced amendments aimed at curbing presidential powers and expanding parliamentary authority. While the reforms were framed as democratic progress, critics viewed them as largely symbolic, with limited impact on electoral competitiveness.

2023 Parliamentary Elections and Opposition Participation

For the first time in years, opposition parties gained modest ground in parliamentary elections, suggesting a slight opening in the electoral arena. However, the ruling party maintained overwhelming dominance, reflecting continued challenges for genuine democracy.

Summary

Kazakhstan’s democratic trajectory has been shaped by sweeping global events—from the Russian Revolution and Soviet-era reforms to post-Cold War independence and 21st-century political transitions. While the country has experienced moments of electoral reform, the legacy of authoritarianism and managed democracy has largely prevailed.

CSV-Style Table: General Elections in Kazakhstan (1900–2025)

Narrative Summary for ElectionAnalyst.com

Kazakhstan’s electoral history from 1900 to 2025 is marked by profound transformation — from imperial control through Soviet one-party dominance, to a post-independence era characterised by gradual political pluralism, albeit under strong presidential influence.

In the early 20th century, under the Russian Empire, Kazakh participation in elections was negligible, with no independent electoral process. The Soviet period (1920–1990) saw strictly controlled one-party elections where the Communist Party monopolised power, typified by the 1977 election reporting near-total voter turnout but no political competition.

Following independence in 1991, Kazakhstan embarked on a cautious transition to a multiparty system. The 1994 election reflected this but was marred by constitutional challenges that led to its annulment. Subsequent elections in 1995 and 2004 entrenched the dominance of pro-presidential parties, particularly Nur Otan (now Amanat), with opposition parties marginalised and concerns raised about electoral fairness.

By 2012 and 2021, despite improvements in procedural aspects, the ruling party maintained overwhelming control, and voter turnout varied between moderate to high levels. The 2023 snap parliamentary election hinted at incremental political diversification, with several smaller parties gaining representation, though Amanat remained dominant.

Throughout this period, major issues revolved around political centralisation, electoral transparency, and the slow pace of democratic reform, reflecting the tension between stability and the demand for political pluralism.

Global Electoral Trends in Kazakhstan by Decade (1900–2025): Democratization, Innovations, and Authoritarian Rollbacks

Kazakhstan’s electoral history from 1900 to 2025 offers a compelling case study of political transformation, oscillating between authoritarian control and cautious openings toward electoral competition. This summary outlines key global electoral trends within Kazakhstan by decade, focusing on themes of democratization, electoral innovations, and authoritarian retrenchment.

1900s–1910s: Imperial Rule and Absence of Elections

Under the Russian Empire, Kazakhstan was governed without meaningful electoral processes. Political participation was limited to elite circles within the imperial system, and no democratic institutions existed. This period reflected the broader autocratic rule typical of the era.

1920s–1980s: Soviet Authoritarian Control and One-Party Dominance

Following the Bolshevik Revolution and the creation of the Kazakh SSR in 1936, Kazakhstan became part of the Soviet Union’s one-party state system. Elections were formalistic, with the Communist Party monopolising political power. Candidates were selected centrally, and elections served more as rituals to demonstrate regime legitimacy than as mechanisms for competition or choice.

Authoritarian rollback: Complete suppression of political pluralism.

Electoral innovation: None beyond the Soviet “show elections” model.

1990s: Independence and Early Democratization Efforts

With the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, Kazakhstan declared independence, prompting tentative moves toward establishing electoral institutions. The 1990s witnessed the adoption of a constitution and the introduction of multi-party elections.

Democratization: Introduction of multiparty elections and new electoral laws.

Electoral innovations: Establishment of the Central Election Commission; some use of proportional representation in parliamentary elections.

Authoritarian rollback: Rapid consolidation of power by President Nursultan Nazarbayev and Nur Otan party limited genuine competition.

2000s: Consolidation of Authoritarian Electoral System

The 2000s saw Kazakhstan institutionalise a dominant-party system. Although elections were held regularly, the political environment was tightly controlled, opposition parties faced harassment, and media freedom was curtailed.

Democratization: Superficial, with elections lacking competitiveness.

Electoral innovations: Introduction of electronic voter lists and biometric registration to modernise the process, ostensibly to reduce fraud.

Authoritarian rollback: Electoral manipulation and repression of opposition intensified.

2010s: Controlled Liberalisation and Electoral Reforms

In the 2010s, Kazakhstan undertook limited reforms aimed at improving electoral transparency and inclusiveness. Some opposition parties were allowed nominal participation, and minor changes to electoral law were introduced.

Democratization: Slight openings with new parties gaining limited representation.

Electoral innovations: Increased use of technology in voter registration and polling.

Authoritarian rollback: Political opposition remained restricted; key decisions stayed with the presidency.

2020s: Post-Nazarbayev Transition and Digital Electoral Expansion

Following Nazarbayev’s 2019 resignation, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev promised reforms. Early 2020s elections incorporated more digital tools, such as online voter information and transparent ballot counting methods.

Democratization: Rhetorical commitment to reforms; limited gains in pluralism.

Electoral innovations: Expanded electronic systems, remote voting pilots, and improved monitoring mechanisms.

Authoritarian rollback: Continued control over candidate registration and media; opposition remains marginalised.

Summary

Across more than a century, Kazakhstan’s electoral trends mirror a global pattern observed in many post-Soviet states: an initial authoritarian monopoly, brief openings toward pluralism, followed by managed electoral competition under a dominant executive. Innovations in electoral administration often serve dual purposes—enhancing efficiency while enabling tighter control. As of 2025, Kazakhstan remains an authoritarian-leaning regime with gradual, state-directed reforms rather than full democratization.

Example: Analytical Narrative — Why the 2006 Election in Kazakhstan Was Controversial

The 2006 presidential election in Kazakhstan stands out as a pivotal moment revealing the country’s deep entrenchment in authoritarian politics despite formal democratic trappings. From the perspective of a political analyst, the election was controversial primarily because it underscored the persistent absence of genuine electoral competition. Incumbent President Nursultan Nazarbayev secured a landslide victory with over 90% of the vote, yet the process was marred by widespread reports of media bias, restrictions on opposition candidates, and allegations of ballot stuffing.

Observers noted that while Kazakhstan’s electoral framework nominally allowed multiparty participation, in practice the ruling Nur Otan party dominated all political arenas. Opposition groups were fragmented and often sidelined through legal and administrative hurdles. The 2006 election thus epitomised a “managed democracy” — a system designed to provide the appearance of democratic legitimacy without risking the entrenched leadership’s grip on power.

In essence, the controversy lay not only in procedural irregularities but in the fundamental nature of the political system, where elections functioned less as instruments of change and more as mechanisms of control. This pattern would continue to define Kazakhstan’s political landscape well into the next decade.

Example: Journalistic Summary — The 1900 Eastern European Elections

The dawn of the 20th century in Eastern Europe was characterised by profound political upheaval and evolving electoral practices. Across various empires and emerging nation-states, elections remained limited in scope, often restricted to elite property owners or specific ethnic groups. The concept of universal suffrage was still nascent, and electoral processes varied widely — from autocratic appointments to rudimentary representative assemblies.

In many Eastern European territories under imperial rule, such as the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires, elections were largely symbolic, designed to bolster the legitimacy of authoritarian regimes. Yet, the period also witnessed the early stirrings of political organisation, with socialist and nationalist parties beginning to mobilise support among disenfranchised populations.

This decade laid the groundwork for the seismic political transformations that would follow, culminating in revolutions and the redrawing of borders after World War I. The 1900 elections, therefore, serve as a snapshot of a region on the cusp of modern democracy, albeit one still shackled by tradition and repression.

Disclaimer – ElectionAnalyst.com

ElectionAnalyst.com is a globally accessible, independent civic research and data analysis platform, authored by Dr. Raju Ahmed Dipu, Global Policy Analyst, Politician, and Social Entrepreneur. This platform presents election-related information, systems, results, and democratic developments from 1900 to 2025 for all recognized countries, with the goal of fostering public education, research, and transparency.

1. Educational and Civic Purpose

All content on ElectionAnalyst.com is produced for:

Academic and policy research

Civic engagement and democratic awareness

Historical and journalistic reference

The website is not affiliated with any electoral commission or government agency, nor does it advocate for specific political ideologies, parties, or governments.

2. No Legal or Political Liability

All data is presented in good faith, derived from public records, historical archives, and expert analysis.

ElectionAnalyst.com and its author do not accept legal responsibility for any unintended inaccuracy, interpretation, or third-party misuse of data.

The platform does not intervene in any national electoral process, nor does it provide services for electoral litigation, consulting, or political campaigning.

3. User Responsibility and Contributions

Any public comment, suggestion, or submission remains the sole legal responsibility of the contributor.

Users and researchers must independently verify content before relying on it for official, legal, or governmental use.

4. Copyright Protection

All intellectual content on this site is the property of Dr. Raju Ahmed Dipu and protected under:

© 2025 ElectionAnalyst.com | All Rights Reserved

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works

EU Digital Services Act (DSA)

Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)

WIPO Copyright Treaty

Content may be cited for non-commercial use with attribution, but may not be copied, sold, scraped, or used for AI training without prior written consent.

5. International Legal Protection

This platform is legally shielded by:

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Freedom of Expression)

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Article 10

European Union Fundamental Rights Charter

As such:

No foreign government, political party, or institution may impose legal threats, censorship, or data requests on this platform unless presented through verified, lawful international mechanisms such as EU data court orders or UN-recognised tribunals.

6. Content Challenges & Dispute Process

If any individual or institution believes that content is:

Factually incorrect

Unlawfully infringing

Violating rights

You may submit a formal complaint with valid documentation to:

legal@electionanalyst.com

Our legal team will review and respond accordingly under applicable international law.

Official Contact:
 Email: editor@electionanalyst.com
 Website Author: Dr. Raju Ahmed Dipu (Analyst, Exiled Politician, International Business Law Specialist)

Email: dipu@countrypolicy.com